What is Evolution?

[hamashiachagape]

We already established this, then I asked you to put a brief summary of what your problems are. It's no use continueing to tell me that you have problems without pointing out what they are.



No it isn't, I have never found a widely used scientific textbook which states that the second law stands in non-isolated systems. To invalidate my argument you just have to find me some standard definitions of the second law of dynamics that disagree with what I stated.





I have looked through a few but cannot remember the names. Instead of moving off topic though you could try to explain to me why your issues with the theory are legitimate.

Are your textbooks wrong? When I was in school, we were taught that Christopher Columbus discovered America in 1492. That was in our textbooks too.

Okay, Energy is running in the opposite direction that is necessary for Evolution to occur. Moving from order to disorder is only one of several definitions of entropy. Thats where the author of Talk Origens went wrong in his understanding over the definition. This should be seen as an equivocation of the terms.

Secondly, since DNA information is being destroyed over time, it also follows that Information Theory can not produce the results that Evolution needs to take place. DNA functions are not being gained over time through increases of genetic information AT ALL. And according to Information Theory, this should take place quite frequently if Evolution were true. This is significant, because DNA is a more recent discovery than Darwin was associated with. In other words, more recent data has turned up that would do harm to Evolution than Darwin had originally anticipated or even considered.

 

[ciaphas]

Are your textbooks wrong? When I was in school, we were taught that Christopher Columbus discovered America in 1492. That was in our textbooks too.

Right, in this post you yet again failed to address my main issue. Which was that you still haven't clarified what your problem is with evolution.

Now to address the point you brought up, I am saying that every single one of the textbooks I have read and all of the university professors with whom I have lectures on the very topic we are discussing (entropy), agree that the second law of dynamics is only relevant to a closed system. I think I can confidently say that I don't think that any of these textbooks are wrong.

Have you done as I asked and googled the law? If so I'd like to ask if all of the pages refferred to closed systems.

 

[hamashiachagape]

Right, in this post you yet again failed to address my main issue. Which was that you still haven't clarified what your problem is with evolution.

Now to address the point you brought up, I am saying that every single one of the textbooks I have read and all of the university professors with whom I have lectures on the very topic we are discussing (entropy), agree that the second law of dynamics is only relevant to a closed system. I think I can confidently say that I don't think that any of these textbooks are wrong.

Have you done as I asked and googled the law? If so I'd like to ask if all of the pages refferred to closed systems.

Well heres a definition of it - randomness: (thermodynamics) a thermodynamic quantity representing the amount of energy in a system that is no longer available for doing mechanical work; "entropy increases as matter and energy in the universe degrade to an ultimate state of inert uniformity"

Another definition - A measure of the amount of energy in a physical system not available to do work. As a physical system becomes more disordered, and its energy becomes more evenly distributed, that energy becomes less able to do work. For example, a car rolling along a road has kinetic energy that could do work (by carrying or colliding with something, for example); as friction slows it down and its energy is distributed to its surroundings as heat, it loses this ability. The amount of entropy is often thought of as the amount of disorder in a system

Two, I have taken some time to look over the resources. None of them infer only a closed system at all necessarily. Some discuss the applications to the closed system. But again, it doesn't limit this understanding. Seems as if Creation Ministries International is right.

Three, my friend who is an actual Scientist, and has degrees very relevant to the topic of discussion also concurs that it can be applied to open systems as well.

 

[ciaphas]

Well heres a definition of it - randomness: (thermodynamics) a thermodynamic quantity representing the amount of energy in a system that is no longer available for doing mechanical work; "entropy increases as matter and energy in the universe degrade to an ultimate state of inert uniformity"

Another definition - A measure of the amount of energy in a physical system not available to do work. As a physical system becomes more disordered, and its energy becomes more evenly distributed, that energy becomes less able to do work. For example, a car rolling along a road has kinetic energy that could do work (by carrying or colliding with something, for example); as friction slows it down and its energy is distributed to its surroundings as heat, it loses this ability. The amount of entropy is often thought of as the amount of disorder in a system

Two, I have taken some time to look over the resources. None of them infer only a closed system at all necessarily. Some discuss the applications to the closed system. But again, it doesn't limit this understanding.

Three, my friend who is an actual Scientist, and has degrees very relevant to the topic of discussion also concurs that it can be applied to open systems as well.

Yet again you haven't told me wat your issues are, I know there are two of them so can I make my millionth request for you to clarify this point!!!

Secondly; with the second law applying to open systems there can be independant pockets within those open systems where the second law does not work as intended. In an open system the only way to apply the laws of entropy are to split your system into a variety of "sub-domains" in which there is a fairly constant temperature and to have a complete knowlege of all energy and matter transfer through the boundries of the said system. For a basic introduction on the subject please see Entropy and the 2nd Law in Open Systems.

Thirdly, can you please stop referring to your "actual scientist" friend because unless he is with you as you are digesting these points he isn't relevent to the topic. I am studying this topic in my degree and so have a reasonable understanding of how the whole process works.

 

[hamashiachagape]

Yet again you haven't told me wat your issues are, I know there are two of them so can I make my millionth request for you to clarify this point!!!

Secondly; with the second law applying to open systems there can be independant pockets within those open systems where the second law does not work as intended. In an open system the only way to apply the laws of entropy are to split your system into a variety of "sub-domains" in which there is a fairly constant temperature and to have a complete knowlege of all energy and matter transfer through the boundries of the said system. For a basic introduction on the subject please see Entropy and the 2nd Law in Open Systems.

Thirdly, can you please stop referring to your "actual scientist" friend because unless he is with you as you are digesting these points he isn't relevent to the topic. I am studying this topic in my degree and so have a reasonable understanding of how the whole process works.

I have invited him to Christianforums, and he has an account here. I don't believe he has posted anything just yet. I'm trying to encourage him to debate, but he isn't much into that. We'll see if I can get him here.

Your resource does not infer a limit to the application to open systems.

 

[ciaphas]

Right, I'll continue most of my points later. I just wanted to highlight the main part I wish to hear.

What is your main issue with evolution, what is your entire argument about!

I have asked you this the last 4/5 posts in a row and you have ignored them all.

 

[hamashiachagape]

Right, I'll continue most of my points later. I just wanted to highlight the main part I wish to hear.

What is your main issue with evolution, what is your entire argument about!

I have asked you this the last 4/5 posts in a row and you have ignored them all.

I answered that several posts ago, and from the beginning. I answered the crux of it from the beginning. The word is being misapplied by many Scientists. Without its understanding to its fullest, in the sense that we must actually define it properly, we can not see how it progressed from one stage to the other, given its usual definition of "change." I believe Creation Scientists have defined it a lot better than Evolutionists have too. If "change" was the only issue, then Creationist Edward Blythe has the upper hand, since he was the one who actually discovered change within a species. IOW, Variation is a Creation Science concept, not an Evolution one to begin with. The way you are defining things, Evolution = Creation Science, but they are diametrically opposed in their understanding. Its an absurdity.

 

[hamashiachagape]

Jonathan Sarfati is also an expert in Physical Chemistry. I think his work is notable of consideration on Entropy!!!! Majorly, probably moreso than 99% of Scientists out there.

 

[hamashiachagape]

Why won't Richard Dawkins debate Sarfati?

 

[shernren]

Wow, I get back from church and there are now seven pages on this thread, none of which are really worth reading.

Hamaschiachagape,

Firstly, I'm not really interested in getting you to agree that evolution is true. The examples I'll give in terms of entropy come from my studies as a student of theoretical physics involved in the thermodynamics of small systems. You could accept them and still be a YEC through and through, or reject them and still be a die-hard evolutionist. I'm not here about pushing agendas, I'm here to work alongside you to figure out what's true or not.

So don't patronize me with statements like:

The problem with this claim is that you are assuming A Priori (Philosophy, Logic and Theology as examples) to be A Posteriori. Evolution, if it is Science, is centered around A Posteriori claims. The energy of the universe is going to decrease one way or the other based on A posteriori terms, and there is no limit to a Scientific application of this, which is what the Harvard gentleman was explaining. Based on applying your same understanding as above, you seem to be more than willing to merely accept Evolution as Philosophical in structure. I'd say there are many problems logistically with doing this.

If anything, your creationist friends probably assume a ton of things a priori that you're not even thinking about. But that aside.

Here's a question I want you to answer:

Is a mutation a thermodynamically reversible process?

This has very important consequences for your argument against evolution.

 

[hamashiachagape]

Wow, I get back from church and there are now seven pages on this thread, none of which are really worth reading.

Hamaschiachagape,

Firstly, I'm not really interested in getting you to agree that evolution is true. The examples I'll give in terms of entropy come from my studies as a student of theoretical physics involved in the thermodynamics of small systems. You could accept them and still be a YEC through and through, or reject them and still be a die-hard evolutionist. I'm not here about pushing agendas, I'm here to work alongside you to figure out what's true or not.

So don't patronize me with statements like:



If anything, your creationist friends probably assume a ton of things a priori that you're not even thinking about. But that aside.

Here's a question I want you to answer:

Is a mutation a thermodynamically reversible process?

This has very important consequences for your argument against evolution.

Not really. It is still utilizing energy. And there is always a loss of function due to genetic information involved with mutations from an Information Theory perspective. It fits right into line with entropy actually.

I assume things that are A Priori. Thats not the issue. The issue is whether or not those things are self consistent from a Philosophical understanding . As I'm demonstrating, a majority of the Scientists in the world do not have this self consistent understanding.

 

[hamashiachagape]

Given my friend's VERY generous upbringing in most respects, IOW, Christianity was not pushed upon him, and his parents (especially step father) were very openminded about other religious viewpoints if you will, I was incredibly surprised to hear that school only helped to affirm his beliefs in God and Creation. Go figure! If he had decided that Evolution was true, I'm sure his parents would have been just fine with it. There was not that persuasion in other words. And secondly, he hasn't studied Philosophy nor Theology is anywhere near the depth that I have either.

 

[shernren]

Not really. It is still utilizing energy. And there is always a loss of function due to genetic information involved with mutations from an Information Theory perspective. It fits right into line with entropy actually.

Ironically, you're equivocating (remember that word you started the thread with?) on the meaning of entropy.

At the end of the day a mutation is a chemical reaction. It is a reaction where one particular chemical (a nucleotide) is changed into another particular chemical (another nucleotide).

Is the chemical process of mutation thermodynamically reversible, or not?

 

[hamashiachagape]

Ironically, you're equivocating (remember that word you started the thread with?) on the meaning of entropy.

At the end of the day a mutation is a chemical reaction. It is a reaction where one particular chemical (a nucleotide) is changed into another particular chemical (another nucleotide).

Is the chemical process of mutation thermodynamically reversible, or not?

Any new function from a gain of information arising from this? Nope. Thats part of my point. And energy is still being used in this process.

 

[hamashiachagape]

As Dr. Jonathan Sarfati points out "
But this has little relevance to the real world of chemicals. Chemicals obey the Second Law of Thermodynamics, and do not arrange themselves into self-sustaining metabolic pathways. Living cells have molecular machinery to channel the chemistry in the right direction and amounts. If the clam shell pattern on the computer screen was enlarged, there would be no traces of cells with cilia, mitochondria, DNA, etc.16"

Self-replicating enzymes?

 

[shernren]

Any new function from a gain of information arising from this? Nope. Thats part of my point. And energy is still being used in this process.

How much energy does it take to change a single nucleotide?

How much energy goes through the nucleus of a cell in any given day?

 

[hamashiachagape]

How much energy does it take to change a single nucleotide?

How much energy goes through the nucleus of a cell in any given day?

The issue is not how much energy it utilizes, but just that it does utilize energy.

 

[shernren]

The issue is not how much energy it utilizes, but just that it does utilize energy.

Please, answer the question.

The reason is this: Entropy has a fairly specific thermodynamic meaning. For a chemical process, it is (briefly) dQ/T, where dQ is the amount of energy the process takes, and T the temperature at which it occurs.

So if you know that a mutation increases entropy, then you should know the amount of energy it takes.

Conversely, if you don't know how much energy it takes to mutate a nucleotide, then you obviously haven't the slightest clue how much entropy that mutation produces.

Also, out of curiosity, does the mutation GTG -> GAG increase, decrease, or not change the entropy of the genome in which it occurs?

 

[Assyrian]

Today I want to teach a word to Evolutionists. The word is called "equivocation."

...

Would most say this is an accurate understanding by most Evolutionists? "In biology, evolution is the change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms through successive generations. When a population splits into smaller groups, these groups evolve independently and develop into new species. .."

I would see this definition as "begging the question." How they are developing into new species is the question that must be asked.

You seem to be confusing the definition of evolution, a brief summary of what evolution is, with the theory of evolution, the explanation of how this happens. When you accuse the definition of begging the question, your are equivocating with the meaning of evolution which can refer to both the brief definition and the theory explaining it. Well you would be equivocating only equivocation suggests you are doing it on purpose, which I am sure you are not.

 

[crawfish]

I have a smart friend with a biology degree, and he says both you and your friend are full of it.