Entropy and evolution

This is magnitudes better than my counter-argument of "if evolution violates the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, how do you think babies and embryos are formed?"

I have found the best argument against evolution violating the 2nd law is to point out that it specifically states WITHIN A CLOSED SYSTEM, and if the creationist does not understand what that means then I bring her/him into the Sun's warm glowing warming glow.

I have no objections to the science that you present, but I have reservations about - well, I guess I'd call it the rhetoric.

It may give the impression to the intended audience that there is some highly technical point being argued between two legitimate scientific points of view. Someone could think that among all of the scientific language we are being asked to decide between two competing, equally legitimate, scientific points of view.

For people who are able to follow the math, Styer's approach has its place. It makes an interesting and important point, but there are a lot of people who will just remain mystified by it all.

I'd suggest another response, one that could be understood even by people with "math phobia". One which does not allow the impression that there is a legitimate thermodynamics objection to evolution.

That's why I would go along with Stanton's response. (BTW, a lot of the complaints that we hear about evolutionary biology are no less applicable to reproductive biology.) Oak trees and acorns - how much disorder/entropy is produced when an oak tree produces an acorn; how much when an acorn produces an oak tree?

Other alternatives that I would suggest would be something like these:

1. One of the founders of thermodynamics, Ludwig Boltzmann, someone who surely understood thermodynamics, was an admirer of Charles Darwin.

2. How does the order in the fossil record come about? Henry Morris suggested that the fossils could be ordered by hydrodynamic sorting. Wouldn't it be contrary to Morris's understanding of the second law for the order of the fossils to come about by such a process? Perhaps Morris intuitively understood that undirected natural processes really can increase order, and they don't violate the 2nd law when they increase order.

3. The laws of thermodynamics apply to human actions as well as natural processes. Intelligent, purposeful agents cannot bypass the second law of thermodynamics any more than anything else. After all, the laws of thermodynamics were discovered precisely because the very clever engineers of the 19th century came up against certain limitations. They couldn't design their way around these limitations. So, if we ever were to discover a process which violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics - well, then, intelligent, purposeful design is the last place to look for an explanation. Perhaps natural processes that increase order are not in violation of the 2nd law.

4. And that leads to the question of how intelligent, purposeful design would increase order. Even if it could be shown that evolution couldn't do it, that doesn't show how design could do it. As long as there is no description of how design could do it, design is no improvement on evolution. Why would a designer/creator make the laws of thermodynamics, only to bypass them when they are inconvenient?

5. Evolution does happen. Even a lot of the creationists have been forced to concede that a certain amount of evolution happens - what they call "micro"evolution, or evolution within a "kind". Evolution can be observed to happen, and can be studied in the wild and under laboratory conditions. The 2nd law of thermodynamics does not allow of "just a little violation", so "just a little evolution" is not allowed a bypass of the 2nd law.

For a while, I've been thinking of an argument along the following lines:

"What, in actual numbers with units, is the thermodynamic entropy of a human body? What is the thermodynamic entropy of an equivalent mass of bacteria? Are they different? If you can't answer those questions, then you can't even start to make the argument that 2LoT prevents prokaryotes from evolving into humans".

Of course, being neither a chemist nor a biologist, I have no idea whether the above is valid (as an engineer, my thermo was mostly restricted to heat engines and refrigerators). And not being a creationist, I'm not going trot out an argument just because it sounds good ;-).

The local entropy reduction of evolution is trivial compared to that of normal growth of egg or seed to adult organism.

Normal growth is observed to happen.

Therefore limits on local entropy reduction don't prevent evolution.

QED

I prefer to point to the formation of snowflakes. If the creationists are correct that everything must proceed to disorder, wouldn't that also prevent highly disordered water molecules from forming strongly ordered snowflakes?

TomS said: 1. One of the founders of thermodynamics, Ludwig Boltzmann, someone who surely understood thermodynamics, was an admirer of Charles Darwin.

tomh said:

TomS said: 1. One of the founders of thermodynamics, Ludwig Boltzmann, someone who surely understood thermodynamics, was an admirer of Charles Darwin.

Why would this impress anybody, let alone a creationist? History is full of brilliant people who admire all sorts of loony ideas and people.

I prefer to point to the formation of snowflakes. If the creationists are correct that everything must proceed to disorder, wouldn’t that also prevent highly disordered water molecules from forming strongly ordered snowflakes?

People always get confused about the second law of thermodnamics because they don't understand their system boundaries.

The second law says that the entropy of any CLOSED SYSTEM must always increase.

So to apply the second law to a biological system you need to apply it to a closed system. This means you need to take into account all the air we inhale and exhale, and the food and water that passes through our systems.

Ultimately the food we excrete has much more entropy than the food we ate etc. The energy we derive from the food and air is used by our biological processes to create a LOCAL decrease in entropy. This may look like a violation of the second law of thermo, but it isn't because you need to account for the increase in entropy in the food we excrete and the CO2 we exhale.

That is why the "closed system" part of the second law is so important.

The second law says that the entropy of any CLOSED SYSTEM must always increase.

FYI here's the link to Styer's article:

Styer DF (2008) Entropy and evolution. Am J Phys 76(11):1031-1033.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1119/1.2973046

Does the second law of thermodynamics prohibit biological evolution? The erroneous answer “yes” is sometimes presented in the creationist literature,1,2 and more often in creationist web sites. Henry Morris, for example, finds it “obvious that the Second Law of Thermodynamics constitutes a serious problem to the evolution model” because “every system left to its own devices always tends to move from order to disorder.”1 The creationist argument is that advanced organisms are more orderly than primitive organisms, and hence as evolution proceeds living things become more ordered, that is less disordered, that is less entropic. Because the second law of thermodynamics prohibits a decrease in entropy, it therefore prohibits biological evolution. This argument rests upon two misconceptions about entropy. • Disorder is a metaphor for entropy, not a definition for entropy.3,4 Metaphors are valuable only when they are not identical in all respects to their targets. (For example, a map of Caracas is a metaphor for the surface of the Earth at Caracas, in that the map has a similar arrangement but a dissimilar scale. If the map had the same arrangement and scale as Caracas, it would be no easier to navigate using the map than it would be to navigate by going directly to Caracas and wandering the streets.) The metaphor of disorder for entropy is valuable and thus imperfect. For example, take some ice cubes out of your freezer, smash them, toss the shards into a bowl, and then allow the ice to melt. The jumble of ice shards certainly seems more disorderly than the bowl of smooth liquid water, yet the liquid water has the greater entropy.5 • Although the entropy of the universe increases with time, the entropy of any part of the universe can decrease with time, so long as that decrease is compensated by an even larger increase in some other part of the universe.6 For example, any hot cup of coffee left to its own devices on a tabletop decreases in entropy. (This creationist argument also rests upon the misconception that evolution acts always to produce more complex organisms. In fact evolution acts to produce more highly adapted organisms, which might or might not be more complex than their ancestors, depending upon their environment. For example, most cave organisms and parasites are qualitatively simpler than their ancestors.7 This biological misconception will not be discussed in this article.) These misconceptions have been pointed out numerous times,8 but here we explicitly and quantitatively answer questions such as “What entropy changes accompany evolution?” and “If the entropy here on Earth is decreasing due to evolution, where is the other piece of the universe where the entropy is increasing?”

Quite a few (but not all) creationists but more typically ID'ers (who would fervently deny being creationists) would argue that natural or 'un-guided' processes can't create order from disorder and so evolution can't work because it would violate the second law. Point out any human made devices that cause local decreases in entropy (i.e a heat pump) and they say that its because they are intelligently designed.

So I often wondered, is this the only law of physics that intelligent humans are allowed to break? Are there any others, gravity perhaps... is it time to unpack my superman outfit?

Scott said: I prefer to point to the formation of snowflakes. If the creationists are correct that everything must proceed to disorder, wouldn't that also prevent highly disordered water molecules from forming strongly ordered snowflakes?

Thanks for this post. I found it interesting.

Now, a few comments on arguing with creationists. Unfortunately, I have to do this a lot in my field (High school education).

First, using examples like sperm/egg to embryo or any other biological example makes sense for those who already understand entropy, but committed creationists always (in my experience) say this is "circular reasoning." They already believe that biological systems were designed, so pointing out a reduction in entropy by a bio-system proves nothing to them other than what they already believe: somehow life violates the 2nd law. However absurd this is, it's very difficult to shake them from it because the "tornado in a junkyard argument" and its concomittant confusion of colloquial disorder with entropy is so entrenched in their minds... "it's just obvious."

Second, I've always been much more successful with examples like the snowflake. Here they usually fall back on the idea that its not "enough" order to be a problem for the 2nd law. Again absurd.

Third, the most successful approach I've found is to show them that the 2nd law is a mathematical equation and the mathematical definition of entropy, to point out that entropy is, at least in principle, a value that can be calculated, or at least estimated. I then ask them how they know that evolution breaks the 2nd law, where the calculations are that show this. I point out that thermodynamic calculations are commonplace and no scientist would make claims about entropy in their experiments without conducting such calculations. I then challenge them to find even a single creationist calculation showing that evolution violates the 2nd law. Almost always they have to admit that they are responding on a "gut" level, which it is easy then to point out is not scientific. The honest creationists I know (not the professional charlatans) have always backed down on this point. Your post adds to this approach, not because the creationists can follow the math, but because it offers an example of the kind of calculation a creationist would have to do in order to support their claims.

When talking with lay persons I prefer to speak about the states of energy how energy from the sun as light is degraded by life processes into latent forms of energy such as heat or fossil fuels representative of only potential energy and in doing so point out that life is an "entropy engine."

But I'm sorta simplistic myself....

I was hoping someone could help out a non-scientist here. I get the idea that the 2nd law refers to an entire system, and that it's just peachy if parts of the system decrease in entropy as long as other parts increase by more.

What I don't understand is what is meant by something having more entropy than something else. The oil and water example wouldn't have impressed me for this reason. Is there an easy way to explain it to me so I can explain it easily to others?

An example I would like to be able to use is the Hindenburg. Two disordered gases combining into a more ordered compound, with a huge release of entropy. That so many people have seen so graphic an image would be a big plus. Am I right in seeing this as an example?

Sylvilagus said: Second, I've always been much more successful with examples like the snowflake. Here they usually fall back on the idea that its not "enough" order to be a problem for the 2nd law.

Nick,

If you are out there, could you please close the thread on "immune to evidence". It has become infested by a banned troll who has excreted 2700 off-topic comments there. Thanks.

What's always fascinated me about creationists lying about thermodynamics is that even though just six words sum up how absurd the lie is (Earth is not a closed system.) they continue to repeat the lie. To prepare the flock for the obvious rejoinder, they produce a counter argument that's even more absurd. They redefine the 2nd law till its more to their liking, essentially ignoring the 2nd law and making a new argument. http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-thermodynamics.html To their minds, apparently, this allows them to continue making the same absurd claim.

A mathematical explanation of entropy for the rest of us is at http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo/probability.html

What’s always fascinated me about creationists lying about thermodynamics is that even though just six words sum up how absurd the lie is (Earth is not a closed system.) they continue to repeat the lie.

OK I'm closing this ridiculous thread. In the future email matzkeATberkeley.edu directly if you really need action...

Actually I closed the 2700 comment thread I mean...

Nick,

Thanks, you are my hero. Please everyone, take note of what can happen if you allow this troll to post on any other threads. Anything that it posts under any name should be removed immediately.

I always simply ask them what the 2nd law actually says (or the 1st law, or the 0th law).

I have never gotten an answer more coherent than "entropy increases".

this is a very thinky post, it makes my head hurt. I was going to suggest that for most creationists it's best to just say "do you realise 2LOT is an actual equation with numbers and symbols and such"?, but I'm pleased to see Sylvilagus has already suggested essentially the same thing as the most effective direction in his experience ... the harsh realisation that 2LOT isn't the convenient english sentence they think it is, and the unsettling feeling that someone is about to expect you to do some math.

If you have time to spare, the fun way is to feign ignorance on being told "2LOT therefore blah blah blah" and ask "that's interesting. what exactly IS the 2LOT, then"? You let them run around in circles as you reject suggestions, and you can reveal quite early that you actually know and you're not telling - after all, they are the one telling you how much they know about 2LOT. And if they ever do manage to find something with a delta S in it, you can stare at it blankly and say "well how does that prove evolution isn't true"?

naturally, this post is excellent and has it's place. I just wanted to emphasise that it's a pretty rare situation where this is the relevant information you'll be needing.

While we're at it, can somebody explain the entropy units - J/K?

Joules/Kelvin is not an intuitive unit for me, and I can't quite wrap my head around exactly what that would mean.

Pearls before swine! ... But, nice try.

The religionists are too dumb to understand what you just told them, even if they were inclined to look at your proof. Nonetheless, we appreciate your efforts.

Let us know if you have any success with that.

I have found the best argument against evolution violating the 2nd law is to point out that it specifically states WITHIN A CLOSED SYSTEM, and if the creationist does not understand what that means then I bring her/him into the Sun’s warm glowing warming glow.

— Matherly

DS said: Nick, If you are out there, could you please close the thread on "immune to evidence". It has become infested by a banned troll who has excreted 2700 off-topic comments there. Thanks.

Sylvilagus said: the most successful approach I've found is to show them that the 2nd law is a mathematical equation and the mathematical definition of entropy, to point out that entropy is, at least in principle, a value that can be calculated, or at least estimated. I then ask them how they know that evolution breaks the 2nd law, where the calculations are that show this.

Re. the question about units: T dS is a change in energy, so the unit of S multipled by the unit of T must give units of energy. Kelvins times Joules/Kelvin gives Joules.

Thanks Gvl. Wayne and PvM deserve most of the credit. In fact, I nominate Wayne for the Lazarus award (I can explain the Star Trek reference if anyone needs an explanation). Maybe the moderators will actually enforce the rules here from now on and have the troll of many names automatically banned for good. If not, I recommend that no one respond and that all posts from the troll be immediately deleted, no matter what name it uses.

Now back to our regularly scheduled programming.

I know it's kind of an argument from authority, but I always like to point out that no real scientist believes that the second law of thermodynamics prevents evolution, so obviously amateurs are making some fundamental mistake if they try to claim this. I also like to point out that the sun is the source of the energy driving the temporary condition of negative entropy that we call life and that when the suns ceases to shine that condition will no longer continue. Does anyone have a calculation for how long the sun would have to shine to supply the energy needed according to the equation above? My guess would be that it would be minutes to days at most, depending on whether you counted only the radiation reaching the earth or the total output of the sun. That's not really a lot considering the last 4.5 billion years of sunshine.

Should that not be ds > dQ/T ? Or am I confused?

Stephen Wells said: Should that not be ds > dQ/T ? Or am I confused?

DS said: If not, I recommend that no one respond ...

I think we can stick with the inequality form of the statement. Biology is irreversible :)

Frank J said...

"Lemme guess. Then they trot out another canard (e.g. “where are the transitionals?” or “why are there still monkeys?”)"

Well... yea. The Gish Gallop is alive and well.

We had a discussion about this over on the One Hundred and Fifty Years thread a little while ago. It was triggered by a question about entropy after Sal of Several Shallow Degrees tried to bait us with “Genetic Entropy”

I provided a few examples over on that thread and also responded to a question about the “Zeroeth Law”.

But to reiterate some important points here, entropy and thermodynamics is about energy, not order and information. The confounding of these concepts has been as frustrating for physicists as it has been for biologists and laypeople trying to understand them. The use of the word entropy in information theory has been partly responsible, but so has the use of order versus disorder in the examples used in popularizations that attempt to explain entropy to the general public. Creationists such as Henry Morris and Duane Gish have capitalized on this confusion and compounded it.

Entropy is not about the spatial order or disorder of objects or molecules or matter. The omega in the Boltzmann expression for entropy is the number of available energy states in a physical system. Keeping this at the front of the mind makes all the difference. (At a deeper level, the equivalence of mass and energy, and the conversions between them, introduce some subtleties; but I can save those for later if necessary.)

Those examples of snowflakes or any other examples of atoms or molecules condensing into regular patterns are good starting points to make the distinction between spatial order and available energy states. Atoms and molecules cannot condense into regular patterns (determined by the rules of quantum mechanics) until energy can be released. If energy is retained, the interactions are called “elastic” and the atoms or molecules simply continue to bounce off each other, unable to settle into the “mutual potential wells” that are determined by quantum mechanical rules and emergent phenomena like Van der Waals forces.

However, if other energy states become available that allow paths for energy to flow out of the system, then the atoms or molecules can settle into regular arrays or other patterns. The spatial ordering is not a decrease in entropy; the number of available energy stateshas actually increased because energy now has additional paths out of the system. It is carried away by photons, phonons, or other particles onto which momentum and kinetic energy can be transferred and carried out. Chemists and engineers know this by the term “latent heat of fusion”. It is another way of saying that the interactions between atoms or molecules become “inelastic” because energy is “dissipated”.

The mistake is to claim that because the order of the atoms or molecules has “increased”, therefore entropy has decreased. It hasn’t; energy has been channeled out of the immediate system and has gone off to infinity where it gets further scattered or absorbed and cannot return to the system. To repeat; more energy states became available. Entropy has increased. That is the essence of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

One could say that “entropy has decreased locally at the expense of its increasing globally” because of the increase of energy states provided by the larger environment in which the system of interest is imbedded. However, I think it is better pedagogically to recognize the outgoing energy “channels” as an increase in the number of available energy states. (Besides, the spontaneous emission of photons that carry away energy is not “provided" by an external environment. Unless those photons are reflected back into the system, i.e., the system is adiabatically enclosed, the photons represent additional energy states available to the system, leaving the remainder of the system the opportunity to settle into some kind of spatial order.) This way of thinking is better able to grapple with what are called “non-equilibrium” conditions. Entropy retains its proper meaning, and we gain a better understanding of why the Second Law is true.

There is much more that can be said, but I think this is the essence of the problem.

Stephen Wells said: Should that not be ds > dQ/T ? Or am I confused?

iml8 said: I felt that allowing the troll and those who liked to argue with him to have at it in their own little corner seemed to be a nice compromise in light of the fact that PT is incapable of enforcing bans. White Rabbit (Greg Goebel) http://www.vectorsite.net/gblog.html

Science Avenger said: Why is it incapable?

stevaroni said: While we're at it, can somebody explain the entropy units - J/K? Joules/Kelvin is not an intuitive unit for me, and I can't quite wrap my head around exactly what that would mean.

Is it possilbe to apply Morris's concept of entopy to himself? In that case, his brain must have been in complete order at birth, but by now has, by his definition,reached a state of near total disorder.

If creationists can argue that evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics, can't evolutionists also argue that creation violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics?

I mean, if they want to maintain that the 2nd law is inviolable, then how do they deal with the fact that God seemingly violates it in Genesis by creating order out of chaos?

And if they respond that God can violate the law if God wants to, then it is equally possible that God could also be creating by evolution--making the 2nd law of thermodynamics irrelevant!

beckster02 said: If creationists can argue that evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics, can't evolutionists also argue that creation violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics?

eric said: Your not confused, I was lazy and used the equation for a reversible state change. You are right, its dS >= dq/T for the much more common case where your state change may be irreversible.

Stephen Wells said: Should that not be ds > dQ/T ? Or am I confused?

beckster02 beat me to it...

Don't let them have their cake and eat it to - make them explain the thermodynamics of creation.

In thermodynamics, we call a process "reversible" if it is never more than differentially away from equilibrium. Entropy is defined by dS = (1/T) dQ for a reversible change, so that if you want to calculate the change for a finite state change, you have to integrate (1/T)dQ over a reversible path connecting the initial and final states of the system.

And let me pile on with another point that Mike Elzinga made above -- the definition of entropy is all about heat and temperature for reversible processes. Entropy is not defined in terms of order, and thermodynamic entropy (you know, the kind that's governed by the second law) is not defined in terms of information.

However, the hotter body gives out energy at a higher temperature than the colder body receives it, and since dS=dQ/T, the decrease of entropy in the hotter body is less than the increase of entropy in the colder body. The total change of entropy in this system of two bodies is positive.

— Eric Finn

We may conclude that this process is irreversible. The reverse process will not happen spontaneously.

Large entropic fluctuations are common place ... by design.

"there's about a trillion times more entropy flux available than is required for evolution."

So if a random event occurred that all the "entropy flux" available for the entire universe were concentrated into an area of one trillionth the size of the universe there would be just enough entropic fluctuation for life? Add in probability statistics to the equation and the given equation is meaningless.

SB said: Large entropic fluctuations are common place ... by design. "there's about a trillion times more entropy flux available than is required for evolution." So if a random event occurred that all the "entropy flux" available for the entire universe were concentrated into an area of one trillionth the size of the universe there would be just enough entropic fluctuation for life? Add in probability statistics to the equation and the given equation is meaningless.

Mike Elzinga said: temperature turns out to be a measure of the average kinetic energy per degree of freedom of the constituents of a thermodynamic system. The actual connection is E = k_BT (or some half integer multiple of this for each possible way a quantum mechanical system can contain energy). Thus, the heat content of a system is the total energy contained in the system, while its temperature is the average energy per degree of freedom.

I've read SB's comment three times now and I still can't find any actual meaning it it. We need better trolls.

SB said: Add in probability statistics to the equation and the given equation is meaningless.

snaxalotl said: ... I was going to suggest that for most creationists it's best to just say "do you realise 2LOT is an actual equation with numbers and symbols and such"?, ...

One of my favorite abuses of thermodynamics is by the pseudomedicalists known as naturopaths -- but, instead of employing such in an antievolution kind of way, employ such in a pro-vitalism way.

E.g., in the "Textbook of Naturopathic Medicine" (ISBN 9780443073007; 3rd ed., 2006), Bradley, R.S. (ND NCNM 198x, DHANP, CCH) -- a doubly board-certified homeopath naturopath & author of the book's "Chapter 06 - Philosophy of Naturopathic Medicine," who practices in Nebraska -- states

['danger, will robinson...pseudoscience!!!']:

"the foundations of naturopathic medical philosophy are found in vitalism [p.080...] the philosophy of vitalism is based on the concept that life is too well organized to be explained simply as a complex assemblage of chemical and physical reactions [...] 'homeostasis' is the most dramatic general argument in favor of vitalism [...] a less dramatic argument used to support the vitalistic perspective is the 'problem of entropy' [p.081]."

Fascinating, in terms of science-illiteracy.

-r.c.

Dan Styer said:

Mike Elzinga said: temperature turns out to be a measure of the average kinetic energy per degree of freedom of the constituents of a thermodynamic system. The actual connection is E = k_BT (or some half integer multiple of this for each possible way a quantum mechanical system can contain energy). Thus, the heat content of a system is the total energy contained in the system, while its temperature is the average energy per degree of freedom.

In fact, the formula is E = (1/2)k_BT. And it holds true only for systems which are (1) classical (2) non-interacting and (3) where each "degree of freedom" contributes a quadratic term to the energy (for example, kinetic energy does because the energy is (1/2)mv², vibrational energy does because the energy is (1/2)kx², but gravitational energy mgz does not).

Hey Mike - Thanks for the posts. You've helped me see that I have a number of misconceptions about thermo myself. Its been a long time since college physics for me. I wonder if you could recommend a good book for a reasonably scientifically literate layperson on thermodynamics? By the way, was it you who posted quite a while ago on dendritic formations in ice crystals as an analogy for evolution? I found that fascinating and used the analogy once or twice in discussions with creationists. I'd like to read more about that too.

eric said:

Sylvilagus said: the most successful approach I've found is to show them that the 2nd law is a mathematical equation and the mathematical definition of entropy, to point out that entropy is, at least in principle, a value that can be calculated, or at least estimated. I then ask them how they know that evolution breaks the 2nd law, where the calculations are that show this.

Sylvilagus, have you had any luck pointing out that the law has no "out" for intelligence? Write dS = dQ/T on the board and ask the student to show where the exception for intelligence occurs. I.e. leading class discussion to the conclusion that there isn't one, therefore "intelligent design" cannot explain anything breaking the 2nd law. In a rational world (I know, I'm daydreaming) this could lead to the understanding that the laws of thermodynamics do not forbid nature from doing anything that humans can do, because there are no exceptions for intelligent action.

Sylvilagus said: ...I think they see "life" and "intelligence" as doing something similar: working against entropy, not really breaking the law. They typically respond to a suggestion like yours with something like that: life and intelligence have a property which enables them to work against it, simply begging the question of whether that something is supernatural or a natural emergent property of the larger thermo system. They assume its supernatural. Completely circular logic they seem to want to stay in.

One approach that avoids the technical details and math would be to simply point out that with 100,000 or so biologists using the theory in their daily work, if the theory didn't match reality, a large fraction of them would have noticed it a long time ago.

Another thought is that both thermodynamics and evolution are empirically based conclusions; the fact that some principles of thermodynamics are referred to as "laws" doesn't give them authority over the other subject.

Henry

Sylvilagus said: Hey Mike - Thanks for the posts. You've helped me see that I have a number of misconceptions about thermo myself. Its been a long time since college physics for me. I wonder if you could recommend a good book for a reasonably scientifically literate layperson on thermodynamics? By the way, was it you who posted quite a while ago on dendritic formations in ice crystals as an analogy for evolution? I found that fascinating and used the analogy once or twice in discussions with creationists. I'd like to read more about that too.

You must remember that creationists do not only challenge empirical knowledge, they challenge reality as we know it, willing to go back not before Aristotle, but before that even.

If you're willing to go back to one disproved idea, you're going to go back until you get to other mythical belief. Somehow they stop with the myths written down a couple of thousand years ago, and don't consider the great mythical and religious texts of Egyptians and Babylonians valid, even though Utnapishtim survived the great flood 3000 years before Noah and was granted immortality by the gods, and Horus child has been on the lap of Isis for 5000 years atleast. El, or later Yahweh isn't a good god, nor is Christ when his prophet St. Paul "interprets" him. They're evil gods, belonging to a different age.

Today there are people like Abraham Lincoln, Vladimir Lenin, and all sorts of people who are just as great as Imhotep, the architect who designed and built the pyramid of Djozer. Abe wasn't as honest as they say, Lenin wasn't as good as they say, and Imhotep only designed the step pyramid of Djozer, he was the chief priest of Ammon-Ra in the court of Djozer.

You don't doubt clergymen like Gaius Julius Caesar, only after Octavius, his foster-son's long rule that the idea of emperor was challenged, but not enough. And what resulted was the decline of the Roman Empire when somehow the power was with the rich and the stupid, culminating in the adoption of christianity as a forced religion on all people by Constantinus of Byzantium.

I do not need to point out that all comments here are self-evident to anyone versed in the history of science. They've been so long given back to the basic premise of religious belief, it's not true. Religion is belief without proof, only tradition and crazed people (prophets). Science is knowledge from proof, crazy people are ruled out if they cannot come up with any proof. Karl Marx was more a prophet, his proof didn't live up to scrutiny, nor the test of time. Social science is difficult, but socialism isn't dead. For example Americans today would be a horror to 19th century Democrats. Social security? Communism! Workers' unions? Communism!

Another thought is that both thermodynamics and evolution are empirically based conclusions; the fact that some principles of thermodynamics are referred to as “laws” doesn’t give them authority over the other subject.

— Henry J

Mike Elzinga said: This has been such a boringly repeatable part of the song-and-dance routines of the ID/Creationists; hermeneutics, exegesis, etymology, micro-analyzing the roots of words in other languages. But never ever do they check with reality

The second law of thermodynamics makes a very strong statement. The key concept associated with this statement is entropy. Metaphors and analogies are often used to clarify concepts. Mixing coloured balls may be helpful in presenting some aspects of the concept of entropy, but it also is prone to create misconceptions. I have a training of a physicist, but still my understanding has greatly benefited from the posts by Mike Elzinga.

If one wishes to re-define the concept entropy, it is no more allowed to apply the strong result of the second law of thermodynamics in that discussion. The attacks against the theory of evolution by using arguments related to entropy appear to fall in this category.

The nice order-of-magnitude calculation by Styer shows clearly that evolution may happily proceed its way, as far as thermodynamical entropy or the second law of thermodynamics is concerned.

I wonder, if it is possible to make any kinds of estimates of the differences between the entropies of mammals and, let us say fish. My impression is that mammals do increase the entropy of their environment more that fish do, but does that imply a lower or higher level of entropy internally? Mammals retain their constant body temperature by using a large portion of their energy input for this purpose. Maybe it is reminiscent to some governmental offices concentrating more on bureaucracy that on actual work :)

Regards

Eric

eric said: Your description (of how the students respond) is really interesting, in that "work" in the formal sense is exactly what's employed. Its unfortunate, however, that they don't understand that natural processes can do work without intelligence or supernatural causation. Maybe what's needed is - prior to discussing the laws of thermodynamics - an understanding of the concept of work. That way if they intuitively respond that work is needed to to reduce entropy, they have the conceptual tools to understand how nature can do that.

They become very good at “arguing” but not very good at “understanding” because their goal is to appear intelligent, not to find truth. This is the essence of Phillip Johnson: a lawyer is the best model for the creationist mindset. Argument and rhetoric trumps truth.

— Sylvilagus replying to eric

I wonder, if it is possible to make any kinds of estimates of the differences between the entropies of mammals and, let us say fish. My impression is that mammals do increase the entropy of their environment more that fish do, but does that imply a lower or higher level of entropy internally? Mammals retain their constant body temperature by using a large portion of their energy input for this purpose. Maybe it is reminiscent to some governmental offices concentrating more on bureaucracy that on actual work :)

— Eric Finn

Point up, then laugh. If one believes you're pointing at God, they aren't a Christian. If they believe you're pointing at the sun, they aren't a scientist.

eric said: What are you talking about? Heat radiation, absorption and re-radiation will occur in any two-body system in thermal contact. This includes almost all star-planet systems. So the event isn't random. Also, nothing is being concentrated on the earth - the sun emits radiation in all directions. Third, the output of the entire universe is irrelevant; we're just talking one star here. Fourth, its not "just enough" - its 1,000,000,000,000 times more entropy flux than is needed. Did you not understand the trillionfold order of magnitude difference between 302 J/K and 420 x 10E12 J/K?

SB said: Large entropic fluctuations are common place ... by design. "there's about a trillion times more entropy flux available than is required for evolution." So if a random event occurred that all the "entropy flux" available for the entire universe were concentrated into an area of one trillionth the size of the universe there would be just enough entropic fluctuation for life? Add in probability statistics to the equation and the given equation is meaningless.

Simplicio said: You must remember that creationists do not only challenge empirical knowledge, they challenge reality as we know it, willing to go back not before Aristotle, but before that even. If you're willing to go back to one disproved idea, you're going to go back until you get to other mythical belief. Somehow they stop with the myths written down a couple of thousand years ago, and don't consider the great mythical and religious texts of Egyptians and Babylonians valid, even though Utnapishtim survived the great flood 3000 years before Noah and was granted immortality by the gods, and Horus child has been on the lap of Isis for 5000 years atleast. El, or later Yahweh isn't a good god, nor is Christ when his prophet St. Paul "interprets" him. They're evil gods, belonging to a different age. Today there are people like Abraham Lincoln, Vladimir Lenin, and all sorts of people who are just as great as Imhotep, the architect who designed and built the pyramid of Djozer. Abe wasn't as honest as they say, Lenin wasn't as good as they say, and Imhotep only designed the step pyramid of Djozer, he was the chief priest of Ammon-Ra in the court of Djozer. You don't doubt clergymen like Gaius Julius Caesar, only after Octavius, his foster-son's long rule that the idea of emperor was challenged, but not enough. And what resulted was the decline of the Roman Empire when somehow the power was with the rich and the stupid, culminating in the adoption of christianity as a forced religion on all people by Constantinus of Byzantium.

SB said: Yes, I understand how the logic of "trillionfold order of magnitude difference between 302 J/K and 420 x 10E12 J/K" is flawed and misused.

eric said:

SB said: Yes, I understand how the logic of "trillionfold order of magnitude difference between 302 J/K and 420 x 10E12 J/K" is flawed and misused.

Well, I don't. Your first post was a bit unclear on that point. So if you could provide an explanation on how its flawed and misused, I'd appreciate it. I'm particularly interested in why you think a 10E12 excess over what's hypothetically needed is "just enough entropic fluctuation for life."

eric said:

SB said: Yes, I understand how the logic of "trillionfold order of magnitude difference between 302 J/K and 420 x 10E12 J/K" is flawed and misused.

Well, I don't. Your first post was a bit unclear on that point. So if you could provide an explanation on how its flawed and misused, I'd appreciate it. I'm particularly interested in why you think a 10E12 excess over what's hypothetically needed is "just enough entropic fluctuation for life."

daijiyobu said: ...a doubly board-certified homeopath naturopath & author of the book's "Chapter 06 - Philosophy of Naturopathic Medicine," who practices in Nebraska -- states...

Entropy and its distribution is governed by the laws of probability in a random set of events in a system, the level of the entropic fluctuation in the system is dependent on the total energy and level of initial order of the system. The chance of a fluctuation drops off exponentially relative to its size.

— SB

Is "SB" attempting to argue some sort of analogue of Dembski's "too improbable" claims?

If so, SB's "dissolving sugar" scenario contains the seeds of its own refutation. While it would take some careful setting up to reform the sugar cube, getting the sugar back out of solution is easy - you just have to stand the glass of sugar solution in strong sunlight and wait for the water to evaporate!

SB seems to be viewing the recrystallisation as a single "fluctuation", when the "unit of fluctuation" is actually the transfer of a single water molecule from the liquid phase to the gas phase.

SB said: An entropic fluctuation posed by the logic stated by the poster’s equation would be similar to placing a teaspoon of sugar in a glass of H2O and have it form a sugar cube – the laws of probability will not allow it to happen as a random event. Fluctuations in entropy may cause the sugar to dissolve unevenly but fluctuations will not cause entropy to reverse.

Mike Elzinga said: But it remains extremely important when using such examples to avoid confusing the distributions of physical objects in space with the distributions of energy among available energy states.

Is SB Bobby?

I really doubt it.

Lots of big words but a minimum of understanding or learning. Not enough grammatical errors though, but still I guess it is possible. Just ask him to read a paper, that is the best "Bobby test".

Larry Boy said:

Mike Elzinga said: But it remains extremely important when using such examples to avoid confusing the distributions of physical objects in space with the distributions of energy among available energy states.

I ran into a good example of this when discussing entropy the other day. If we consider a large number of masses randomly distributed through space, and interacting only by gravitation, then over time all of the masses will end up concentrated at a single point in space. (Excepting masses that attain escape velocity, and remember all orbits are unstable.) So gravity is increasing the spatial ordering of the system, and it seems as if entropy is decreasing if we only use entropy as a fuzzy concept for 'order'.

I'm with DS, let's see if he responds to data, but at this point I'd say no, not quite the same MO. Time will quickly push the confidence to 100%.

I should add one last question to my last post.

What is the meaning of “information” in the circular orbits of planets? Recall that circles have been highly significant in the early models of the solar system. In fact, seeing circles in nature often grabs our attention.

So, given that the original orbits weren’t circular (the last post asked how circularity arises), what information do we have? How does this compare, or perhaps better, how is this connected to entropy?

Thinking this through for a relatively simple system highlights the origins of much confusion in the “information”, “order”, “entropy” discussions about formations in our universe and also the nature of living organisms.

eric said:

SB said: An entropic fluctuation posed by the logic stated by the poster’s equation would be similar to placing a teaspoon of sugar in a glass of H2O and have it form a sugar cube – the laws of probability will not allow it to happen as a random event. Fluctuations in entropy may cause the sugar to dissolve unevenly but fluctuations will not cause entropy to reverse.

You mean I can't get crystallized sugar back? That will be news to cooks. Its easy - you boil the water. i.e. Add heat. Like what the sun does. Your example illustrates exactly the creationist problem. You analogize the earth to a system in near-complete thermal equilibrium with its environment, exchanging practically no mass or heat with its surroundings. You may say "open system" in mixed company, but you model like its closed. Also, Mike E discussed in several very excellent posts how entropy is about energy states, not atomic lattice arrangement like your example. You should read them.

SB said: Crystallized sugar at the bottom of a glass does not have the same level of order as a sugar cube

the energy to boil away the H2O doesn't reside in the sugar cube itself, energy would need to be added to the system from an external source.

To reform the sugar cube, energy needs to be introduced to the system, and a designed plan to overcome entropy, and a reason for the effort.

To reform the sugar cube, energy needs to be introduced to the system, and a designed plan to overcome entropy, and a reason for the effort.

— SB

I should probably add a note here about “entropy flux”.

It’s a useful term provided that one has the detailed technical background to understand what is meant by it.

Flux is a flow of something, usually something material like air or water in the minds of most people. However, it is also used in electromagnetic theory (flux lines) to suggest the “flow” of a field. In that particular case, it represents the flow of charged particles if they were placed in the field.

At another level of abstraction, the flux of heat is a “flow of energy”, but in this case we think of a progression of numbers that represent the amount of energy along a given physical path or, in the case of the internal states of a thermodynamic system, the exchanges of energy among various mechanisms that can contain energy.

In the case of entropy, we enter a level of abstraction that is similar to the concept of hole flow in semiconductors. In the case of entropy flux, we are thinking about the movement of available energy states from place to place or from mechanism to mechanism. In a somewhat analogous sense to holes in semiconductors, these “moving” available energy states are like “pigeonholes” moving around or “opening up” to receive energy. But there is nothing material that is moving around in the case of entropy flux.

One can do similar games with “cold flow” instead of heat flow.

I’m not sure, however, that this use of entropy flux is good pedagogy for the layperson; at least not at the very beginning of learning about entropy. It conjures up material things moving around, which is exactly one of the major misconceptions about entropy, namely that entropy is about spatial order/disorder of material objects. So I would advise caution in its use.

How about using the simple analogy that increase in entropy corresponds to reduction in amount of useful energy? Put another way, using energy always wastes some of it. That holds whether intelligence is involved or not.

Henry

Henry J said: How about using the simple analogy that increase in entropy corresponds to reduction in amount of useful energy? Put another way, using energy always wastes some of it. That holds whether intelligence is involved or not. Henry

SB said: Crystallized sugar at the bottom of a glass does not have the same level of order as a sugar cube and the energy to boil away the H2O doesn't reside in the sugar cube itself, energy would need to be added to the system from an external source. To reform the sugar cube, energy needs to be introduced to the system, and a designed plan to overcome entropy, and a reason for the effort. The sugar cube analogy is not an attempt to explain the entire universe, it's intension is to simplify a part of complex concept. I fully understand the reactive potential states of thermal dynamic systems. The rebuttal is exactly why the concepts need to be kept simple here.

SB,

PZ Myers summarized a paper by Dan Styers that asserts that "quantitative estimates of the entropy involved in biological evolution demonstrate that there is no conflict between evolution and the second law of thermodynamics." (emphasis added)

Do you have a quantitative refutation of Styers's argument? Entropy is a precisely defined, calculable quantity -- vague arguments about "order" don't cut it.

SWT said: SB, PZ Myers summarized a paper by Dan Styers that asserts that "quantitative estimates of the entropy involved in biological evolution demonstrate that there is no conflict between evolution and the second law of thermodynamics." (emphasis added)

Mike Elzinga said: I should probably add a note here about “entropy flux”. It’s a useful term provided that one has the detailed technical background to understand what is meant by it. Flux is a flow of something, usually something material like air or water in the minds of most people. However, it is also used in electromagnetic theory (flux lines) to suggest the “flow” of a field. In that particular case, it represents the flow of charged particles if they were placed in the field. At another level of abstraction, the flux of heat is a “flow of energy”, but in this case we think of a progression of numbers that represent the amount of energy along a given physical path or, in the case of the internal states of a thermodynamic system, the exchanges of energy among various mechanisms that can contain energy. In the case of entropy, we enter a level of abstraction that is similar to the concept of hole flow in semiconductors. In the case of entropy flux, we are thinking about the movement of available energy states from place to place or from mechanism to mechanism. In a somewhat analogous sense to holes in semiconductors, these “moving” available energy states are like “pigeonholes” moving around or “opening up” to receive energy. But there is nothing material that is moving around in the case of entropy flux. One can do similar games with “cold flow” instead of heat flow. I’m not sure, however, that this use of entropy flux is good pedagogy for the layperson; at least not at the very beginning of learning about entropy. It conjures up material things moving around, which is exactly one of the major misconceptions about entropy, namely that entropy is about spatial order/disorder of material objects. So I would advise caution in its use.

So then, in your expert opinion, how does your definition of entropic flux apply to the statement: “there’s about a trillion times more entropy flux available than is required for evolution.” We can’t have the definition and its context continue to be a moving target The author is using entropic fluctuations as a mathematical variable pertaining cellular chemistry in the context of the reactive potential of cellular subsystems. Is this a point that can be agreed upon?

— SB

Bravo Mike!

I nominate this for post of the week (century? millennium?)

Politely and and thoroughly well said.

-DU-

All life on earth depends on the sun. Without energy of the sun, no evolution. Increasing biological order on earth means increasing disorder of the sun. And finally sun will even collaps some billion years in the future. Its similar to building an automobile: Melting and forming metal and plastic costs a huge amount of energy and pollution. The disorder in all gets bigger than the order the automobile stands for. Entropy stays a one way street.

SB said: An entropic fluctuation posed by the logic stated by the poster’s equation ...

Michael said: All life on earth depends on the sun. Without energy of the sun, no evolution. Increasing biological order on earth means increasing disorder of the sun.

Dan Wrote:

"I can only surmise that SB hasn’t read either the post or the paper, and is simply slinging high-falutin’ terms into the air without understanding."

There was another guy who used to do stuff like that, but his initials were SFB so this couldn't be the same guy. That would be breaking the rules.

I stumbled across this bizarre “rejoinder” on Pravda.ru recently. It’s goofy enough to be a spoof, but probably isn’t. I confess I don't know very much about this site.

Their rather immediate, huffy response to these threads on Evolution and Entropy, a response that more insistently repeats the same crap the ID/Creationists have been spouting all along, is simply more evidence of the conscious political nature of these IDiotic tactics. They use every nasty political trick in the book to keep the culture wars going.

One would hope that the growing awareness of political immaturity in political campaigning will start making these tactics look increasingly childish against the background of really serious issues that require knowledge, intelligence and maturity to grapple with.

Mike Elzinga said: I stumbled across this bizarre “rejoinder” on Pravda.ru recently. It’s goofy enough to be a spoof, but probably isn’t. I confess I don't know very much about this site.

Whatever evolution and natural selection that occurs in nature is limited to within biological kinds..

Dave Lovell said:

Mike Elzinga said: I stumbled across this bizarre “rejoinder” on Pravda.ru recently. It’s goofy enough to be a spoof, but probably isn’t. I confess I don't know very much about this site.

The referenced post, arguing that entropy prevents evolution, states:

Whatever evolution and natural selection that occurs in nature is limited to within biological kinds..

Has anybody seen an attempt to explain how demonstrated and accepted micro-evolution doesn't violate second law of thermodynamics, whilst macro-evolution does?

Dave Lovell said: Has anybody seen an attempt to explain how demonstrated and accepted micro-evolution doesn't violate second law of thermodynamics, whilst macro-evolution does?

Mike Elzinga said:

So then, in your expert opinion, how does your definition of entropic flux apply to the statement: “there’s about a trillion times more entropy flux available than is required for evolution.” We can’t have the definition and its context continue to be a moving target The author is using entropic fluctuations as a mathematical variable pertaining cellular chemistry in the context of the reactive potential of cellular subsystems. Is this a point that can be agreed upon?

— SB

Fair questions. There is actually no inconsistency in what Dan Styer was estimating and the concepts I have been explaining. Dan’s calculation is one of those clever back-of-the-envelope calculations that physicists often do to get at the essence of a problem. By using the classical calculations for computing the entropy changes in the Earth and the universe surrounding Earth in a given second, he is taking advantage of the power of classical thermodynamics to calculate this entropy change without having to know all the microscopic details taking place within “system Earth”. The result is that we find an enormous increase in entropy taking place; and that encompasses everything bundled together, including any subsystems that are decreasing in entropy. Then Dan looks specifically at one of those subsystems (living organisms) that are supposedly decreasing in entropy, and he uses Boltzmann’s expression to estimate how much these systems decrease the entropy. In doing this, he makes a very generous estimate that is bound to overestimate the decrease caused by all life on the planet. The result is that the entropy increase is enormously larger than is the decrease, i.e., living organisms exist in an environment in which entropy is increasing, thus are consistent with the laws of thermodynamics. There is another clever fine point in Dan’s calculation of the change in entropy of living organisms; he took the change in entropy using Boltzmann’s expression for entropy. Boltzmann’s expression is a logarithm of the number of available energy states. Thus the difference in entropy is equivalent to a ratio of the number of available energy states at the end of the second to the number of available energy states at the beginning of the second. What that calculation does is eliminate any confusion over whether entropy is about spatial order or about the number of energy states. By taking a ratio, it makes no difference how one interprets it. If the number of available energy states is proportional to the order, this proportionality cancels out, and we don’t have to know how spatial order of molecules in an organism is connected to available energy states. What my points are emphasizing is that spatial order/disorder has nothing to do with the concept of entropy. Together, Dan’s calculation and my attempts to clarify the concept of entropy emphasize that the ID/Creationists have absolutely no idea of what they are talking about when they claim that life violates the laws of thermodynamics. When discussing thermodynamics in connection with systems that purportedly decrease entropy, one needs to make clear distinctions between the spatial order of physical objects (which has little to do with entropy and thermodynamics) and the changes in the number of available energy states associated with the changes in the system under study. Calculating the entropy flux (change in entropy per unit of time) and then focusing on an arbitrary single second is simply an efficient way of comparing the changes in entropy of the subsystem with the changes in entropy of its surroundings at the same arbitrary instant. Conclusion 1: Life exists in and is intricately interwoven with an environment in which entropy is increasing; life does not violate the laws of thermodynamics. Life is consistent with those laws (as any system that exchanges matter and energy with its surrounding environment should be). Conclusion 2: The ID/Creationists, from at least the time of Henry Morris, have been systematically misleading their followers and the general public about the very concepts of thermodynamics and entropy and how it is connected with life. And they have done this in spite of repeated corrections by members of the scientific community over the years. Conclusion 3: The study of living systems can benefit from, and requires, a clear understanding of the laws of physics.

SB said: It is the ability of life to form from non-life that is in violation. There are three points of topic for cellular chemists that need to be explained without violating the 2nd law of thermal dynamics, also, they need to be solved as a single event: - Cellular Metabolism (multiple simultaneous chemical processes with varying reactive potentials) - Environmental Barrier (selectively permeable) - Self replication (genetic information) If life was created by design this is a non-argument. If life started from non-life, the posted entropic equation needs to satisfy these points within the values of entropic flux. This is the real point of this argument. It is the metabolism of "Life" that overcomes the entropy of cellular chemistry ... so ... (Chicken or the Egg?).

eric said: SB, I don't believe you when you claim that self-replication violates the second law. I want to see the math, please! I also don't understand what your second point refers to. Environmental barrier to what? Lastly, it is an observable fact that self-replication can occur without cellularity. Witness both viruses and inorganic self-assembling crystals. So your contention that they must arise simultaneously is demonstrably false.

SB said: It is the ability of life to form from non-life that is in violation. There are three points of topic for cellular chemists that need to be explained without violating the 2nd law of thermal dynamics, also, they need to be solved as a single event: - Cellular Metabolism (multiple simultaneous chemical processes with varying reactive potentials) - Environmental Barrier (selectively permeable) - Self replication (genetic information) If life was created by design this is a non-argument. If life started from non-life, the posted entropic equation needs to satisfy these points within the values of entropic flux. This is the real point of this argument. It is the metabolism of "Life" that overcomes the entropy of cellular chemistry ... so ... (Chicken or the Egg?).

Chemistry really isn't very random at that level. You can throw all the oxygen you want at gold around 25 degrees C, but you're very unlikely to get the two to combine. Try the same oxygen thing with carbon, nitrogen, and hydrogen, especially all at once. You'll get a lot of very interesting, varied chemicals in very short order. Spread this out over the surface of a planet and you have a staggeringly immense lab full of differential conditions in which countless reactions can take place. Spontaneous reactions with organic chemistry are a fact of life. This happens even in the unoccupied, freezing, near-vacuum of interstellar space.

It's precisely the un-randomness of chemistry that lets us make any predictions about what will happen when substances react. You can't treat all reactions as equally likely, as if it were all random chance. The likelihood of certain reactions taking place is mostly non-random.

SB said: Humans are on the verge of creating simple life from scratch, but for this to happen they need one heck of a design to put it together. Now, imagine the same process happening as a random set of events without a lab, or tech, or any plan.

SB said: Humans are on the verge of creating simple life from scratch, but for this to happen they need one heck of a design to put it together. Now, imagine the same process happening as a random set of events without a lab, or tech, or any plan.

My apologies to the author; that should be Styer.

Wheels said: Chemistry really isn't very random at that level. You can throw all the oxygen you want at gold around 25 degrees C, but you're very unlikely to get the two to combine. Try the same oxygen thing with carbon, nitrogen, and hydrogen, especially all at once. You'll get a lot of very interesting, varied chemicals in very short order. Spread this out over the surface of a planet and you have a staggeringly immense lab full of differential conditions in which countless reactions can take place. Spontaneous reactions with organic chemistry are a fact of life. This happens even in the unoccupied, freezing, near-vacuum of interstellar space. It's precisely the un-randomness of chemistry that lets us make any predictions about what will happen when substances react. You can't treat all reactions as equally likely, as if it were all random chance. The likelihood of certain reactions taking place is mostly non-random.

SB said: Humans are on the verge of creating simple life from scratch, but for this to happen they need one heck of a design to put it together.

eric said:

SB said: Humans are on the verge of creating simple life from scratch, but for this to happen they need one heck of a design to put it together. Now, imagine the same process happening as a random set of events without a lab, or tech, or any plan.

Done! Now that I've imagined it, your argument loses all value. And you have yet to show any math behind your claim that "starting the complex metabolism of life from non-life" violates 2LOT. Science is not just a conceptual mental exercise. There is math. Styler gave his. Where's yours? eric

It is the ability of life to form from non-life that is in violation.

— SB

If life was created by design this is a non-argument.

SB said: Try creating an environment where lipids and proteins can be created simultaneously without damaging the products and/or removing the inhibiting waste material.

The "Catalystic Clay" theory has been around for decades as a solution to overcome reactive variances , but ...

Modern cellular chemistry is more complex than some people realize.

The first self replicator wasn't modern, and didn't have other modern life trying to have it for lunch, so it could get by with less.

Henry

Science Avenger said:

SB said: Humans are on the verge of creating simple life from scratch, but for this to happen they need one heck of a design to put it together.

So you denounce as poor the argument that if evolution was true, then scientists would be able to create life in the lab? In other words, your view is that a creation of life by scientists would validate ID, not evolution, correct?

SB said:

eric said:

SB said: ...imagine the same process happening as a random set of events without a lab, or tech, or any plan.

Done! Now that I've imagined it, your argument loses all value. [snip]

Sorry you are wrong... [snip] Please don't waste my time on inaccurate information. Thank you.

SB said: I didn't say self-replication violates the 2nd law, it is the starting the complex metabolism of life from non-life that violates the 2nd law. Environmental barrier is the cell wall of all living organisms which actively transports selective materials in and out of the cytoplasm

SB said: Also, let's say everything fell perfectly into place for the first living cell to form. Why would it have a "Will" to actively seek food, or reproduce itself, or flee a threat. For this to happen the cell would need to be aware that "it is" and actively interact with it's environment.

Early life would have needed a nutrient-rich environment (whatever that was) to survive in the first place, wouldn't it? So actively seeking food is a non-issue.

What threats would the first life flee from? Hydrogen sulfide?

Will to reproduce? Do salt crystals have a will to reproduce? How about stalactites?

SB you seem to be a little fuzzy here.

The point is: there is no empirical data supporting the process of how life stared from non-life as a random event.

— SB

SB wrote:

"The point is: there is no empirical data supporting the process of how life stared from non-life as a random event."

No. The point is that the second law of thermodynamics does not present a theoretical barrier to the origin of life. The question of evidence for the actual process is another question altogether.

SB said: I would not say creating life from scratch would validate ID, it would only validate that ID is possible. What I'm looking for is the empirical evidence that life could spontaneously start from non-life.

1) If evolution were true, then scientists should be able to create life in the lab.

2) If scientists created life in the lab, it would require a lot of design to do so, therefore it would support ID and discredit evolution.

Who said the above statements?

Science Avenger said:

SB said: I would not say creating life from scratch would validate ID, it would only validate that ID is possible. What I'm looking for is the empirical evidence that life could spontaneously start from non-life.

That's fine and good, but what I am looking for with my question is an evolution-denier who is intellectually honest enough to admit that the following two common evolution-denying arguments are contradictory: 1) If evolution were true, then scientists should be able to create life in the lab. 2) If scientists created life in the lab, it would require a lot of design to do so, therefore it would support ID and discredit evolution. It sounds like you fall into camp #2 and therefore would consider #1 a poor argument. Is that a fair representation of your position?

Crystals grow and overcome entropy but they are completely passive to their environment very unlike life that reacts actively.

— SB

My main concern is to stop the propagation of bad science (and non-science) also, to show that the spontaneous evolution of life from non-live theory is NOT built on empirical data. It is another form of a non-empirical faith with its harden followers.

— SB

SB said: To render life from non-life as an empirical set will require not only HOW life started from non-life, but that the event ACTUALLY happened. (could have is not empirical science, it is faith)

My main concern is to stop the propagation of bad science (and non-science) also, to show that the spontaneous evolution of life from non-live theory is NOT built on empirical data. It is another form of a non-empirical faith with its harden followers.

The entropic fluctuations needed for non-life to life cannot be empirically resolved because the process isn't known so there is NO equation for its proof, if you have one proving one way or the other, it is wrong.

The entropic fluctuations needed for non-life to life cannot be empirically resolved because the process isn’t known so there is NO equation for its proof,…

— SB

SB wrote I would not say creating life from scratch would validate ID, it would only validate that ID is possible.

SB said: Crystals grow and overcome entropy but they are completely passive to their environment

Crystals grow and overcome entropy but they are completely passive to their environment very unlike life that reacts actively.

— SB

SB said:

Science Avenger said:

SB said: I would not say creating life from scratch would validate ID, it would only validate that ID is possible. What I'm looking for is the empirical evidence that life could spontaneously start from non-life.

That's fine and good, but what I am looking for with my question is an evolution-denier who is intellectually honest enough to admit that the following two common evolution-denying arguments are contradictory: 1) If evolution were true, then scientists should be able to create life in the lab. 2) If scientists created life in the lab, it would require a lot of design to do so, therefore it would support ID and discredit evolution. It sounds like you fall into camp #2 and therefore would consider #1 a poor argument. Is that a fair representation of your position?

I would agree to statement 1

SB said:

Science Avenger said: That's fine and good, but what I am looking for with my question is an evolution-denier who is intellectually honest enough to admit that the following two common evolution-denying arguments are contradictory: 1) If evolution were true, then scientists should be able to create life in the lab. 2) If scientists created life in the lab, it would require a lot of design to do so, therefore it would support ID and discredit evolution. It sounds like you fall into camp #2 and therefore would consider #1 a poor argument. Is that a fair representation of your position?

I would agree to statement 1

My main concern is to stop the propagation of bad science (and non-science) also, to show that the spontaneous evolution of life from non-live theory is NOT built on empirical data. It is another form of a non-empirical faith with its harden followers.

Henry J said:

My main concern is to stop the propagation of bad science (and non-science) also, to show that the spontaneous evolution of life from non-live theory is NOT built on empirical data. It is another form of a non-empirical faith with its harden followers.

Seems like stopping oneself shouldn't all that difficult. Henry

The argument that human experiments to reproduce abiogenesis in the lab necessarily support the need for an Intelligent Designer to start life in the past have aptly been compared to the argument that experiments which simulate lightning in the lab require there to be lightning gods to produce the bolts we seen in nature.

Wheels said: The argument that human experiments to reproduce abiogenesis in the lab necessarily support the need for an Intelligent Designer to start life in the past have aptly been compared to the argument that experiments which simulate lightning in the lab require there to be lightning gods to produce the bolts we seen in nature.

SB said: I didn't say self-replication violates the 2nd law, it is the starting the complex metabolism of life from non-life that violates the 2nd law.

SB said: To render life from non-life as an empirical set will require not only HOW life started from non-life, but that the event ACTUALLY happened. (could have is not empirical science, it is faith)

the spontaneous evolution of life from non-live theory is NOT built on empirical data.

Starting with the entropic fluctuations of a living cell, it IS NOT EQUAL to the the fluctuations needed for the start of life.

Sorry guys, but this SB character is starting to sound more and more like SFB. Grammatical errors are starting to creep in and he is starting to claim that scientists take everything on faith without evidence. If it isn't the same guy he sure did at least take a page from the same playbook. Why don't we see if it can read and understand a reference before it moves the goal posts again? If it starts claiming that it didn't write things that are still there for all to see then we'll have to initiate another flush cycle.

If the administration refuses to automatically block the address, then the troll will simply change names hundreds of times in an attempt to ruin this site. I see no reason why this should be allowed. The troll has proven that it is incapable of learning and PvM has already declared it banned. Please, don't let this nonsense ruin the site for everyone.

If by any chance SB is not really SFB, you have my sincere apology. Don't be seduced by the dark side, that way lies only pain and sorrow.

DS,

The accusation that scientists take things on faith isn't a particularly rare tactic among anti-evolutionists; I wouldn't base anything on that. Besides, SB is way more coherent than the nameful one was, and is more definite in what he's claiming.

Not that the "faith" claim has any validity of course; that's basically asserting that scientists would cling to the theory even if contrary evidence started pouring in. But how they'd react to that can't be reliably judged unless it were to actually happen, and there's no sign that it will. (And even if it did, new theories often absorb the old theory as special or limiting cases when the old theory has stood up to continuous research for decades by many thousands of researchers.)

Henry

At some point, it’s quite likely that some intrepid investigator will in fact synthesize, from relatively simple chemicals, a living system – “starting the complex metabolism of life from non-life.” Will that investigator have violated the second law?

— SWT

Except for crystals.

The event of creating life in a lab will supply empirical data for references, that’s all.

— SB

Mike Elzinga said:

The event of creating life in a lab will supply empirical data for references, that’s all.

— SB

What does “supply empirical data for references” mean? Most of us here believe this is more fuzzy thinking that is evidence of your unwillingness to correct your ID/Creationist egregious misconceptions about science and evolution. Explain to us why the evolution of life from non-life so painful for ID/Creationists to face up to? Why is it not a fascinating process that stimulates a desire to know how it works?

Mike Elzinga said: Explain to us why the evolution of life from non-life so painful for ID/Creationists to face up to?

Why do evolutionist persist that life spontaneously came from non-life and is a better alternative to ID without having empirical proof? Oh, because of blind faith, never mind.

— SB

SB said: It means: If creating life from scratch is possible, all the processes, energy and so on will be assigned empirical values allowing the process to be measurable and repeatable (that is what science is). Empirical values cannot be assigned without knowing the process. Life from non-life is not painful concept to me, the bad (non)science I see posted here is painful though, I have an open mind, I know I don't have the answer, I also know you do not have the answer either. Why do evolutionist persist that life spontaneously came from non-life and is a better alternative to ID without having empirical proof? Oh, because of blind faith, never mind.

SB said: Why do evolutionist persist that life spontaneously came from non-life and is a better alternative to ID without having empirical proof?

Why do evolutionist persist that life spontaneously came from non-life and is a better alternative to ID without having empirical proof?

Personally I find that comforting; the less special we are, the more likely we are to have interesting neighbors. :)

— eric

SWT said: I don't think anybody in this thread has said they know for sure how abiogenesis occurred, or that the evidence regarding any particular abiogenesis hypothesis has the same weight as the evidence for modern evolutionary theory. Those doing research in the field are asking the question, "How could this have happened?" Even though they don't have a firm answer, they've learned a lot of interesting things along the way about what might have happened, what probably didn't happen, and about how the world actually works.

Come on you guys. It's making the same stupid grammatical errors, claiming people said things they didn't, denying it said things it strongly implied, demanding equations and changing the topic when it's shown to be completely ignorant. If it isn't the same troll it's just as worthless. Whatever you do don't use foul language, it gets really mad but it still won't go away. I know, how about fowl language instead, you know like:

Cockatoo
Great blue tit
Blue footed boobie

If you want to respond to this troll go right ahead, just remember I told you so. I'm sure PZ will be along in about 5000 posts to clean things up. Of course by then it will have reported all of you to your bosses for something or other and posted all of your phone numbers. That's what it does when it loses an argument.

SB said: [supply empirical data for references] means: If creating life from scratch is possible, all the processes, energy and so on will be assigned empirical values allowing the process to be measurable and repeatable (that is what science is). Empirical values cannot be assigned without knowing the process. Life from non-life is not painful concept to me, the bad (non)science I see posted here is painful though, I have an open mind, I know I don't have the answer, I also know you do not have the answer either. Why do evolutionist persist that life spontaneously came from non-life and is a better alternative to ID without having empirical proof? Oh, because of blind faith, never mind.

Yeah, DS beat me to it again, but his true colors are showing through. It wasn’t so bad up to this point because he managed to ask some substantive questions. I learned a few things reading the answers. But now he’s begun the same path of not owning up to what he says, making up self-serving definitions, and projecting his faith onto us.

— Science Avenger

Science Avenger said:

SB said: [supply empirical data for references] means: If creating life from scratch is possible, all the processes, energy and so on will be assigned empirical values allowing the process to be measurable and repeatable (that is what science is). Empirical values cannot be assigned without knowing the process. Life from non-life is not painful concept to me, the bad (non)science I see posted here is painful though, I have an open mind, I know I don't have the answer, I also know you do not have the answer either. Why do evolutionist persist that life spontaneously came from non-life and is a better alternative to ID without having empirical proof? Oh, because of blind faith, never mind.

Yeah, DS beat me to it again, but his true colors are showing through. It wasn't so bad up to this point because he managed to ask some substantive questions. I learned a few things reading the answers. But now he's begun the same path of not owning up to what he says, making up self-serving definitions, and projecting his faith onto us. Frankly, I don't care if it's THE ONE or not, anyone pulling all that shit should be banned. Oh, BTW troll: 1) one does not assign empirical values, one measures them. One assigns arbitrary values. 2) Science is far more than repeatability. It's also very much about falsifiable testing and a posteriori revisions. 3) Spontaneous generation of life from non-life is a better alternative to ID because it does have some evidence to back it, however paltry it might be compared to what evolution has going for it. ID has no evidence at all, especially for the most important component: the designer. And yet IDers insist ID isn't about this most crucial information. ID is a politically motivated scam to get creationism around the courts and into classrooms. Let us not get so involved with the scientific refutations of their nonsense that we miss the essentials here. ID is creationism dressed up in scientific appearance but without any of its substance. They have scientists that do no science, a theory with no theory, and peer review that only uses one of those words. Their entire approach is perfectly illustrated by this Ann Coulter footnote that wasn't a footnote, and they deserve about the same level of respect.

SB said: 3. I have no problem with someone stating an "opinion" that they prefer one theory over another, but I do have a problem when valid empirical science is suppressed or ignored resulting in making a viable scientific theory bad.

There is additional theoretical evidence (indirectly) giving support ID, how are you with the string theory?

…but I do have a problem when valid empirical science is suppressed or ignored resulting in making a viable scientific theory bad.

— SB

There is additional theoretical evidence (indirectly) giving support ID, how are you with the string theory?

SB said: I do have a problem when valid empirical science is suppressed or ignored resulting in making a viable scientific theory bad. There is additional theoretical evidence (indirectly) giving support ID, how are you with the string theory?

Hey SB,

Before we move on to the connection between string theory and ID, would you please do us the favor of telling us what testable predictions ID makes about abiogenesis, self-organizing systems, or biological evolution?

And how are you coming along on a rigorous proof that abiogenesis violates the second law?

Wait, I know this one. String theory obvioulsy predicts a magic invisible hologram that doesn't work in the dark!

Look, if anyone really wants to induldge this troll, give it a scientific reference to read and let it try to explain it in it's own words. That should prove very quickly that it doesn't have the faintest clue what it is talking about. Just choose one paper and stick to it, something on basic string theory should do. Don't let it change the subject or claim that it doean't have time to read the paper. Force it to explain something concrete, preferably mathematical.

Again, don't say I didn't warn you.

PZ, how long will you let this go on now that it has gotten completely off toipic?

DS said: Look, if anyone really wants to induldge this troll, give it a scientific reference to read and let it try to explain it in it's own words.

Somewhat on-topic, but not a bad idea. Nick has already posted the link. You better post a free link though. The troll has shown a definate aversion to paying for any reference, even though it posts from a library and the charge is only $19 dollars if you don't have a subscription. The abstract describes the math as elementary, so the troll should have no trouble at all explaining it to everyone. Now what are the odds that SFB has a subscription to AJP?

Maybe we will be treated to another "walk thru" like the one it gave for the magic invisible hologram hypothesis in which it blithered about the definition of a hologram for days, never presented any evidence of any kind and then claimed that the whole thing was merely an "analogy" anyway. Oh well, what can you expect from someone who describes proteins as "bricks"?

SB said: [a bunch if intellectually dishonest nonsense]

"pregidous"????!??!?!

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!! etc....

DS said: Somewhat on-topic, but not a bad idea. Nick has already posted the link. You better post a free link though. The troll has shown a definate aversion to paying for any reference, even though it posts from a library and the charge is only $19 dollars if you don't have a subscription. The abstract describes the math as elementary, so the troll should have no trouble at all explaining it to everyone. Now what are the odds that SFB has a subscription to AJP?

fnxtr said: "pregidous"????!??!?! HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!! etc....

SB said: The event of creating life in a lab will supply empirical data for references, that's all.

SWT said: SB is always free to look up Dr. Styer's email address and request a reprint or preprint of the article. (I don't know how AJP handles copyright issues for reprints and preprints.) And indeed, the math in the article is no trickier than the math you might find in, say, a main post on this blog. I promise!

eric said:

SB said: I do have a problem when valid empirical science is suppressed or ignored resulting in making a viable scientific theory bad. There is additional theoretical evidence (indirectly) giving support ID, how are you with the string theory?

I'm with David - please, enlighten us. We are waiting with bated breath for your exposition of what science is being suppressed, and how string theory supports design. I assume the latter with be math-lite, as you have so far been unable even to solve for dS to support your contentions, so string theory is a foregone conclusion.

SB said: By suppressed I'm referring to data bias in publish papers omitting contradicting data (bad science)in order to get publish by politically motivated money.

the longer the organism survives the more chances it has to procreate. So by pure logic life expectancies should show a trend of increasing over time. That evidence is not there

"By suppressed I’m referring to data bias in publish papers omitting contradicting data (bad science)in order to get publish by politically motivated money."

Insofar as I am able to decipher this editor's nightmare, you are telling us that scientists deliberately omit data, because they and scientific publications are engaged in a conspiracy deliberately to deceive the trusting public, because someone is making money out of this. That is, corporations and governments are investing in research that they know is going to produce misinformation. They do not want real information about the real world because as everyone knows, corporations and governments do not ever concern themselves with results, especially those that involve money. Indeed, all they want to do is to spend it on stuff that they know can't work.

There is only one answer to this:

HAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHA!And 'survivle', yet!HAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAhh! AHhahahahah HAHAHAHA AHahahaha HAHAHA!And we're naive, dear God! HahahahHAHAHAHA! But he knows where the bodies are buried! HAHAHAHahahaha! And proves it by asking what entanglement is HAhahahaHAHAHA. HAHAHAHAHA. Oh,hahahahaaahaha. Hee hee. Oh dear, oh deary me.

Dan wrote:

"I would be most happy to send him/her a copy as well, as it’s clear from his/her comments that he/she hasn’t read it: Several of the questions he/she raises as deep issues are dealt with in the paper by a few lines of arithmetic."

Thanks for coming here to explain the paper Dan. However, you would definately be wasting your time with this troll. Of the hundreds of papers presented to it, (many with free links provided), it has never ever shown any evidence whatsoever of having actually read a single one. It appears to be emotionally incapable of reading a paper and intellectually incapable of understanding one. I strongly suggest that you and everyone else simply ignore it. If you do send it a reprint, we would all love to know it's name and address.

If the troll persists in infesting this thread and PZ allows this to continue, I guess we could always post the lists of it's psychological problems, creationist tactics and areas where the troll has demonstrated a complete lack of knowledge. If it wants to discuss string theory, it should go to a physics site and see how long they tolerate it's ignorant nonsense.

As for the longeviety argument, according to this logic, human females should be able to reproduce until they are 80. Maybe the troll is trying to convince us that that would be desirable. Of course time to first reproduction is a much more important demographic parameter, so I guess it would also claim that human females should start reproducing at about age 9. Now I wonder why it would want that. I'm sure that this will induce a jumping monkey, barking dog hissy fit from the troll. I can't wait.

Isn't living long enough to replace oneself the kind of good enough "survivle" (chuckle) strategy nature settles for?

Dave Luckett said: "By suppressed I’m referring to data bias in publish papers omitting contradicting data (bad science)in order to get publish by politically motivated money." Insofar as I am able to decipher this editor's nightmare, you are telling us that scientists deliberately omit data, because they and scientific publications are engaged in a conspiracy deliberately to deceive the trusting public, because someone is making money out of this. That is, corporations and governments are investing in research that they know is going to produce misinformation. They do not want real information about the real world because as everyone knows, corporations and governments do not ever concern themselves with results, especially those that involve money. Indeed, all they want to do is to spend it on stuff that they know can't work. There is only one answer to this: HAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHA!And 'survivle', yet!HAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAhh! AHhahahahah HAHAHAHA AHahahaha HAHAHA!And we're naive, dear God! HahahahHAHAHAHA! But he knows where the bodies are buried! HAHAHAHahahaha! And proves it by asking what entanglement is HAhahahaHAHAHA. HAHAHAHAHA. Oh,hahahahaaahaha. Hee hee. Oh dear, oh deary me.

SB said: Who want to explain to me what "Entanglement" is?

SB said: One example, survivle of the fittest is a foundation stone in evolution.

It is? How remiss of me. In the general biology course I am teaching I am nearing the end of the section on evolution and I haven’t mentioned ‘survival of the fittest’ once.

I would be most happy to send him/her a copy as well, as it’s clear from his/her comments that he/she hasn’t read it: …

— Dan Styer

Entanglement, yea, that's when you get entangled in a discussion about a topic and suddenly realize that you are dealing with experts who all know a lot more than you do. In a vain attempt to distract attention away from the fact that you have no idea what you are talking about, you desperately try to change the subject to anything else. Of course that strategy never works and eventually you are shown up for the slack jawed poser that you are.

Everyone should remember why Wayne labelled this jumping monkey SFB in the first place.

SFB? I did a search for SFB and got no hits.

I must have missed the thread Wayne was referring to.

-DU-

It's this one: http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2008/09/luskin-and-the-2.html
2696 comments (90 pages) before it got cut off.

Mike Elzinga said: At any rate, your paper is great and timely. It appears that the ID/Creationists have been trying to resurrect their “entropy shtick” with a new version called “genetic entropy”.

It seems that information theory has been lined up as the successor to the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, enshrined as the “law of conservation of information (LCI / information can only arise from intelligence)”. Most try to just imply it and not come right out and say it – unlike the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, the LCI doesn’t have enough substance to mangle.

— iml8

SB said: Who want to explain to me what "Entanglement" is?

But that aside, I’ve yet to hear of any evidence that abiogenesis required something outside of known physics and chemistry.

— Henry J

"Survival of the fittest" is a cornerstone of hack popularizations of evolution. We thus learn something of your sources. It is also popular with those seeking to rationalize ruthless behavior, or to associate such behavior with Darwin, and thus discredit him.
Evolutionary theory as understood by scientists is more concerned with reproductive success. There is some advantage to longer life spans in this regard, but not as much as you might think. First animals don't die of old age that often in nature. Predation, disease, starvation and other hazards kill most animals before they get a chance to get old. A mouse with the capability to live to 100 doesn't get much advantage out of it if has only a trivial chance of going two years without getting eaten. Second, there are tradeoffs. Resources have to be expended in longer life spans. If the "investment" doesn't pay off in greater reproductive success, it won't be selected for.

I suspect that I have a significantly weaker understanding of physics than most of the commenters on this thread. So I will take a shot at entanglement.

Electrons have a property called spin, which can be either "up" or "down". Two electrons sharing an orbit* around an atom cannot have the same spin. Separate a pair to some distance apart and a change in the spin of one will instantly(?) change the spin of the other.




* I know they are really more like clouds whose shape and extent reflect the probability of a particular electron being in a particular spot. Something like that. :)

SB said: One example, survivle of the fittest is a foundation stone in evolution. The better the organism is at surviving the better the chances of survivel. Longevity fits into that equation, the longer the organism survives the more chances it has to procreate.

Science Avenger said: .... Oh, BTW troll: 1) one does not assign empirical values, one measures them. One assigns arbitrary values. ....

Prediction: having explained what entanglement is, you will now be asked to provide causation, eg: What is "spin" and why does it cause entanglement? Or some such. And if you explain that, you will be asked for yet more ultimate causes, and so on. If, in this process, you reach the boundaries of knowledge, the troll will smirk and declare itself the winner. Notice that this requires almost no effort on its part, while subjecting you to ever-increasing amounts of hard work. It also has the joy of knowing that you are doing its will, which provides it with much gratification and validation. Trolls just love this stuff.

Trolls long ago learned the lesson that every three-year-old learns - that you can keep on asking "why?" forever, and that it's a good game. They have not learned the lesson that most adolescents learn before they cross the boundary into adulthood - that knowing something doesn't mean knowing either everything or nothing, that any real knowledge is valid and valuable in itself, and that not being able to explain everything does not invalidate the explanations we actually have.

SFB a.k.a. SB said:

eric said:

SFB a.k.a. SB said: I do have a problem when valid empirical science is suppressed or ignored resulting in making a viable scientific theory bad. There is additional theoretical evidence (indirectly) giving support ID, how are you with the string theory?

I'm with David - please, enlighten us. We are waiting with bated breath for your exposition of what science is being suppressed, and how string theory supports design. I assume the latter with be math-lite, as you have so far been unable even to solve for dS to support your contentions, so string theory is a foregone conclusion.

By suppressed I'm referring to data bias in publish papers omitting contradicting data (bad science)in order to get publish by politically motivated money. Anyone who says it is not happening is naive or untruthful. One example, survivle of the fittest is a foundation stone in evolution. The better the organism is at surviving the better the chances of survivel. Longevity fits into that equation, the longer the organism survives the more chances it has to procreate. So by pure logic life expectancies should show a trend of increasing over time. That evidence is not there, along with a multitude of other evolutionary anomalies (The Hobbit?)Denying or omitting these anomalies in a published paper is data bias and suppression. Who want to explain to me what "Entanglement" is?

David Utidjian said: SFB? I did a search for SFB and got no hits. I must have missed the thread Wayne was referring to. -DU-

Notice that this requires almost no effort on its part, while subjecting you to ever-increasing amounts of hard work. It also has the joy of knowing that you are doing its will, which provides it with much gratification and validation. Trolls just love this stuff.

— Dave Luckett

"Survival of the fittest" is of course an oversimplification.

A more accurate phrase would be something like differential reproductive success among genetic variations within populations.

Then add to that that there are various ways that genetic variation can get produced in a population (mutations of various types, recombination, horizontal transfer, hybridization, plus any others that I may have missed).

Henry

As you probably know this post was cross posted at Pharyngula. Anyway there is a YECer troll commenting for few hours every day starting at comment #507, and oh boy, he's a live one.

As regards to SB = SFB. It seems to me to be about even money. On the one hand there is his casual disregard for English, his confident but slightly off use of technical terms, the way he is simultaneously hostile to, yet seeking the validation of, science, his unsubstantiated claims of superior knowledge, his refusal to back up any of his claims with math or anything else, etc. On the other hand he is more verbose than SFB, there isn't the usual long stream of one line comments, he hasn't threatened to report this site to the net nannys, he hasn't copypasted long comments in their entirety only to append a one line nonsense rebuttal and he seems to know a little bit more than SFB. One possibility is that it is SFB and that he is making an effort to change his MO. Another is that he is a different person with many quirks in common with SFB.

missed it? That’s like saying “I must have missed the nuclear bomb going off outside of my house” :P

tresmal said: "Survival of the fittest" is a cornerstone of hack popularizations of evolution. We thus learn something of your sources. It is also popular with those seeking to rationalize ruthless behavior, or to associate such behavior with Darwin, and thus discredit him.

eric said: Though as Henry noted, we've come up with better definitions of natural selection in the last 150 years. So when a poster refers back to Darwin's original ideas rather than what is currently taught, it's a fairly good indication that you're dealing with a Creationist rather than an innocent lurker.

When Darwin said "survival of the fittest", did he indicate that he was referring to individuals or to varieties within the population? My understanding of current theory is that "survival of the fittest varieties" might not be too far off from "differential reproductive success", although the latter seems more precise.

Henry

tresmal said: As you probably know this post was cross posted at Pharyngula.

It's not strictly right, as you point out, as he's trying to give the creationists every benefit. But there is a problem in identifying the "reduction in the number of microstates" from one generation to another, because it's not precisely the same degrees of freedom being re-arranged. I wonder if it's possible to fix that part up just a bit. (You'd get the same conclusion, obviously.)

— Sean Carroll

Henry J said: When Darwin said "survival of the fittest", did he indicate that he was referring to individuals or to varieties within the population? My understanding of current theory is that "survival of the fittest varieties" might not be too far off from "differential reproductive success", although the latter seems more precise.

Again, it may be asked, how is it that varieties, which I have called incipient species, become ultimately converted into good and distinct species, which in most cases obviously differ from each other far more than do the varieties of the same species? How do those groups of species, which constitute what are called distinct genera and which differ from each other more than do the species of the same genus, arise? All these results, as we shall more fully see in the next chapter, follow from the struggle for life. Owing to this struggle, variations, however slight and from whatever cause proceeding, if they be in any degree profitable to the individuals of a species, in their infinitely complex relations to other organic beings and to their physical conditions of life, will tend to the preservation of such individuals, and will generally be inherited by the offspring. The offspring, also, will thus have a better chance of surviving, for, of the many individuals of any species which are periodically born, but a small number can survive. I have called this principle, by which each slight variation, if useful, is preserved, by the term natural selection, in order to mark its relation to man's power of selection. But the expression often used by Mr. Herbert Spencer, of the Survival of the Fittest, is more accurate, and is sometimes equally convenient. We have seen that man by selection can certainly produce great results, and can adapt organic beings to his own uses, through the accumulation of slight but useful variations, given to him by the hand of Nature. But Natural Selection, we shall hereafter see, is a power incessantly ready for action, and is as immeasurably superior to man's feeble efforts, as the works of Nature are to those of Art. Charles Darwin, On the Origin of Species, Chapter III

What does complexity or order have to do with the existence of what we call life in a collection of organic molecules? Are we on the wrong set of concepts in trying to figure out how abiogenesis occurred?

Not to nitpick, but I believe it was Spencer not Darwin who came up the phrase "survival of the fittest".

Henry J said: ...changes in entropy related to evolution are a tiny fraction of those related to mere growth...

The problem there would be separating the entropy increase of beneficial mutations from those of neutral or detrimental ones. Off the top of my head, I'm guessing that there isn't any significant correlation between benefit/detriment and affect on entropy for the various types of mutations.

Henry

Henry J said: The problem there would be separating the entropy increase of beneficial mutations from those of neutral or detrimental ones. Off the top of my head, I'm guessing that there isn't any significant correlation between benefit/detriment and affect on entropy for the various types of mutations. Henry

Henry J said: The problem there would be separating the entropy increase of beneficial mutations from those of neutral or detrimental ones.

eric said:

Henry J said: The problem there would be separating the entropy increase of beneficial mutations from those of neutral or detrimental ones.

That's not the problem, that's the point! The entropy associated with the (e.g.) GTG -> GAG substitution will be the same regardless of the ultimate fitness value that mutation brings to the organism. The molecular properties of the system determine whether the substitution is kinetically and termodynamically possible; not how that system will be used in future development. This is what makes the creationist argument such complete, utter rubbish.

Henry J said: When Darwin said "survival of the fittest", did he indicate that he was referring to individuals or to varieties within the population?

eric said:

Henry J said: ...changes in entropy related to evolution are a tiny fraction of those related to mere growth...

Good idea for a follow-up calculation! How does the entropy associated with an "information adding" point mutation compare to the entropy associated with developing a single cell into a mature human? According to creationists, the former is not allowed by the 2LOT but the latter is. So the entropy of the former must be more negative than the latter. I bet its not.

Not to further muddy the waters, but that isn’t really the typical creationist argument. Theirs is even sillier than that.

— Sylvilagus

Mike Elzinga said: Henry was saying that, off the top of his head, he suspects there may be little correlation between the entropy increases associated with growth and development from a specific initial state to any of the various possible specific outcomes of this growth and development in a contingent environment (with selection). I believe that is also what you were alluding to; am I correct?

Eric wrote:

"At the risk of using technical terms inappropriately, one way of phrasing the creationist’s error is to say that they don’t understand that state functions are path-independent."

Exactly. That makes creationist arguments nothing more than begging the question. For example, if you claim that "there are no beneficial mutations", then logically an intelligence is required. After all, when mutations arise they may be deleterious, but if the environment changes they may become beneficial. That means than in order for no beneficial mutations to occur, an intelligence must anticipate all possible environmental changes and for some reason prevent any changes that could ever become beneficial. There you go, all you have to do is assmue that your assumption is correct and the entire game is over.

Of course, if mutations occur randomly with respect to the needs of the organism, then no intelligence whatsoever is required and some mutations can be beneficial, whether the environment changes or not. That is exactly what the evidence shows.

Why is this so difficult for creationists to understand? How could anyone possibly think that "genetic entropy" prevents mutations form arising because they might be beneficial in some future environment? How could anyone believe in "conservation of information" when there is information in the observed allele frequencies that are produced by random mutation and natural selection? How could anyone believe in a God who willfully allowed deleterious mutations but scrupulously prevented any possible beneficial mutations? Now that would violate every known law.

DS said: How could anyone believe in a God who willfully allowed deleterious mutations but scrupulously prevented any possible beneficial mutations? Now that would violate every known law.

Who? :-)

Maybe it's like on that Jack Benny radio show - he's thinking, he's thinking?

Henry J said: Maybe it's like on that Jack Benny radio show - he's thinking, he's thinking?

"Your money, or your life!" *long pause* "Listen, your money, or your life!" "I'm thinking it over!"

SWT said: For all I know, some creationists might attribute the second law itself to the Fall; ...

SWT wrote:

"BTW, has anyone else noticed the silence from SB?"

Well, once it was outed there really wasn't any point in trying to argue endlessly with experts about things it knew nothing about. Sooner or later someone would have pointed out that it still hadn't read the paper.

I know, why don't we have a contest to guess the name of it's next reincarnation. I've got dibs on BS, even if that is a little obvious. How about BFS?

Daniel Styer seems to fall into the old creationist trap whereby he lets the creationists define all the terms. A very similar CREATIONIST argument is to be found here: http://www.ldolphin.org/mystery/chapt8.html

The creationist response to Daniel Styer's argument would be: "You have proved that evolution results in a decrease in entropy but you fail to explain the mechanism by which the undirected energy from the sun causes the precise molecular changes required to produce evolution and thus this decrease in entropy"

The problem goes back to the 19th century. Classical thermodynamics tells little about the behaviour of systems on an atomic scale - Boltzmann could not even prove that atoms existed. Unfortunately this has led to all sorts of nonsensical descriptions of the nature of 'entropy' - untidy desks and such-like. This has provided creationists with their background material - it is noticeable that Henry Morris himself cites no higher authority than Isaac Asimov.

'Entropy' is a term having a precise mathematical definition in physics. Its units are J/K - Energy and Temperature - nothing else. Hand-waving and talking about 'complexity' has nothing to do with it - it all comes down to hard physical terms.

Looking at Daniel Styer's calculation, the result -302 J/K. Where does the minus sign come from? If the creature evolved from its latter state into it former one, would that be changed to plus? He just seems to be playing the creationist game - more 'complexity' = less 'entropy'. He even drags in the term 'microstate', however completely misusing it.

Sometime, I would like to write a book about this - both creationists and their opponents are such a rich source of material.

Daniel Styer seems to fall into the old creationist trap whereby he lets the creationists define all the terms.

— Alan Barnard

The creationist response to Daniel Styer’s argument would be: “You have proved that evolution results in a decrease in entropy but you fail to explain the mechanism by which the undirected energy from the sun causes the precise molecular changes required to produce evolution and thus this decrease in entropy”

PZ Myers' and Styer's articles are being debated at the popular (1.1M posts) religious forum at:
http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=53199

It's gettin' feisty!

-Pastor Bob Enyart
KGOV.com

Bob Enyart said: PZ Myers' and Styer's articles are being debated at the popular (1.1M posts) religious forum at: http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=53199 It's gettin' feisty! -Pastor Bob Enyart KGOV.com

The creationist response to Daniel Styer’s argument would be: “You have proved that evolution results in a decrease in entropy but you fail to explain the mechanism by which the undirected energy from the sun causes the precise molecular changes required to produce evolution and thus this decrease in entropy”

Obviously this would be another misrepresentation by the creationists.

I have no access to Daniel Styer’s paper at the moment so I can only go by PZ’s extracts from it, but, if PZ has rightly represented it, I would say that it is complete nonsense of the same order as the chapter from the book on idolphin.org

— Alan Barnard

The creationist response to Daniel Styer’s argument would be: “You have proved that evolution results in a decrease in entropy but you fail to explain the mechanism by which the undirected energy from the sun causes the precise molecular changes required to produce evolution and thus this decrease in entropy”

But does evolution produce a positive or a negative change in entropy? Daniel Styer has arranged his calculations to force a negative result …

But does the theory of evolution have a direction? Is it devolution when the whale lost its legs? Did entropy increase on that day? I think not - but then I think that his calculations are not based on sound physics.

Unfortunately it is impossible to argue with the creationist because he would rather accept Henry Morris as the word of God than the realities of science. We have a Professor of Thermodynamics (not far from where I write) who actually believes this creationist nonsense about the second law …

I will have to wait until I am fit to return to school (work) and look up the article for myself.

Note to self:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1119/1.2973046

Clearly I am completely underestimating Dan.

David Fickett-Wilbar said: What I don't understand is what is meant by something having more entropy than something else. The oil and water example wouldn't have impressed me for this reason. Is there an easy way to explain it to me so I can explain it easily to others?

Entropy measures the amount of energy in a system that is not available to do work. Keep this in mind. Creationists get this wrong because they neglect to find out what entropy defines.

— khoa