Biological Evolution and the Second Law of Thermodynamics

How should we think about weird things?
User avatar
scrmbldggs
Real Skeptic
Posts: 25645
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Custom Title: something
Location: somewhere

Re: Biological Evolution and the Second Law of Thermodynamic

Post by scrmbldggs » Thu May 21, 2015 5:24 am

davidroemer wrote:A pendulum, however, is a mental being.

So is a keyboard. And some are nuttier than others.
.
Lard, save me from your followers.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10898
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm

Re: Biological Evolution and the Second Law of Thermodynamic

Post by xouper » Thu May 21, 2015 5:27 am

Imagine my surprise that David is still complaining that a 747 has no temperature.

davidroemer wrote:If there is a pendulum in your room, you can point to it and say, "The temperature of that object is 73 degrees or whatever room temperature is." A pendulum, however, is a mental being. The bob is a point mass and the string has no weight. A pendulum is a mental construct and exists only in the minds of physicists. It has no temperature.

If I am interpreting the above correctly, it appears David is mistaking the "concept of an object" with the object itself. The map is not the terrain, etc. If so, then (to me) it seems pointless to argue that the concept of an object has no temperature. Such an argument does not refute the fact that the object itself has a temperature. So what really is going on here?

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Real Skeptic
Posts: 25645
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Custom Title: something
Location: somewhere

Re: Biological Evolution and the Second Law of Thermodynamic

Post by scrmbldggs » Thu May 21, 2015 5:57 am

Too much of this? :-P
.
Lard, save me from your followers.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 29565
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Biological Evolution and the Second Law of Thermodynamic

Post by Matthew Ellard » Thu May 21, 2015 6:22 am

xouper wrote: So what really is going on here?


I think he is a fundamental Christian pretending to be "logical and scientific". He has to keep dwelling on this topic because it is the only thing he can talk about that sounds scientific.

We should set him a task, as he is a physics expert, and get him to argue with Stephen the Christ concerning his theory that the earth is concave and that "light has special properties". Let's see how two religious people argue about science. It should be a lot of fun to watch.

Steve the Christ ( The real Jesus) "Concave world" thread on this forum.
viewtopic.php?p=462763#p462763
Extreme_Event_Thumb_poster.jpg
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

User avatar
Gord
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 33780
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Silent Ork
Location: Transcona

Re: Biological Evolution and the Second Law of Thermodynamic

Post by Gord » Thu May 21, 2015 9:15 am

davidroemer wrote:...A pendulum is a mental construct and exists only in the minds of physicists. It has no temperature.

The author of the AJP article understands this. In the beginning of the article he states,
Disorder is a metaphor for entropy, not a definition.” What makes the article absurd is that he forgets this truth and goes on to perform a calculation of the change in the entropy of organisms on Earth.

You think that quote means the author of the article doesn't think a pendulum is an actual object?

A pendulum is a physical object, like a watch or a Boeing 747. They all have temperatures.

As xouper says, you're mistaking the "concept of an object" with the object itself.

But even more confusing than that, a concept is a mental thing which occurs in the brain and also has a temperature. So even there, you're wrong.

I'm using a pendulum because it is a machine like a watch. Did you ever hear of the watchmaker proof of God's existence? The argument makes no sense at all, but atheists and agnostics don't quite understand why. Their answer is that eventually science will explain the origin of life and evolution.

Science does not need to explain the origin of life and evolution before we can argue against the teleological argument.

But when you tell an atheist or agnostic evolution violates a law of physics they go bonkers with anxiety.

I think you're projecting your own emotions onto others.

They are afraid to say the law does not apply. They feel obligated to say, "The law of physics is not violated."

"The law does not apply" and "the law is not violated" mean the same thing in this argument. Consider the following example: A man is walking down the street and his stops to tie his shoelace. Someone proclaims he is littering by bending over. In response, one person says "that law does not apply" and another person says "that law is not being violated". They both mean the same thing.
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"Imagine an ennobling of what could be" -- the New Age BS Generator site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE
Is Trump in jail yet?

davidroemer
BANNED
Posts: 221
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2009 2:28 pm
Location: Brooklyn, NY

Re: Biological Evolution and the Second Law of Thermodynamic

Post by davidroemer » Thu May 21, 2015 10:48 am

Another reason I believe in life after death is that very few atheists and agnostics discuss religion reasonably. This quote is from an atheist who does discuss religion intelligently, rationally, and honestly. If all atheists were like him, I would lose my faith:

Thus the passion of man is the reverse of that of Christ, for man loses himself as man in order that God may be born. But the idea of God is contradictory and we lose ourselves in vain. Man is a useless passion. (Jean-Paul Sartre, Being and Nothingness: A Phenomenological Essay on Ontology, New York: Washington Square Press, p. 784)
David Roemer

User avatar
Poodle
True Skeptic
Posts: 10165
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:12 pm
Custom Title: Regular sleeper
Location: NE corner of my living room

Re: Biological Evolution and the Second Law of Thermodynamic

Post by Poodle » Thu May 21, 2015 12:21 pm

The reason I'm agnostic is that I find nothing in religion except primitive world views followed by political control. Why should I discuss such things reasonably?

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Real Skeptic
Posts: 25645
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Custom Title: something
Location: somewhere

Re: Biological Evolution and the Second Law of Thermodynamic

Post by scrmbldggs » Thu May 21, 2015 3:02 pm

davidroemer wrote:Another reason I believe in life after death is that very few atheists and agnostics discuss religion reasonably...

Is he blaming his unfounded beliefs on those others?

And it seems he has to make the mundane either special or threatening. Otherwise that baby he believes in was not a miracle but just another one that soiled it's diapers, grew up and simply led yet another human life...
.
Lard, save me from your followers.

User avatar
Austin Harper
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5363
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 2:22 pm
Custom Title: Rock Chalk Astrohawk
Location: Detroit

Re: Biological Evolution and the Second Law of Thermodynamic

Post by Austin Harper » Thu May 21, 2015 8:41 pm

The zeroth law of thermodynamics states that if two thermodynamic systems are each in thermal equilibrium with a third, then all three are in thermal equilibrium with each other. It does not say that you measure temperature with a thermometer. Why would you try to pass off something as stupid as that?

A 747 does have a temperature but
Wikipedia wrote:Temperature
The kinetic theory offers a valuable but limited account of the behavior of the materials of macroscopic systems. It indicates the absolute temperature as proportional to the average kinetic energy of the random microscopic motions of their constituent microscopic particles such as electrons, atoms, and molecules.
Dum ratio nos ducet, valebimus et multa bene geremus.

davidroemer
BANNED
Posts: 221
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2009 2:28 pm
Location: Brooklyn, NY

Re: Biological Evolution and the Second Law of Thermodynamic

Post by davidroemer » Thu May 21, 2015 8:55 pm

Nobody is laughing at me. Professor Richardson of NYU insulted me by saying I could not afford to pay his consulting fees. Yvette Clarke (D-NY, 9th District) is refusing to tell me what she did with the documents I sent her. Ami Bera (D-CA, 7th District) is refusing to cancel an appointment his staff member made to see me. Beth Cunningham of the AAPT sent me an email refusing to meet with me. The AJP refused to tell the author of the article about my correction of his calculation. No one laughs when they get my email and fax explaining why the AJP article is absurd. No one laughs when they read my article at Creationwiki.org on Pseudoscience in the American Journal of Physics.
David Roemer

User avatar
Austin Harper
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5363
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 2:22 pm
Custom Title: Rock Chalk Astrohawk
Location: Detroit

Re: Biological Evolution and the Second Law of Thermodynamic

Post by Austin Harper » Thu May 21, 2015 9:35 pm

It seems like you just listed a bunch of people who are laughing at you.
Dum ratio nos ducet, valebimus et multa bene geremus.

User avatar
Gord
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 33780
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Silent Ork
Location: Transcona

Re: Biological Evolution and the Second Law of Thermodynamic

Post by Gord » Thu May 21, 2015 10:37 pm

scrmbldggs wrote:
davidroemer wrote:Another reason I believe in life after death is that very few atheists and agnostics discuss religion reasonably...

Is he blaming his unfounded beliefs on those others?

I think so. He seems to be saying "I believe in God because atheists are jerks".

That makes as much sense as saying "I believe in Santa Claus because the clerk at the store was mean to me".

Austin Harper wrote:It seems like you just listed a bunch of people who are laughing at you.

The people specifically named may have laughed at some point, but I think they're mostly just annoyed by his pestering. He can't know about the unnamed people, though, so he's just fantasizing -- I mean, hell, I laughed when I read his stuff at creationwiki, but he couldn't have known about it.
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"Imagine an ennobling of what could be" -- the New Age BS Generator site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE
Is Trump in jail yet?

querious
New Member
Posts: 7
Joined: Fri May 15, 2015 8:53 pm

Re: Biological Evolution and the Second Law of Thermodynamic

Post by querious » Fri May 22, 2015 12:12 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:
davidroemer wrote:As to my being irrational because I believe in life after death, I admit it.


1) Jesus died for our sins
2) Jesus is alive and in heaven.

Therefore Jesus didn't die and the whole Christian faith system doesn't make any sense.


For me the insanity of Christianity is it being based on the ancient idea that we have to sacrifice something to appease the gods, whether it be throwing virgins into a volcano, burning some livestock, etc.

It boggles my mind that modern people can swallow it. And I speak as someone who was raised to believe it.

User avatar
Poodle
True Skeptic
Posts: 10165
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:12 pm
Custom Title: Regular sleeper
Location: NE corner of my living room

Re: Biological Evolution and the Second Law of Thermodynamic

Post by Poodle » Fri May 22, 2015 12:22 am

querious wrote:... whether it be throwing virgins into a volcano, burning some livestock, etc.


Waste of a perfectly good virgin.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 29565
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Biological Evolution and the Second Law of Thermodynamic

Post by Matthew Ellard » Fri May 22, 2015 12:40 am

querious wrote:For me the insanity of Christianity is it being based on the ancient idea that we have to sacrifice something to appease the gods, whether it be throwing virgins into a volcano, burning some livestock, etc.

It boggles my mind that modern people can swallow it. And I speak as someone who was raised to believe it.


It is insanity, however I believe sacrifice is hard wired into our heads under the general scope of "Equity theory" in psychology.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equity_theory

If I spill salt, I throw some over my shoulder, as giving some away must bring back something good. Neanderthals buried Neanderthals with flowers 80,000 year ago because if they made this effort it must bring back something good. If I kill the son of God who was meant to save me, then that must bring back something good

Religious people just can't control their primitive psychological legacies. They simply aren't able to apply modern scientific logic. We should feel sorry for them, but keep primitive religious people at a distance or they will slow down human social evolution.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 29565
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

We have a 100% religious crank here.

Post by Matthew Ellard » Fri May 22, 2015 12:52 am

David Roemer is a 100% crank with no science background. I have been digging into his past.

The only theory that even attempts to explain evolution is the theory of intelligent design (ID). Advocates of ID compare this theory with natural selection to make ID look more rational than it is. ID is an irrational theory because there is no evidence for it. Atheists go along with this scam because they don’t want to admit that ID is a better theory than natural selection, in some sense.

Evolution is connected to religion, and religion causes conflict between people. Conflict produces anxiety, and inhibition is a defense mechanism for anxiety. When it comes to evolution, people are inhibited from thinking rationally and intelligently and behaving properly.

Evolutionary biologists always speak of “adaptive evolution.” An old model for evolution was a tornado hitting a junkyard and producing a Boeing 747 in flight. The new model is a computer generating an English sonnet by the random selection of letters.

David Roemer.


Letter to the editor in response to ‘How to argue against evolutionists, by David Roemer
http://www.technicianonline.com/opinion ... mment-area

Debunking of Fault's in David Roemer's letter to the editor.
https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.co ... t-appears/

davidroemer
BANNED
Posts: 221
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2009 2:28 pm
Location: Brooklyn, NY

Re: Biological Evolution and the Second Law of Thermodynamics

Post by davidroemer » Fri May 22, 2015 11:45 pm

Since everyone here prefers discussing religion, rather than whether or not a pendulum has a temperature, I'll give you a short lesson on faith:
1) There are two good arguments for God's existence.
2) Whether or not God exists is only relevant if you are considering whether or not to believe in life after death.
3) There is no evidence of life after death.
4) I believe in life after death because all religions say there is.
5) Another reason I believe is that people who think life ends in the grave either don't know or don't understand the arguments for God's existence. The best argument is called the cosmological argument, but it has nothing to do with the Big Bang, fine tuning, and the origin of life.
David Roemer

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Real Skeptic
Posts: 25645
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Custom Title: something
Location: somewhere

Re: Biological Evolution and the Second Law of Thermodynamics

Post by scrmbldggs » Fri May 22, 2015 11:51 pm

Have you ever held a pendulum?
.
Lard, save me from your followers.

User avatar
Gord
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 33780
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Silent Ork
Location: Transcona

Re: Biological Evolution and the Second Law of Thermodynamics

Post by Gord » Sat May 23, 2015 12:10 am

davidroemer wrote:... people who think life ends in the grave either don't know or don't understand the arguments for God's existence. The best argument is called the cosmological argument, but it has nothing to do with the Big Bang, fine tuning, and the origin of life.

Nnnnno! :nownow: The argument of first cause simply moves the goalposts. It says, "there must have been a first cause, therefore it's God", but this is only true if (among other things) a) there must have been a first cause, b) God can exist without having a first cause, and c) only God can exist without having a first cause. None of those can be shown to be true.

I also don't believe that life "ends in the grave". Most things that die don't have graves.
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"Imagine an ennobling of what could be" -- the New Age BS Generator site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE
Is Trump in jail yet?

davidroemer
BANNED
Posts: 221
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2009 2:28 pm
Location: Brooklyn, NY

Re: Biological Evolution and the Second Law of Thermodynamics

Post by davidroemer » Sat May 23, 2015 12:31 am

The cosmological argument is based on the observation that humans have free will. This means humans are finite beings. Since finite beings need a cause, there has to be an infinite being. It has nothing to do with "first causes." Thomas Aquinas was wrong, but he was corrected by Etienne Gilson in the 1920s.
David Roemer

User avatar
Poodle
True Skeptic
Posts: 10165
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:12 pm
Custom Title: Regular sleeper
Location: NE corner of my living room

Re: Biological Evolution and the Second Law of Thermodynamics

Post by Poodle » Sat May 23, 2015 12:42 am

Which cosmological argument are you reading? All the versions I can find demand a first cause.

davidroemer
BANNED
Posts: 221
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2009 2:28 pm
Location: Brooklyn, NY

Re: Biological Evolution and the Second Law of Thermodynamics

Post by davidroemer » Sat May 23, 2015 12:53 am

The argument is explained in the "One and the Many" by Norris Clarke, S.J., who was my metaphysics teacher in college in 1963.
David Roemer

User avatar
Poodle
True Skeptic
Posts: 10165
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:12 pm
Custom Title: Regular sleeper
Location: NE corner of my living room

Re: Biological Evolution and the Second Law of Thermodynamics

Post by Poodle » Sat May 23, 2015 2:33 am

Nice for Norris, but I'm not about to rush out and buy his book. How about YOU explain which version of the cosmological argument does NOT involve a first cause?

User avatar
Austin Harper
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5363
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 2:22 pm
Custom Title: Rock Chalk Astrohawk
Location: Detroit

Re: Biological Evolution and the Second Law of Thermodynamics

Post by Austin Harper » Sat May 23, 2015 3:22 am

davidroemer wrote:Since everyone here prefers discussing religion, rather than whether or not a pendulum has a temperature

I explained the temperature question. You didn't like getting an answer because you were trying to stump us so you ignored it.
Dum ratio nos ducet, valebimus et multa bene geremus.

davidroemer
BANNED
Posts: 221
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2009 2:28 pm
Location: Brooklyn, NY

Re: Biological Evolution and the Second Law of Thermodynamics

Post by davidroemer » Sat May 23, 2015 3:19 pm

The cosmological argument is based on the observation that humans have free will. This means humans possess a center of action that makes them unified with respect to themselves and different from other humans. According to the metaphysics of Thomas Aquinas, humans are a composition of the metaphysical principles or incomplete beings called *essence* and *existence*. A finite being's essence limits its existence. An infinite being is a pure act of existence. A finite being needs a cause, just like a being that begins to exist at some point in time needs a cause. An infinite being can be the reason for its own existence. A finite being is contingent and an infinite being is self-sufficient.

If all beings needed a cause, the universe would not be intelligible. Hence, an infinite being must exist. You can have an infinite causal chain of contingent beings, but an infinite being must exist outside of the chain and give the chain its existence.

I would like to get back to the question of whether or not a pendulum has a temperature. The bob has a temperature and the string has a temperature. But to speak of the temperature of a pendulum is nuts. Consider the difference between a stack of paper napkins and a deck of playing cards. If I let you get away with saying the deck of playing cards has a temperature, you will wind up saying that the entropy of the playing cards is related to 52 factorial. This is how stupid the AJP article is.
David Roemer

User avatar
Poodle
True Skeptic
Posts: 10165
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:12 pm
Custom Title: Regular sleeper
Location: NE corner of my living room

Re: Biological Evolution and the Second Law of Thermodynamics

Post by Poodle » Sat May 23, 2015 3:39 pm

davidroemer wrote:The cosmological argument is based on the observation that humans have free will. This means humans possess a center of action that makes them unified with respect to themselves and different from other humans. According to the metaphysics of Thomas Aquinas, humans are a composition of the metaphysical principles or incomplete beings called *essence* and *existence*. A finite being's essence limits its existence. An infinite being is a pure act of existence. A finite being needs a cause, just like a being that begins to exist at some point in time needs a cause. An infinite being can be the reason for its own existence. A finite being is contingent and an infinite being is self-sufficient.

If all beings needed a cause, the universe would not be intelligible. Hence, an infinite being must exist. You can have an infinite causal chain of contingent beings, but an infinite being must exist outside of the chain and give the chain its existence.


So the argument hinges on first cause.

davidroemer wrote:I would like to get back to the question of whether or not a pendulum has a temperature. The bob has a temperature and the string has a temperature. But to speak of the temperature of a pendulum is nuts. Consider the difference between a stack of paper napkins and a deck of playing cards. If I let you get away with saying the deck of playing cards has a temperature, you will wind up saying that the entropy of the playing cards is related to 52 factorial. This is how stupid the AJP article is.


What a pile of horseshit. The string temperature at any point on its length depends upon the temperature gradient across its ends ... so, by applying your argument, it follows that the string doesn't have a temperature. Nor, for similar reasons, does the bob. Your argument states, quite obviously, that nothing in the entire universe has a temperature. Would you care to reconsider?

davidroemer
BANNED
Posts: 221
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2009 2:28 pm
Location: Brooklyn, NY

Re: Biological Evolution and the Second Law of Thermodynamics

Post by davidroemer » Sat May 23, 2015 4:10 pm

Calling God the "first cause" is nonsense because it just raises the question of what caused the "first cause." Saying an infinite being exists because finite beings exist is not nonsense. It is perfectly reasonable to say human beings need a cause, but a pure act of existence can be the reason for its own existence.

What about a deck of playing cards? Does it have a temperature? If it does, then it has an entropy. Is the entropy of a shuffled deck greater than the entropy of a deck right out of the package?
David Roemer

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10898
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm

Re: Biological Evolution and the Second Law of Thermodynamics

Post by xouper » Sat May 23, 2015 6:00 pm

davidroemer wrote:What about a deck of playing cards? Does it have a temperature? If it does, then it has an entropy. Is the entropy of a shuffled deck greater than the entropy of a deck right out of the package?

Wow, talk about confusing macro and micro.

The order of the cards has no relationship to the temperature of each card. And the temperature of the deck is simply the average of the temperatures of each card.

davidroemer
BANNED
Posts: 221
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2009 2:28 pm
Location: Brooklyn, NY

Re: Biological Evolution and the Second Law of Thermodynamics

Post by davidroemer » Sat May 23, 2015 6:52 pm

It is a mistake, but an intelligible one, to say evolution violates the second law. It is pro-religion pseudoscience. The American Journal of Physics article is unintelligible and absurd. This is a link to the article:
http://www.fisica.net/epistemologia/STYER_Entropy_and_Evolution.pdf

This is a quote from the article:
What is the change in the entropy of living things on Earth due to evolution?Suppose that, due to evolution, each individual organism is 1000 times “more improbable” than the corresponding individual was 100 years ago.


Do you understand now? The author of the article is confusing a sugar cube with a protein. According to the second law, a sugar cube will dissolve in a cup of coffee. But physicists can calculate the probability that sugar will un-dissolve. It is a very small probability.

In trying to understand where proteins come from, biologists calculate the probability of getting a protein from the random selection of amino acids. There are 20 amino acids and proteins contain hundreds of amino acids. The probability is very small.

But these are two different probability calculations. There is nothing improbable about proteins because they exist. There is a real chance that sugar will un-dissolve in a cup of coffee. Also, for sugar the probability has to do with the location of the sugar molecules in 3-dimensional space. For proteins, the probability has to do with which amino acid is next to which.
David Roemer

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Real Skeptic
Posts: 25645
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Custom Title: something
Location: somewhere

Re: Biological Evolution and the Second Law of Thermodynamics

Post by scrmbldggs » Sat May 23, 2015 8:25 pm

davidroemer wrote:...I would like to get back to the question of whether or not a pendulum has a temperature. The bob has a temperature and the string has a temperature. But to speak of the temperature of a pendulum is nuts.

Have you ever seen a brass pendulum?




Just in case the metaphysicist hasn't: like these, or Bearwood: All of our pendulum movements come with brass pendulum rod and bobs. The solid brass rods adjust down...
.
Lard, save me from your followers.

User avatar
Gord
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 33780
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Silent Ork
Location: Transcona

Re: Biological Evolution and the Second Law of Thermodynamics

Post by Gord » Sat May 23, 2015 11:38 pm

davidroemer wrote:Saying an infinite being exists because finite beings exist is not nonsense.

Yes it is. It's like saying God exists because apples exist. It's nonsense.
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"Imagine an ennobling of what could be" -- the New Age BS Generator site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE
Is Trump in jail yet?

User avatar
Gord
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 33780
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Silent Ork
Location: Transcona

Re: Biological Evolution and the Second Law of Thermodynamics

Post by Gord » Sun May 24, 2015 12:17 am

davidroemer wrote:This is a quote from the article:
What is the change in the entropy of living things on Earth due to evolution?Suppose that, due to evolution, each individual organism is 1000 times “more improbable” than the corresponding individual was 100 years ago.

Next sentence:

In other words, if Ωi is the number of microstates consistent with the specification of an organism 100 years ago, and Ωf is the number of microstates consistent with the specification of today's "improved and less probable" organism, then

Ωi = 10-3 Ωf.

He's defining things in terms to be used in Boltzmann's equation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boltzmann' ... py_formula

In statistical mechanics, Boltzmann's equation is a probability equation relating the entropy S of an ideal gas to the quantity W, which is the number of microstates corresponding to a given macrostate

The idea is that increased complexity is expressed as increased improbability.

Your example of shuffling a deck of cards does not add complexity to the deck. The deck remains the same in terms of improbability. It would be the same thing as rearranging the positions of your arms and legs -- it wouldn't change your degree of improbability, you're still just as complex as you were before. To increase the complexity of a deck of cards, you would need to add to it -- more cards, larger cards, something of that sort. I find it puzzling that you don't understand this.
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"Imagine an ennobling of what could be" -- the New Age BS Generator site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE
Is Trump in jail yet?

davidroemer
BANNED
Posts: 221
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2009 2:28 pm
Location: Brooklyn, NY

Re: Biological Evolution and the Second Law of Thermodynamics

Post by davidroemer » Sun May 24, 2015 1:24 am

The primary structure of hemoglobin is complex because it is made up of 600 amino acids and there are 20 different kinds of amino acids. Sickle-cell anemia is caused by one amino acid being being the wrong one. There is nothing improbable about a protein. Proteins exist. Probability has nothing to do with complexity, and evolution does NOT violate the second law. The second law only applies to liquids, solids, and gases.

Suppose you have a gas with 52 molecules in a container which you break up into 52 imaginary compartments. The probability that all of the molecules will ever be all in one compartment is 1/52! Plugging this into the Boltzman equation for entropy will give a very small number for entropy in units of Joules/degrees.

The probability of shuffling a deck of cards and getting the cards in order is also 1/52!. You cannot use this number to calculate the entropy of a deck of playing cards. This is exactly what the AJP article does. It invents a probability for a biological machine and plugs it into the Boltzman equation.

The AJP article is unintelligible because it says the second law is not violated because of the sun. The article is insane because it performs a calculation proving that the second law is not violated.
David Roemer

User avatar
Gord
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 33780
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Silent Ork
Location: Transcona

Re: Biological Evolution and the Second Law of Thermodynamics

Post by Gord » Sun May 24, 2015 4:53 am

davidroemer wrote:Probability has nothing to do with complexity

Yes it does. But even if it doesn't, the creationist argument said it did, and the counter-argument showed that, even if it did, the creationist argument was wrong.

evolution does NOT violate the second law.

We probably all agree on that.

The second law only applies to liquids, solids, and gases.

We don't all agree on that, but regardless: Evolution applies to liquids, solids, and gases as well. Biological evolution is a physical change.

The probability of shuffling a deck of cards and getting the cards in order is also 1/52!. You cannot use this number to calculate the entropy of a deck of playing cards.

I know, I've already explained this to you. Changing the order of the cards does not change the entropy of the deck of cards. However, the 2nd law of thermodynamics is statistical, and can be applied to the arrangement of the cards as well as to the physical deck itself. You can use the 1/52! to determine the disorder of sequence of the deck of cards analogous to the disorder of a physical system.

I think. Hang on, I've confused myself. xouper? poodle? I sprained my brain! I know that entropy applies to the physical structure of the deck, and (at least analogously) to the sequence of the cards, but are they two different things?

This is exactly what the AJP article does. It invents a probability for a biological machine and plugs it into the Boltzman equation.

No it does not. It equates complexity with probability, then shows that an increase in such complexity/improbability does not show that evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

The AJP article is unintelligible because it says the second law is not violated because of the sun.

The AJP article is fine, it's you who appears unintelligible. Evolution does not violate the 2nd law. The change in entropy on the Earth due to evolution proposed by the creationist argument is overwhelmed by the introduction of energy from the Sun.

The article is insane because it performs a calculation proving that the second law is not violated.

The article is not insane. It justifiably performs a calculation proving that the 2nd law is not violated.
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"Imagine an ennobling of what could be" -- the New Age BS Generator site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE
Is Trump in jail yet?

davidroemer
BANNED
Posts: 221
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2009 2:28 pm
Location: Brooklyn, NY

Re: Biological Evolution and the Second Law of Thermodynamics

Post by davidroemer » Sun May 24, 2015 5:22 am

"The change in entropy on the Earth due to evolution proposed by the creationist argument is overwhelmed by the introduction of energy from the Sun."

This is a repetition of what I am saying is unintelligible. You are simply repeating what the peer-reviewed AJP article is saying. Repeating an unintelligible statement does not make it intelligible.

We observe the existence of proteins, which are complex. Creationists say, stupidly, that the existence of proteins means the entropy of the biological system on Earth has decreased. The AJP agrees, equally stupidly, that this is true. The AJP agrees that the entropy of the biological system on earth has decreased. This is all very stupid, but understandable. You can see how an ignorant and stupid person might might think the existence of proteins means entropy has decreased.

But the AJP article goes beyond being stupid and becomes unintelligible. The AJP article says the entropy decrease because of the sun. This makes no sense at all. The sun heats things up. The sun increases entropy, it does not decrease entropy.
David Roemer

User avatar
Poodle
True Skeptic
Posts: 10165
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:12 pm
Custom Title: Regular sleeper
Location: NE corner of my living room

Re: Biological Evolution and the Second Law of Thermodynamics

Post by Poodle » Sun May 24, 2015 10:29 am

Gord wrote:...I think. Hang on, I've confused myself. xouper? poodle? I sprained my brain! I know that entropy applies to the physical structure of the deck, and (at least analogously) to the sequence of the cards, but are they two different things? ...


Yes and no :lol:

First thing - define the thermodynamic system.

Definition 1 - it's a pack of 52 playing cards.

Definition 2 - it's a pack of 52 playing cards in a specified order.

The boundary of the system remains the same, but shuffling the pack gives different results in terms of disorder. Under definition 1 you can shuffle the pack till the cows come home and make no difference - it remains a pack of 52 playing cards. Under definition 2, although there is a teeny weeny chance of ending up with the same order of cards, the overwhelmingly likely result is increased disorder.

User avatar
Gord
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 33780
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Silent Ork
Location: Transcona

Re: Biological Evolution and the Second Law of Thermodynamics

Post by Gord » Sun May 24, 2015 11:04 am

Thanks, Poo. I really hurt myself on that one, somehow. It feels like I twisted my brain. I'm still not sure I can stand on it yet.

davidroemer wrote:"The change in entropy on the Earth due to evolution proposed by the creationist argument is overwhelmed by the introduction of energy from the Sun."

This is a repetition of what I am saying is unintelligible. You are simply repeating what the peer-reviewed AJP article is saying. Repeating an unintelligible statement does not make it intelligible.

But you and I both understand it, which makes it intelligible. I've expressed it in a different way and you still understood it, so it's been made intelligible twice.
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"Imagine an ennobling of what could be" -- the New Age BS Generator site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE
Is Trump in jail yet?

davidroemer
BANNED
Posts: 221
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2009 2:28 pm
Location: Brooklyn, NY

Re: Biological Evolution and the Second Law of Thermodynamics

Post by davidroemer » Sun May 24, 2015 1:18 pm

I thought of another way of explaining why the AJP article is so absurd. Suppose I am a prophet and want to prove it by performing two miracles. The first miracle is that I cause the temperature of Florida to go from 90 degrees to 80 degrees. In the second miracle, I go to a junkyard and cause all the junk to assemble itself into a jet airplane in flight. In the first miracle, I caused the average kinetic energy of atoms to decrease which means entropy has decreased and this means the second law of thermodynamics has been violated. In the second miracle, there has been no violation of any laws of thermodynamics.
David Roemer

User avatar
Poodle
True Skeptic
Posts: 10165
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:12 pm
Custom Title: Regular sleeper
Location: NE corner of my living room

Re: Biological Evolution and the Second Law of Thermodynamics

Post by Poodle » Sun May 24, 2015 11:55 pm

davidroemer wrote:Calling God the "first cause" is nonsense because it just raises the question of what caused the "first cause." Saying an infinite being exists because finite beings exist is not nonsense ...


Different words, yes - but both of those statements are semantically identical. But you say one is nonsense and other is not. I suggest that you think black is white when you wish it to be.

davidroemer
BANNED
Posts: 221
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2009 2:28 pm
Location: Brooklyn, NY

Re: Biological Evolution and the Second Law of Thermodynamics

Post by davidroemer » Mon May 25, 2015 1:01 am

Saying a finite being needs a cause, hence an infinite being exists is an argument. It is not a proof. But whether or not God exists is only relevant if you are trying to decide whether or not to believe in life after death. But there is no evidence for life after death. I believe in life after death nevertheless because all religions except one teach it. The religion that does not was founded by Machiavelli, Thomas Jefferson, Voltaire, etc. and I consider these characters ignorant, stupid, irrational, and dishonest because they don't understand or pretend they don't understand the argument for God's existence. The following is a quote from an atheists that is not ignorant, stupid, irrational, and dishonest:
Thus the passion of man is the reverse of that of Christ, for man loses himself as man in order that God may be born. But the idea of God is contradictory and we lose ourselves in vain. Man is a useless passion. (Jean-Paul Sartre, Being and Nothingness: A Phenomenological Essay on Ontology, New York: Washington Square Press, p. 784)
David Roemer