Biological Evolution and the Second Law of Thermodynamics

How should we think about weird things?
User avatar
Poodle
True Skeptic
Posts: 10200
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 » Mon May 25, 2015 1:04 am

None of which addresses why you feel that you can make two effectively identical statements and then say that one of them is false.

EDIT: "But whether or not God exists is only relevant if you are trying to decide whether or not to believe in life after death." Says who? It's yet another opinion presented as an axiom. It's wrong.

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 1:45 am

Sartre said it in the above quote. He said we can't be sure God exists because the concept of God is contradictory. Man is a "useless passion" because human beings are trying to get to heaven, but life ends in the grave.
David Roemer

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Real Skeptic
Posts: 25675
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 » Mon May 25, 2015 1:49 am

davidroemer wrote: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.
viewtopic.php?f=16&t=25135&start=40#p463866

That's one of the silliest things I've read lately (well, next to the science of Stevo the Christos).

One can't really sell a religion well or fully without a hope or fear of an afterlife. And because Mr. Roemer likes to believe what he was told - despite a clear lack of evidence - he declares the ones he mentioned "ignorant, stupid, irrational, and dishonest".

I would be quite baffled, if it hadn't been said by a religious believer...
.
Lard, save me from your followers.

User avatar
Gord
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 33816
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 » Mon May 25, 2015 1:52 am

I want to submit evidence that davidroemer cannot be reasoned with: http://network.asa3.org/forums/Posts.as ... 257&page=1

You can't fix this guy, people.
"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
Poodle
True Skeptic
Posts: 10200
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 » Mon May 25, 2015 2:16 am

Gord wrote:I want to submit evidence that davidroemer cannot be reasoned with: http://network.asa3.org/forums/Posts.as ... 257&page=1

You can't fix this guy, people.


Oh dear.

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Real Skeptic
Posts: 25675
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 » Mon May 25, 2015 3:02 am

Gord wrote:I want to submit evidence that davidroemer cannot be reasoned with: http://network.asa3.org/forums/Posts.as ... 257&page=1

You can't fix this guy, people.

:blink:


Thanks, Gord.
Last edited by scrmbldggs on Mon May 25, 2015 3:04 am, edited 1 time in total.
.
Lard, save me from your followers.

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 3:03 am

This is quote from an atheist who is not ignorant, stupid, and irrational. He is only dishonest:
Among the traditional candidates for comprehensive understanding of the relation of mind to the physical world, I believe the weight of evidence favors some from of neutral monism over the traditional alternatives of materialism, idealism, and dualism. (Thomas Nagel, Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is Almost Certainly False, location 69 of 1831)

From the title of the book, you can see that Nagel understands that humans are embodied sprits and that the humans soul is spiritual. He says, however, that dualism and idealism are "traditional" alternatives to materialism. Dualism and idealism are just bright ideas from Descartes and Berkeley. The traditional alternative to materialism is monism.
David Roemer

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Real Skeptic
Posts: 25675
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 » Mon May 25, 2015 3:11 am

"When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.'' ~HD
.
Lard, save me from your followers.

User avatar
Gord
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 33816
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 » Mon May 25, 2015 4:33 am

davidroemer wrote:This is quote from an atheist who is not ignorant, stupid, and irrational. He is only dishonest:
Among the traditional candidates for comprehensive understanding of the relation of mind to the physical world, I believe the weight of evidence favors some from of neutral monism over the traditional alternatives of materialism, idealism, and dualism. (Thomas Nagel, Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is Almost Certainly False, location 69 of 1831)

From the title of the book, you can see that Nagel understands that humans are embodied sprits and that the humans soul is spiritual. He says, however, that dualism and idealism are "traditional" alternatives to materialism. Dualism and idealism are just bright ideas from Descartes and Berkeley. The traditional alternative to materialism is monism.

Thomas Nagel thinks Intelligent Design is a science. 'Nuff said.
"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 » Mon May 25, 2015 4:46 am

Thomas Nagel is an atheist. He no more believes in intelligent design than Richard Dawkins. What follows is a quote from a stupid atheist. Campbell does not even grasp the theory that the human mind is a mystery. He only grasps the theories of materialism and dualism. Most atheists are just as stupid as Campbell.
And certain properties of the human brain distinguish our species from all other animals. The human brain is, after all, the only known collection of matter that tries to understand itself. To most biologists, the brain and the mind are one and the same; understand how the brain is organized and how it works, and we’ll understand such mindful functions as abstract thought and feelings. Some philosophers are less comfortable with this mechanistic view of mind, finding Descartes’ concept of a mind-body duality more attractive. (Neil Campbell, Biology, 4th edition, p. 776 )
David Roemer

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Real Skeptic
Posts: 25675
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 » Mon May 25, 2015 5:11 am

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Nag ... sciousness wrote:Natural selection and consciousness
Further information: Mind and Cosmos

In his Mind and Cosmos (2012), Nagel argues against a materialist view of the emergence of life and consciousness, writing that the standard neo-Darwinian view flies in the face of common sense.[8] He argues that the principles that account for the emergence of life may be teleological, rather than materialist or mechanistic.[9]

Nagel is an atheist and not a proponent of intelligent design (ID). He writes in Mind and Cosmos that he lacks the sensus divinitatis that would allow him see the world in terms of divine purpose. He disagrees with both ID defenders and their opponents, who argue that the only naturalistic alternative to ID is the current reductionist neo-Darwinian model.[10] He has argued that ID should not be rejected as non-scientific. He wrote in 2008 that "ID is very different from creation science," and that the debate about ID "is clearly a scientific disagreement, not a disagreement between science and something else."[11]

In 2009 he recommended Signature in the Cell by the philosopher and ID proponent Stephen C. Meyer in The Times Literary Supplement as one of his "Best Books of the Year."[12] Nagel does not accept Meyer's conclusions but he endorsed Meyer's approach, and argued in Mind and Cosmos that Meyer and other ID proponents, David Berlinski and Michael Behe, "do not deserve the scorn with which they are commonly met."[9] Nagel's views on ID have been criticized by some from the scientific community. Stephen Fletcher, a chemist at Loughborough University, wrote in The Times Literary Supplement in 2009 that Nagel "should not promote the [Meyer] book to the rest of us using statements that are factually incorrect."[13]
.
Lard, save me from your followers.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 29589
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Biological Evolution and the Second Law of Thermodynamics

Post by Matthew Ellard » Mon May 25, 2015 5:34 am

"Thanks from Elwiz"(?)

Who in hell is Elwiz?
Why is this Elwiz, the only person who can add thanks?
Why is Elwiz only allowed to thank Scrmbblgs?

:D

(My simple working theory is that Scrmbblgs is really a sock puppet of FromtheHills, who is actually a sock puppet of Norma, who is just a front for Pyrrho, who is really just a sock puppet of Scrmbblgs. ( For $10AUD, ($8USD), I will draw an explanatory flow chart)

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Real Skeptic
Posts: 25675
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 » Mon May 25, 2015 5:39 am

:lol:
.
Lard, save me from your followers.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 29589
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Biological Evolution and the Second Law of Thermodynamics

Post by Matthew Ellard » Mon May 25, 2015 6:16 am

Thanks Pyrrho, "Thanks button" now working for the "A grade members group"

User avatar
Gord
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 33816
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 » Mon May 25, 2015 6:38 am

davidroemer wrote:Thomas Nagel is an atheist. He no more believes in intelligent design than Richard Dawkins.

Thomas Nagel may be an atheist, I really can't claim otherwise, but he believes Intelligent Design is science. He argues for it in his paper, Public Education and Intelligent Design: http://philosophy.fas.nyu.edu/docs/IO/1172/papa_132.pdf

Critics take issue with the claims made by defenders of ID about what standard evolutionary mechanisms can accomplish, and argue that they depend on faulty assumptions. Whatever the merits, however, that is clearly a scientific disagreement, not a disagreement between science and something else....

...Judge Jones cited as a decisive reason for denying ID the status of science that Michael Behe, the chief scientific witness for the defense, acknowledged that the theory would be more plausible to someone who believed in God than to someone who did not. This is just common
sense, however, and the opposite is just as true: evolutionary theory as a complete explanation of the development of life is more plausible to
someone who does not believe in God than to someone who does. Either both of them are science or neither of them is....

I refer the interested reader to the Union of Concerned Scientists website: http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific_integr ... WLCOOlFCpo

...A scientific theory is supported by extensive research and repeated experimentation and observation in the natural world. Unlike a true scientific theory, the existence of an “intelligent” agent can not be tested, nor is it falsifiable.

...A scientific theory is supported by extensive research and repeated experimentation and observation in the natural world. Unlike a true scientific theory, the existence of an “intelligent” agent can not be tested, nor is it falsifiable.
"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: 33816
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 » Mon May 25, 2015 6:39 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:Thanks Pyrrho, "Thanks button" now working for the "A grade members group"

I'd thank your post, but I don't wanna. :beee:
"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 » Mon May 25, 2015 11:57 am

I stand corrected. I was just assuming that Nagel was against intelligent design. Another example of atheistic irrationality related to ID and the second law is the multiverse theory of the universe. I finally understand the twisted logic of it.

Religious fanatic: Why is Earth exactly 93 million miles from the Sun?
Scientist: It is a matter of random chance.
Religious fanatic: What does that mean?
Scientist: There are hundreds of billions of planets and only a few are at the right distance for life to evolve.

Religious fanatic: Why is the charge on an electron exactly 1.6 X 10-19 coulombs?
Scientist: No one knows.
Atheist: NO! NO! NO! There are many universes with different values for the charge on the electron.
David Roemer

User avatar
Gord
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 33816
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 » Mon May 25, 2015 4:33 pm

I'm not sure you're a good judge of irrationality. Example? Yes. Judge? Not the best fit.
"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
scrmbldggs
Real Skeptic
Posts: 25675
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 » Mon May 25, 2015 4:52 pm

Gord wrote:I'm not sure you're a good judge of irrationality. Example? Yes. Judge? Not the best fit.

In that exchange you linked to earlier, R. Isaac, for example, imho was doing a wonderful job explaining stuff to Mr. Roemer in 2012 (just two random links of that: http://network.asa3.org/forums/permalink.asp?id=431770 and http://network.asa3.org/forums/permalink.asp?id=432345), and I'm curious if Mr. Roemer has one example of anyone well versed in this science agreeing with his interpretations of this?
.
Lard, save me from your followers.

User avatar
Poodle
True Skeptic
Posts: 10200
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 » Mon May 25, 2015 6:09 pm

davidroemer wrote:Sartre said it in the above quote. He said we can't be sure God exists because the concept of God is contradictory. Man is a "useless passion" because human beings are trying to get to heaven, but life ends in the grave.


Ah - "Dixi ergo est", then. When I asked "Says who?" I was looking for authority rather than opinion. No matter - you carefully avoided answering my query about your ability to hold two contradictory statements as true.

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 6:54 pm

I keep a full record of all of my correspondence with physicists at http://www.pseudoscience123.com. I give two references to articles published in peer-reviewed journals that flatly contradict the AJP article:

McIntosh, A. C., "Information and Entropy—top-down and bottom-up development in living systems?", Int. J. of Design & Nature and Ecodynamics. Vol. 4, No. 4 (2009), pp. 351 to 385.

Granville Sewell, "Entropy and Evolution"
http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/main/article/view/BIO-C.2013.2

I also quoted two physicists who told me in private communication that the AJP article is absurd. I must admit that physicists are helping the AJP cover up the mistake it made in publishing the article. This is the explanation that accompanies the letter I am faxing to physics departments:

#To Michael Schermer
This letter to Rush Holt concerns a topic I am discussing on the Skeptic Forum about evolution and the second law of thermodynamics. My login name is davidmihjn and my screen name is davidroemer.

I'll be putting your name on the website I'v published about this scandal as soon as I get proof of delivery. Historians should be interested in this because it sheds light on the Holocaust. No one was ever forced to kill anybody in Nazi Germany. However, there were severe penalties for telling about the murders. The penalty for telling about the absurdity of the AJP article is to be ostracized and hated by the science establishment in the United States.
David Roemer

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Real Skeptic
Posts: 25675
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 » Mon May 25, 2015 7:25 pm

davidroemer wrote:I keep a full record of all of my correspondence with physicists at http://www.pseudoscience123.com. I give two references to articles published in peer-reviewed journals that flatly contradict the AJP article:

McIntosh, A. C., "Information and Entropy—top-down and bottom-up development in living systems?", Int. J. of Design & Nature and Ecodynamics. Vol. 4, No. 4 (2009), pp. 351 to 385.

Granville Sewell, "Entropy and Evolution"
http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/main/article/view/BIO-C.2013.2

I also quoted two physicists who told me in private communication that the AJP article is absurd. I must admit that physicists are helping the AJP cover up the mistake it made in publishing the article. This is the explanation that accompanies the letter I am faxing to physics departments:

#To Michael Schermer
This letter to Rush Holt concerns a topic I am discussing on the Skeptic Forum about evolution and the second law of thermodynamics. My login name is davidmihjn and my screen name is davidroemer.

I'll be putting your name on the website I'v published about this scandal as soon as I get proof of delivery. Historians should be interested in this because it sheds light on the Holocaust. No one was ever forced to kill anybody in Nazi Germany. However, there were severe penalties for telling about the murders. The penalty for telling about the absurdity of the AJP article is to be ostracized and hated by the science establishment in the United States.
.
Lard, save me from your followers.

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Real Skeptic
Posts: 25675
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 » Mon May 25, 2015 7:36 pm

"davidroemer wrote:I keep a full record of all of my correspondence with physicists at http://www.pseudoscience123.com. I give two references to articles published in peer-reviewed journals that flatly contradict the AJP article:

McIntosh, A. C., "Information and Entropy—top-down and bottom-up development in living systems?", Int. J. of Design & Nature and Ecodynamics. Vol. 4, No. 4 (2009), pp. 351 to 385.
...
http://thewaytheballbounces.blogspot.co ... ature.html wrote: The International Journal of Design & Nature and Ecodynamics - On the Fringe!
A credible scientific journal?

"Not even close. The International Journal of Design & Nature and Ecodynamics is a fringe publication of the featherweight Wessex Institute of Technology. Oh, and guess what? McIntosh is on their Editorial Board. One of its editors is Stuart Burgess, another notorious YEC."...



davidroemer wrote:Granville Sewell, "Entropy and Evolution"
http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/main/article/view/BIO-C.2013.2
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Granville_Sewell wrote:Edward Granville Sewell is an American mathematician, university professor, and intelligent design advocate. He is a Professor of Mathematics at the University of Texas, El Paso.




ETA Just for the lolz.
.
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 Thermodynamics

Post by xouper » Mon May 25, 2015 7:45 pm

davidroemer wrote:I give two references to articles published in peer-reviewed journals that flatly contradict the AJP article:

Sorry, but neither of those two papers "flatly contradict" Styer's AJP paper. We could of course dismiss them both as creationist papers, but we can do better than that. Neither of those papers refute Styer's point about biological evolution and the second law of thermodynamics. Instead, what they argue is that mere non-violation of the 2nd law is insufficient to explain increasing complexity of biological systems. The problem here is obvious. Styer never claims that non-violation is sufficient.

Sorry, David, but those papers do not support your argument against Styer's paper.

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Real Skeptic
Posts: 25675
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 » Mon May 25, 2015 7:54 pm

Thanks, xoup. :-D


However, I'm afraid none of that will be absorbed...
.
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 Thermodynamics

Post by xouper » Mon May 25, 2015 8:06 pm

scrmbldggs wrote:Thanks, xoup. :-D However, I'm afraid none of that will be absorbed...

Not by David, no. But since he has linked directly to this thread on his website, I wrote it for the peanut gallery.

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 10:12 pm

The Styer paper is based on the "compensation theory." This is the theory that a decrease in entropy can be compensated for by an increase in entropy someplace else. But Sewell and McIntosh say this is wrong. I consider the compensation theory to be unintelligible.

According to the second law, a gas will fill up the entire container it is in. This does not happen in outer space when stars are evolving. Does the evolution of stars violate the second law of thermodynamics?

The following link gives all of my correspondence with Prof. Richardson of NYU. My interpretation, is that he agreed with me that the paper was absurd. But when he realized what the implications were, he became hostile: http://www.pseudoscience123.com/new-york-univ/nyu.html

This is another quotation from a physicist:
You are absolutely right, using the particular numerical value of k_B in Eq. 3 and 4 is ludicrous. More than ludicrous, it is dangerous and damaging to students who are subjected to learning physics from teachers who try using numerology in defense of an agenda. This particular value of k_B is for ideal gas in SI units. It is so elemental, I am embarrassed to point it out. Even the name says it, this particular k_B value multiplied by Avogadro’s number is the ubiquitous gas constant ‘R’ that appears in every single page of every single introductory text to thermodynamics. The author of this paper, therefore, implicitly proclaims that evolution can be quantified/modeled as ideal gas. Now, show me another journal in the scientific world that would allow a paper to be published on modeling evolution as ideal gas. Even if one could make an intelligible statement about evolution in the ideal gas context, WHERE IS THE ARGUMENT? In this paper, the author does not bother giving any argument, but willingly or unwillingly feeds numerology to science students. This is clearly wrong.


This is another link: http://www.pseudoscience123.com/email-bio/biocomplx.html
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 » Mon May 25, 2015 11:04 pm

davidroemer wrote:The Styer paper is based on the "compensation theory." This is the theory that a decrease in entropy can be compensated for by an increase in entropy someplace else. But Sewell and McIntosh say this is wrong. I consider the compensation theory to be unintelligible.

Sewell and McIntosh say no such thing.

I find the idea completely intelligible. It cannot be the case that a local decrease in entropy is not accompanied by an increase in entropy some place else. A classic example of that is a refrigerator.

davidroemer wrote:According to the second law, a gas will fill up the entire container it is in. This does not happen in outer space when stars are evolving.

Someone seems to have forgotten to account for gravity as an explanation for why matter seems to clump together in the form of stars, instead of just filling the universe uniformly.

davidroemer wrote:This is another quotation from a physicist:
You are absolutely right, using the particular numerical value of k_B in Eq. 3 and 4 is ludicrous. More than ludicrous, it is dangerous and damaging to students who are subjected to learning physics from teachers who try using numerology in defense of an agenda. This particular value of k_B is for ideal gas in SI units. It is so elemental, I am embarrassed to point it out. Even the name says it, this particular k_B value multiplied by Avogadro’s number is the ubiquitous gas constant ‘R’ that appears in every single page of every single introductory text to thermodynamics. The author of this paper, therefore, implicitly proclaims that evolution can be quantified/modeled as ideal gas. Now, show me another journal in the scientific world that would allow a paper to be published on modeling evolution as ideal gas. Even if one could make an intelligible statement about evolution in the ideal gas context, WHERE IS THE ARGUMENT? In this paper, the author does not bother giving any argument, but willingly or unwillingly feeds numerology to science students. This is clearly wrong.

Sorry, but the parts in red are wrong, thus undermining the rest of the objection. Styer uses the statistical mechanics definition of entropy (as developed by Boltzmann) for complex systems, not the thermodynamic definition (ideal gas model), and as such it is entirely appropriate to use Boltzmann's constant.

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Real Skeptic
Posts: 25675
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 » Mon May 25, 2015 11:35 pm

davidroemer wrote:...

The following link gives all of my correspondence with Prof. Richardson of NYU. My interpretation, is that he agreed with me that the paper was absurd. But when he realized what the implications were, he became hostile: http://www.pseudoscience123.com/new-york-univ/nyu.html

Sorry, I can't interpret the short exchange in the above link as you are doing.



As to this:
davidroemer wrote:This is another quotation from a physicist:
You are absolutely right, using the particular numerical value of k_B in Eq. 3 and 4 is ludicrous. More than ludicrous, it is dangerous and damaging to students who are subjected to learning physics from teachers who try using numerology in defense of an agenda. This particular value of k_B is for ideal gas in SI units. It is so elemental, I am embarrassed to point it out. Even the name says it, this particular k_B value multiplied by Avogadro’s number is the ubiquitous gas constant ‘R’ that appears in every single page of every single introductory text to thermodynamics. The author of this paper, therefore, implicitly proclaims that evolution can be quantified/modeled as ideal gas. Now, show me another journal in the scientific world that would allow a paper to be published on modeling evolution as ideal gas. Even if one could make an intelligible statement about evolution in the ideal gas context, WHERE IS THE ARGUMENT? In this paper, the author does not bother giving any argument, but willingly or unwillingly feeds numerology to science students. This is clearly wrong.


This is another link: http://www.pseudoscience123.com/email-bio/biocomplx.html

Both the quoted and the text at the link are anonymous, AFAICT, and could have been written by anyone, including you. And what exactly is what you quoted above referring to with "You are absolutely right"? What did you say that you are supposedly absolutely right about?
.
Lard, save me from your followers.

User avatar
Poodle
True Skeptic
Posts: 10200
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 » Mon May 25, 2015 11:50 pm

scrmbldggs wrote:Both the quoted and the text at the link are anonymous, AFAICT, and could have been written by anyone, including you. And what exactly is what you quoted above referring to with "You are absolutely right"? What did you say that you are supposedly absolutely right about?


You know, having read the text at the link, eggs, I think you've hit the nail on the head. The purported message to David reads like the letters I used to forge from my Mum to get me out of stuff I didn't like at school. If I was a betting man (which thank the lord I'm not Sir)(sorry - got carried away with an old song) I think I'd put my money on the author being none other than David. In fact, given Xouper's response, I may think about putting my house on it.

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 11:51 pm

This is the abstract of the Sewell article. He says the compensation theory is without logical merit.
It is widely argued that the spectacular local decreases in entropy that occurred on Earth as a result of the origin and evolution of life and the development of human intelligence are not inconsistent with the second law of thermodynamics, because the Earth is an open system and entropy can decrease in an open system, provided the decrease is compensated by entropy increases outside the system. I refer to this as the compensation argument, and I argue that it is without logical merit, amounting to little more than an attempt to avoid the extraordinary probabilistic difficulties posed by the assertion that life has originated and evolved by spontaneous processes. To claim that what has happened on Earth does not violate the fundamental natural principle behind the second law, one must instead make a more direct and difficult argument.


By considering the Boltzmann equation for an ideal gas, you can understand how absurd the Styer article is. The Boltzmann constant is very small and it connects the temperature of the gas with the average kinetic energy of the molecules in a gas. There is a similar equation for entropy. Suppose you have a gas with 52 molecules. Imagine breaking up the container into 52 compartments. The probability of all the molecules going into one compartment is related to 1/52!. If this happens the entropy of the gas will be very small. This is the same as the probability of getting deck of playing cards in order by shuffling them. In effect, Styer is saying that entropy of a deck of playing cards is related to 1/52!

Your suggestion that I made up the quote from a physicist, shows you are suffering from cognitive dissonance. Your belief is that religious people are irrational, and atheistic scientists are paragons of rationality. While it is wrong to say evolution violates the second law, it is an understandable mistake. But to say that it does not violate the second law because of the sun is unintelligible. The sun heats things up and increases entropy. But to perform a calculation that proves this is insane.
David Roemer

User avatar
Poodle
True Skeptic
Posts: 10200
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 » Tue May 26, 2015 12:01 am

David - Would you be the same David as this one ...?

http://newevangelist.me/

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 29589
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Biological Evolution and the Second Law of Thermodynamics

Post by Matthew Ellard » Tue May 26, 2015 12:17 am

Poodle wrote:David - Would you be the same David as this one ...?

http://newevangelist.me/


That's him. I have already been reading and quoting him, from his pages. He is "special".
:D

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Real Skeptic
Posts: 25675
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 » Tue May 26, 2015 12:18 am

No, Mr. Roemer, to me it seems you are out of touch with reality. From your own link:
davidroemer wrote:I am pretty sure that the entropy equations in the articles are nonsense, but I don’t know enough about statistical mechanics to explain why. They use the equation S = klogW, but there is no justification for the use of Boltzman's constant for biological systems. Is there?


I'm not well versed with the subject and wouldn't dare attempting to explain a thing, but from what I have seen, however limited, it is you who is not forthcoming with the entire story and all its details and is painting a paranoid picture of deceit and hostility I, as an uninvolved outsider, so far could not discern.
.
Lard, save me from your followers.

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Real Skeptic
Posts: 25675
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 » Tue May 26, 2015 12:25 am

Meow. :lol:
.
Lard, save me from your followers.

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 » Tue May 26, 2015 12:29 am

Yes, that is my old website. I put everything now on http://www.dkroemer.com and http://www.newevangelization.info.

I also am the author of http://creationwiki.org/Pseudoscience_in_the_American_Journal_of_Physics. I am not a creationist and I can't edit this article. But if there are any errors, and creationwiki.org does not correct them. I'll acknowledge the mistakes on on Skeptics Forum. The Catholic Truth of Scotland also published my analysis. I'm unaware of any physicist challenging what I said.

There are actually two authors of the Styer AJP article. The other author was Emory Bunn, who wrote a note that "improved" on the calculation. I first wrote to him about the article and his answer was that he did not want to discuss it. I then submitted an article of rebuttal to the AJP, but an anonymous reviewer said I was wrong. The editor should have told Styer, the author. Styer did not find out until over a year later when I directly contacted him. He wrote a rebuttal, but the rebuttal was non-responsive.

This was Stephen Barr's response: http://www.pseudoscience123.com/resources/stephen-barr.pdf. My response to Stephen Barr was to accuse him of not reading the Catholic Truth of Scotland article. If Barr was sincere, he would have tried to resolve our conflict with the help of a moderator. I asked for a moderator on the forum of the American Scientific Affiliation, but my request was refused. We should get a moderator here.
David Roemer

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 29589
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Biological Evolution and the Second Law of Thermodynamics

Post by Matthew Ellard » Tue May 26, 2015 12:32 am

davidroemer wrote:I am not a creationist
You are a Catholic Christian and clearly stated you believe in the baby Jesus. Is that still true?

User avatar
Poodle
True Skeptic
Posts: 10200
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 » Tue May 26, 2015 12:42 am

davidroemer wrote:... We should get a moderator here.


There is, actually, a moderator here. He steps in when he considers it necessary. Why do you feel the need of moderator protection?

User avatar
Gord
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 33816
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 » Tue May 26, 2015 12:44 am

davidroemer wrote:I'll acknowledge the mistakes on on Skeptics Forum.

I think I'm in a position now to make this prediction: No, you won't.

I'm unaware of any physicist challenging what I said.

I believe that you are. That seems to be the problem. You appear simply unaware.
"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 » Tue May 26, 2015 12:54 am

We can find out very easily which one of us is being insincere. There are two questions that we are conflicted about. There is no point in going on if we can't resolve these two points. If a moderator is assigned, that will help. A moderator will not allow non-responsive or meaningless comments. The moderator should have some knowledge of thermodynamics. These are the two questions:
1) Does a pendulum have a temperature?
2) Is the second law violated when stars evolve?
David Roemer