Do the doctrines of evolutionism protect the Bible?

On the other hand, BobRyan, 2Lot does not forbid living organisms living and having progeny.

2Lot does not forbid mutations occuring within genomes.

2Lot does not forbid mutations covering the gamot from being harmful or helpful.

2Lot does not forbid the next generation from competing and having to put up with the help or the hindrance from the mutations they may have received

2Lot does not forbid the mutations that provide something helpful from preferentially accumulating over the generations just because they helped those individuals they were in

2Lot does not forbid the mutations that harm the next generation from preferentially being eliminated just because they are such a hindrance

The accumulation of these favorable mutations is what constitutes evolution.

You cannot show any single step here anywhere to be contrary to the laws of thermodynamics, because they are not, at any single part of the theory of evolution.

Asimov, Bekenstein, UTEOW, and all the real scientists involved with evolution understand this.

 

Still cannot find anything on homologs at AIG I see. Hmph.

"In the "reverse process not allowed" theme I have introduced above - one interesting observatin is that although you can mash genetic material with enough heat and pressure to form hydrocarbon chains - you can not go the other way."

Pay closer attention. I said organic material, not genetic material will form longer chains when exposed to heat and pressure. Of course they will also form shorter chains if I apply heat and pressure in a different way. It is all a matter of what is thermodynamically favorable for the set of conditions.

Paul has summed things up nicely. "On the other hand, BobRyan, 2Lot does not forbid living organisms living and having progeny. 2Lot does not forbid mutations occuring within genomes. 2Lot does not forbid mutations covering the gamot from being harmful or helpful. 2Lot does not forbid the next generation from competing and having to put up with the help or the hindrance from the mutations they may have received. 2Lot does not forbid the mutations that provide something helpful from preferentially accumulating over the generations just because they helped those individuals they were in. 2Lot does not forbid the mutations that harm the next generation from preferentially being eliminated just because they are such a hindrance. The accumulation of these favorable mutations is what constitutes evolution. You cannot show any single step here anywhere to be contrary to the laws of thermodynamics, because they are not, at any single part of the theory of evolution.

Anyhow, let me show you why my appeal to Gibbs is more than just entertaining. I am glad you went ahead and brought up the form where the cahnge in G is equal to -RT ln K because it forms part of my case.

I am trying to keep this from turning into a thermo class, so I'll try and keep it simple. I introduces the formula G = H - TS. Now let's go through those terms. G is gibbs energy, sometimes called free energy. Here is what you need to know. Things which are thermodynamically favorable, things which will happen spontaneously, decrease G for whatever we are talking about. When G cannot decrease any further, things are at equilibrium. H is enthalpy, but just think of it as energy. T is temperature. S is entropy.

The first thing to notice is that entropy is not the only factor in deciding what will happen. You will see that there is a subtraction sign in front of the term containing entropy. So any process in which the entropy of the system increases will tend to decrease G and therefore be favorable. You will see that S is multiplied by temperature. Take from this that processes are very sensitive to temperature when it comes to what will actually happen.

But notice that H out there. If H is negative, then S can also be negative and the process can still be favorable. H being negative simply implies that the process gives off energy, that is that it is endothermic. So if H is negative, then the system can actually decrease its entropy and the process still be favored.

Let me give a classic example. This is straight out of a thermo textbook. Consider water. When it freezes, the entropy of the water goes down becasue the molecules are put into a crystaline structure. But, freezing gives up energy, we call it latent heat. So the process is spontaneous at the right conditions. Entropy does not always have to increase for a system. One more important concept. I said temperture matters. Well here it is easy to see. Water will not spontaneously melt below 32 F nor will it spontaneously freeze above 32 F. The temperature term is coming into play.

Now for the part Bob contributed. Ignore all the terms but K. This is known as the equlibrium constant. Earlier I pointed out that equilibrium and G are related so you shown have some idea of the importance of this second equation. The key point is that thing come to an equilibrium and do not go to completion. If I mix a bunch of things together and let them react, I generally will not get a homogeneous result. I'll get a whole bunch of different things in equilibrium.

If you put the two together you will now see why local decreases in entropy are allowed and can even be favored and processes are actually much more messy than most people appreciate. Even if Bob could show that the things he says are unlikely, a case he has yet to make and I doubt that he can, the concept of equilibrium shows that even unlikely things happen frequently.

So, do you care to tell us, succintly and concisely, what specifically is prevented by entropy and how? The quotes are old. Apply yourself. Show us you understand. Think "critically."

 

Oddly the "inverse process" that the AUTHOR says is "forbidden" is in fact a "local one"...

A teacup falls from the table and shatters, but no one has ever seen shards jump up of their own accord and assemble into a teacup. The second law of thermodynamics forbids such inverse processes

In Christ,

Bob </font>[/QUOTE]Bob

Yes, the author provided an example. The author mentioned no "outside influence", so I can't show anything by his example. NOTE: The example (any example) given IS NOT a statement of the 2nd Law. The part that IS a statement of the 2nd Law: "It [ie the 2nd Law] states that the entropy of an isolated physical system can never decrease; at best, entropy remains constant, and usually it increases.

I don't see where the author introduced the sun into his text.

I apologize if I attributed the quote to you if, in fact, this was the authors statement. However, it does change the fact that it 'slightly' mis-characterizes what was provided in the quote (statement). Scientists have trouble expressing things in English like everyone else does.

If an example was given:
"A teacup falls from the table and shatters, THEN it is observed to reassemble and land back on the table." Based on the 2nd Law what might we say accounts for the event?

We can conclude, though we may be rather shocked, that the teacup IS NOT an isolated physical system!
PERIOD!

Our examples give us insights into the 2nd Law. They do not DEFINE the 2nd Law! As has been pointed out, repeatedly, the 2nd Law (any scientific Law) is most precisely and objectively described by it's mathematical formulation(s). Praise the Lord! The wonder and beauty of mathematics is that we can state principles of the physical world in ways that are less ambiguous, and easier to defend (also easier to refute). Of course, this causes problems for those of us who less mathematically inclined. That's the awesome (usually thankless) task of some gifted people who have the ability to 'translate' the mathematics into words that the rest of us may, hopefully, understand.

The present discussion is a perfect example of how language and philosophies create misunderstandings and allow things to be 'twisted' to the point of confusion.

Though, like others, I DO enjoy the debate. It helps me to gather my thoughts. I need all the help I can get!

In Christ
Michael

[ June 09, 2004, 12:57 PM: Message edited by: Michael52 ]

 

Should read:

A perfect example of what the last sentence expresses.

 

"In the mean time - the "one way" example holds. Organic mass resulting from animals that actually have genetic material still represent increased "order" from the oil and coal. Hence - oil will never become Dinosaur (if left to itself)."

Strawman. No where in evolution does it say a pile of oil will turn into a dinosaur.

So, what specifically does entropy prevent from happening and how?

 

You know it never occured to me that the author might have been making his case assuming that sun was not shining.

I will go back and take a look at that tea cup example again - only this time "with" the sun shining. Thanks for pointing it out. This could change everything.

In Christ,

Bob </font>[/QUOTE]Bob, as far as I can tell, YOU ARE the one who introduced the sun into this scenario. There is probably no need to examine the teacup again to find the sun. Just examine the same oracle where you found it originally.

Or, we could run this experiment at night and bypass this 'new' sun parameter altogether.

In Christ
Michael

 

Oddly the "inverse process" that is "forbidden" is in fact a "local one".

In Christ,

Bob </font>[/QUOTE]Bob

Based on this quote:

True

A reasonable assumption, given that the teacup is acting on it's "own accord", ie no outside influence (inputs).

True, for the same reason as the previous.

I have no quarrel with this.

If the broken shards are truly isolated (in the thermodynamic sense, ie no outside inputs) then the "inverse process" (reassembling) is "forbidden" (can't happen).

If the broken shards are not truly isolated (in the thermodynamic sense, ie outside inputs) then the "inverse process" (reassembling) is not "forbidden" (can happen). As a matter of fact, per the 2nd Law, they would be allowed to whistle Dixie, given the proper inputs!

Again, I'm not sure how "local" equivocates to "isolated" (I don't see it in the quote). I understand that "local" systems have been discussed by others in previous posts. However, as I understand the argument, you were trying to make a point on the merits of this particular quote from Bekenstein. I thought it would be OK if I also limited my comments to this quote, lest I be accused of trying to create confusion.

Also, please forgive me, but I still don't see the "sun" mentioned either (nor the moon, nor my kitty cat, nor ...). We're a little slow on the Tennessee side of the mountains.

In Christ
Michael

 

So, you think that a teacup falling to the floor and shattering supports your strawman that evolution says that a pile of oil shoulb be able to turn into a dinosaur? Hmph!

Let's have another thermodynamics lesson.

Your new quote makes the following observation: "The second law of thermodynamics summarizes the familiar observation that most processes in nature are irreversible." Now let's look at that quote a little bit. According to thermodynamics, a process is reversible only if the change in entropy of the process is zero. Essentially all processes increase the entropy of the universe at least slightly, and are therefore irreversible. (I already demonstrated, with the Gibbs energy formula, that processes that decrease local entropy can be spontaneous. But even these processes will increase the entropy of the universe.) That is the meaning of the statement. And that does follow the common observation that most processes that you can observe are irreversible, at least if left to their own. Michael has already put the proper emphasis on this point, but I shall do so again. They are only irreversible baring outside influence. If I go out in my backyard and throw a ball to the other side, it ain't coming back. But if I take my dog with me, well that outside influence is bringing that ball back though she may not want to actually give it to me. Your hypothetical teacup is not going to spontaneously reappear. But a human could gather all the pieces, glue them together, and set the cup back on the counter. The process has been reversed, but not spontaneously.

But the key point here, one not lost in the details to anyone, is that I have been asking you for pages now to give me, in a sentence or two if you can, what specifically in the course of evolution that you assert that entropy prevents from happening and how. The silence on this question is deafening. I believe it shows that you know that there is nothing that entropy prevents yet you cannot give up the slightest point. So you go on talking about teacups and cars and the sun and hope that no one notices that you have not actually made a point.

Still can't find anything on homologs at AIG? Have you tried ICR or trueorigins? I searched for you, but it keeps coming up with homology instead. Though I did make a homology argument back a few pages that you have refused to present evidence against, so maybe you can make that work for you. trueorigins did have one article I found that mentioned homologs but it was part of a homology argument and not directly applicable to my posts.

 

Go VOLS! Beat BAMA! Sorry UTEOTW.

 

I married a VOL back in February. I am getting quite used to color orange. Not necessarily liking it, but getting used to it.

 

This thread is at 20 pages, which is as long as we can let any thread on the board go.
Please enter your closing arguments by tomorrow, such as exactly WHY the VOLS are better.
The topic may be started again, so don't panic if you don't get your statement in before it closes.
Gina

 

OH GINA THANK YOU THANK YOU its about time.

Entropy can go in the "wrong" direction IF THERE IS AN ENGINE to make it do that AND AS A CONSEQUENCE entropy will increase somewhere else.

Period.

Take the broken teacup. A man can come along and glue it all together again. I know - I know - its not really fixed - but its closer to what it was - say entropy was partiall reduced.

But it took a man working the pieces with his fingers and that was an input of energy and the shed heat from that action adds more entropy to the universe at large than we reduced in the teacup.

So for the organization that takes place in evolution, such as it is, can only take place if there is some engine that brings it about and the engine displaces entropy to other places in the universe.

I submit that there is such an engine, it is reproductive differential success between competing genomes, and the entropy increase elsewhere occurs as it does anyway as life goes on generation after generation.

In order to show that entropy presents a problem for evolution, BobRyan must show how this evolution engine fails to work; in other words, he must show that natural selection is not sufficient to drive evolution.

Of course, if one could do that, it would be totally unecessary to bring up the bit about entropy and the second law of thermodynamics. The demonstration that natural selection can't work alone would be enough to prove that the current theory of evolution is somehow seriously amiss.

It is for this reason all BobRyan's protests about evolution being contrary to the second law of thermodynamics are all just so much thermally enhanced vapors. The only way to make it work would be to prove evolution doesn't work anyway, without bothering to consider the second law!

 

UTEOTW

Don't fight it. Your inevitable journey to "loving" the orange (earthly bliss, even) will be less traumatic if you don't resist.

Resistance is futile...You will be assimilated.

Go Vols
Michael

 

First, let me address this new "Vols" issue.

I am trying. But it is hard. I have always, uh, disliked Tennessee even more than Auburn. So now I am in a quandry. She was so good last year. Went to two Bama games (Kentucky yeaaaay. LSU aauuugghhh.) Even cheered a little bit. I hope by this fall to be able to not secretly hope that the quarterback (whoever THAT might be) beams Phil in the head with every pass and to quit hoping that somehow Florida and Tennessee could end in zero zero tie.

Second, take a look at the entropy discussion. We have had pages of rhetoric but with no actual points. There is nothing about entropy to prevent evolution. Entropy causes the same problems for evolution as it does for the maturing of a new human from a fertilized egg. There is no step of evolution that you can point to and say that it is not allowed because of entropy.

Finally, I ask you to look back on the thread. There are numerable problems discussed at length for a young earth. Some had attempts made to address them, but many are simply ignored. The case for an old earth is very convincing. The case for a young earth...Well it does not exist IMHO. Does this spell doom for the Bible? Of course not. The hyper-literalist may say it does, but several hundred years ago they said the same about the discovery that everything really did not go aroungthe earth. One day we will end the scourge of young earthism and will be better off for it.

 

If I wasn't so kind, so nice, so humble I'd really take advantage of being able to get the last word in before I closed this thread. The entropy in this room has increased so much I can feel it, it is concentrating right over the keyboard...must resist...comment...