Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

# The hole of the SLoT

Share
Flipboard
Print
Email

Definition of the 2nd law of thermodynamics (SLoT).

This law (in its statistical mechanics sense) states that an isolated system goes towards its more probable states (those more numerous). Since the disordered states are countless, while the ordered/organized ones are few, a closed system spontaneously goes towards disorder/disorganization (related to entropy).

Difference between order and organization.

Increase of order implies decrease of entropy. Examples of order in nature are crystals; soap bubbles and raindrops are examples of naturally ordered quasi-spheres. Examples of order in human artefacts are the pattern of wood in a fence and the configuration of seats in a cinema.
Organization also implies persistent decrease of entropy, but is far more and far higher than order. Organization is qualitatively different from order. Organization always involves functional hierarchies and complex specified information (CSI). Examples of organization in nature are cells and organisms. Examples of organization in human technology are engines and computers.

A key point: the relation between organization and entropy is non symmetrical. (Intuitive example of non symmetrical relation: rain implies decrease of dryness, but decrease of dryness does not imply rain – decrease of dryness may well have other causes.) While organization implies persistent decrease of entropy, a decrease of entropy alone does not imply organization. Put differently: while entropy destroys organization, its opposite – neghentropy – doesn’t create organization. While it is true that what decreases order destroys also organization, it is false that what increases order creates also organization.

By increasing order we don’t get organization, like by increasing numbers we don’t get elephants or spaceships, like by increasing a rectangle we don’t get a circle or a fractal. Organization is not at all the limit which order tends to. Between increasing order and organization there is a deep discontinuity, a “hole”.

Graphical representation of the 2nd law.

See this picture:

Where the organized state (red zone) is one, the ordered states (yellow zone) are some and the disordered states (green zone) are countless. Since the disordered states are far more numerous than the other states they are more probable (leading to the continue tendency for disorder stated by the 2nd law). In the picture the 2nd law tendency is symbolized by the gravity force applied to the red ball. The red ball always tends towards the bottom, towards the disordered states. The discontinuity between organization and order – the “hole” – is represented by the tunnel between the red zone and the yellow zone. The ball never reaches the red zone of organization because, also if it climbs the mountain, it falls in the hole and crosses the tunnel.

Biological unguided evolution.

Evolution supposes that all the biological organization on Earth arose spontaneously (naturalistic origin of life + naturalistic origin of species).

Corollary of the 2nd law.

In an isolated system, organization never increases spontaneously. Hence the 2nd law refutes evolution. The absurdity of evolution is illustrated in the following picture:

Evolution would involve countless scenarios where the red balls stay permanently on the top of the peaks. Consequently the 2nd law disproves evolution because evolution would represent a set of events practically impossible.

Evolutionist “compensation argument”.

To rebut the above corollary, usually evolutionists resort to this argument. Since the Earth is not isolated, the 2nd law does not forbid a local (on Earth) decreases in entropy (which is all biological organisms represent, and no more than evolution is posited to do), gained at the cost of increased entropy in the surroundings (the solar system) (or, as long as the system exports a sufficient amount of entropy to its surroundings). So evolution can happen on Earth.

Refutation of the “compensation argument”.

The main counter-point is that, no, decrease in entropy is not “all biological organisms represent”. Organisms eminently represent organization. They are even ultra-complex systems. As said above, simple decrease in entropy is not organization. Evolutionists use “entropy” as a “free lunch” for evolution: entropy increases there, so entropy decrease here and organisms arise here at zero cost, while the 2nd law is safe. Too good to be true. Since entropy is related to disorder, then I cause a big mess (easy task) there to get organization (difficult task) here? Do you see the nonsense?

Second, call A the open system and B its surroundings. “Increased entropy in the surroundings” means that B has increased its disorder, going towards a more disordered state. This additional disorder in B becomes (in the mind of evolutionists) sort of “money” to pay the organization in A. Just this concept appears paradoxical: to pay organization by means of disorder. It is like to say: a disease in my wife 🙁 increases my health :).

Third, the reasoning is also absurd when we speak of probability. “Increased entropy in the surroundings” means that in B happened events more probable than the events happened before. These more probable events become (in the mind of evolutionists) sort of “magic” that creates organization in A. In turn, this organization in A is events with low probability that happen. So the whole reasoning is: probable events happened in B cause improbable events in A. It is like to say: the shopping expenses of my wife 🙁 cause my winning the lottery :).

In short, the evolutionist “compensation argument” is something like “non-X causes X”. It helps exactly zero the case for evolution, and doesn’t save evolution against the 2nd law.

The bottom line is: improbable events related to organization in a system remain improbable independently from the fact that we consider the system closed or open. Unless evolutionists are able to prove that some external cause is really able to reduce somehow such improbabilities, by injecting CSI to create organization. So far evolutionists have not succeeded in such task, their “compensation argument” is laughable. While IDers have a name for an organizational cause: intelligence.

F/N: Mung is of course referring to Maxwell's Demon who, by knowing he state of molecules, can allow faster ones to go through to one side and/or slower ones to the other, of a container, through a barrier with a trap door. Thus, he creates a disequilibration and undoing of diffusion based on intelligent and purposeful action. Szilard's point is that he does not come by that info on the cheap if he is material. This is of course the first step to the long chain of points that shows that constructive work resulting in FSCO/I -- complex, functional organisation according to a plan -- is most credibly explained on information and intelligence and is not a plausible product of spontaneous processes like diffusion. Where also, entropy can be analysed as the average missing info to specify microstate on observing macrostate, which if high forces us to treat the entity as highly disordered and/or random, e.g. we try to harvest work based on heat. EL et al by fixating on reduction in such uncertainty on heat transfer out of an entity [as opposed to the Darwin's warm little pond relevant rise in same on importing energy without coupling it to a conversion mechanism performing shaft work issuing in constructive work . . . cf. here on as has been repeatedly linked and cited . . . ], distract attention (especially their own) from the problem of the statistics involved in getting to FSCO/I by diffusion and the like. Those statistics make it effectively unobservable on the gamut of solar system or observed cosmos, to see that happening, just as for essentially similar reasons, we will reliably not see by chance 500 coins, tossed, and showing all H's. Empirical impossibility by overwhelming statistics is just as effective as logical impossibility, in the real world. KF kairosfocus
If course there is a hole in the slot. Else the demon could not allow things to pass through. Mung
LoL! You don't have anything to argue, Elizabeth. And you are easily refuted. So of course you have given up arguing with me. Joe
No, just given up arguing with you, Joe. Elizabeth B Liddle
Is Elizabeth abandoning her diatribe wrt EAs? Or does she still think, albeit contrary to the evidence, that they model darwinian evolution? Joe
Elizabeth B Liddle
The argument that the 2nd Law is a bar to evolution is simply wrong. If it were, we wouldn’t have weather.
Strange woman. I would have thought that you said "if it were, we wouldn’t have evolution". Weather, meteorology is based on a very difficult field of physics: fluid dynamics. A field that is even hard to mathematically model and hard to simulate on computer. Its laws explain all weather phenomena, tornadoes included (which you so frequently speak of). I don't see as the SLoT-bars-evolution argument could bar also weather. The SLoT bars spontaneous evolution of organisms. It doesn't bar spontaneous evolution of clouds, rain, snow, hurricanes... The latter have nothing to do with the former. The Earth's weather, in spite of its huge complexity, is not an organized system. In fact we should carefully distinguish between the mere quantitative complexity of chaos and the real qualitative complexity of organization. The error of evolutionism is indeed to pretend that the latter can arise from the former gratis, without the need of intelligence. niwrad
Ben W:
“Eliminate the weak and deficient” is a selection criteria, and so long as there’s any population pressure, it will result in “good” mutations being favored.
Well "good" is relative. More like the non-detrimental will be favored. And taht isn't a creative force.
All that you need for an EA is a selection criteria, a genetic mixing algorithm (preferable, but not strictly necessary), and some starting bits of code/DNA. How is that different from nature?
1- Nature doesn't seem to be capable of producing reproducers 2- Nature doesn't seem to be capable of producing neither DNA nor a code 3- Nature doesn't do selection criteria- eliminative criteria, yes 4- Nature doesn't have a goal- EAs do. Why do you keep ignoring that? Joe
No, there is a selection coefficient actively selecting which will (continue to) reproduce and which will not.
No. The selection coefficient changes all the time.
Reference please. I know in Dawkins' weasel it doesn't change. I know in the antenna EA it doesn't change. I know in all the EAs presented in SciAm's "Evolving Inventions" it doesn't change. So please tell us how we can solve a problem that keeps changing? It selects those which are deemed better suited to solve the problem.
No. Those that solve the presented problem better (not “are better suited to solve the problem”)...
LoL! Liz, the problem isn't solved with just one iteration. The antenna EA didn't design the antenna after one interation. The evolving inventions didn't come about by only one iteration. Dawkins' weasel confirms what I said.
.. have a greater chance of surviving to reproduce, just as real life creatures who solve the problems presented by their environment do.
Real life creatures who wait for a just-so accidental mutation are in for trouble. And yes that means it actively eliminates those which it deems are not suited to solve the problem.
No, it doesn’t.
Yes, it does. Again see Dawkins' weasel.
Well, some may, I guess, but not the ones I do.
Whatever, you don't model natural selection. And perhaps you don't even write/ use EAs. Heck you thought AVIDA was an EA. Oh well. Also your idea of NS runs contrary to Mayr's. You lose in that debate.
The most effective ones make sure that the poorer ones also have a non-zero chance of reproducing. Just as in life.
In life we see plenty of cooperation. Those that would normally have a non-zero chance are often given more than one. Joe
re mine at 117: The most effective ones EAs make sure that the poorer ones also have a non-zero chance of reproducing. Just as in life. Elizabeth B Liddle
This is a clear sign that, among IDers, the awareness of the power of this ID argument is increasing.
Not necessarily, niwrad :) The observation is sometimes made that if you want to boost your citation index, the best way is to publish something that is wrong. It will be copiously cited by everyone who subsequently gets it right. The argument that the 2nd Law is a bar to evolution is simply wrong. If it were, we wouldn't have weather. There may be bars to evolution, but I suggest that the number of responses to these threads means that this one is not one that helps your case! Elizabeth B Liddle
Joe
No, there is a selection coefficient actively selecting which will (continue to) reproduce and which will not.
No. The selection coefficient changes all the time.
It selects those which are deemed better suited to solve the problem.
No. Those that solve the presented problem better (not "are better suited to solve the problem") have a greater chance of surviving to reproduce, just as real life creatures who solve the problems presented by their environment do.
And yes that means it actively eliminates those which it deems are not suited to solve the problem.
No, it doesn't. Well, some may, I guess, but not the ones I do. It simply gives those that solve the problem better a better chance of reproducing. The most effective ones make sure that the poorer ones also have a non-zero chance of reproducing. Just as in life. Elizabeth B Liddle
There isn’t anything in nature that says natural selection can do anything beyond eliminate the weak and deficient. That means there isn’t any evidence that it is a designer mimic. And if you remove the goal and selection coefficient from the EA then nothing will happen.
"Eliminate the weak and deficient" is a selection criteria, and so long as there's any population pressure, it will result in "good" mutations being favored. All that you need for an EA is a selection criteria, a genetic mixing algorithm (preferable, but not strictly necessary), and some starting bits of code/DNA. How is that different from nature? Ben W
If a program is designed to do something, and it does it, then it did so by design, not by natural selection.
But… that’s how all experiments work.
No, it isn't. Lenski's long running experiment alone refutes you. Then there are all the natural experiments we conduct during eclipses.
By this argument, an experiment designed to, say, test gravity, is not a good representation of the real world.
Just cuz you say so- NOT.
Yes, experiments are designed to reproduce real-world phenomena in a controlled environment.
Some are, but that is moot as it misses my point. There isn't anything in nature that says natural selection can do anything beyond eliminate the weak and deficient. That means there isn't any evidence that it is a designer mimic. And if you remove the goal and selection coefficient from the EA then nothing will happen. Joe
Elizabeth:
We communicate by defining our terms with excruciating care.
LoL! That alone requires information of the type IDists are talking about. IOW you lose, again. Nice job. Joe
Natural selection is eliminative. The only reward for the survivors is that they may get the chance to reproduce. That isn’t how EAs operate.
It is exactly how they operate.
No, it isn't. No, there is a selection coefficient actively selecting which will (continue to) reproduce and which will not. It selects those which are deemed better suited to solve the problem. And yes that means it actively eliminates those which it deems are not suited to solve the problem. and If a program is designed to do something, and it does it, then it did so by design, not by natural selection. Joe
Ben W said: What we scientists mean when they talk about “information” is different from what Dembski means when he talks about it. Really? How the heck do you guys communicate? What are all those words in your peer-reviewed papers? What are all of those words in your science textbooks? Those words are not information to you and your alleged scientists?
What we mean by "information" is bits. So, no, letters on a piece of paper are not by themselves the same as the "information" that we use to communicate. By the physical definition of 'information', the random string of letters "ajwi" has the same amount of information as the string "blue", since both are four letters. Both contain the same amount of bits. That may seem non-intuitive, but it's how we define information in thermodynamics and physics. For the scientific definition, the semantic meaning of a string of letters or its 'functionality' is completely irrelevant. What matters is just the length of the string.
If a program is designed to do something, and it does it, then it did so by design, not by natural selection.
But... that's how all experiments work. By this argument, an experiment designed to, say, test gravity, is not a good representation of the real world. "You designed the experiment so that the ball would fall to the ground", you'd say. Yes, experiments are designed to reproduce real-world phenomena in a controlled environment. That doesn't mean they don't tell us anything about the real world; quite the opposite, in fact. We can take the same forces and systems that we see in Nature, and apply them in a lab or in a model system, and come to understand them better. And we can take something quite like natural selection, and put it in a computer program, and see what it does with strings of bits or abstract structures. Can it form more complex structures and functions out of simple ones? The answer: "yes". Ben W
Elizabeth B Liddle
There may be perfectly good reasons why computers cannot arise spontaneously.
There are, Elizabeth, there are good reasons. See here . niwrad
Nobody denies this, that “systems [in some circumstances] spontaneously go towards *order*”. What I deny, based on the SLoT, is that systems spontaneously go towards *organization*.
Oh, good. It's strange to say, but I'm glad I misunderstood you. Unfortunately, the 2LOT says nothing at all about organization, and as such, the compensation argument also has nothing to do with organization, since the compensation argument only addresses the 2LOT. When you say things like this:
It is the evolutionist “compensation argument” that deals with entropy AND organization, by saying that the latter simply comes from a decrease of the former, while this is impossible.
, it might appear that you don't understand the evolutionists' argument. Biologists do not say that organization comes simply from a decrease in entropy. Really, no one thinks that a decrease in entropy is sufficient by itself to cause organization or evolution, otherwise Mars would be teeming with life. We see local decreases in entropy all the time - does the freezing of an ice cube cause organization to emerge? No. A decrease in entropy is just one requirement -- among many -- that is required for evolution and life as we know it. No one thinks that this meeting this requirement is sufficient, by itself, to produce life. But failing this requirement would be sufficient to debunk evolution. However, as fate would have it, evolution passes 2LOT with flying colors. The amount of entropy decrease caused by life and evolution on Earth is less - in fact, much, much less - than the increase in entropy elsewhere. Ben W
Folks, In few days at UD even 4 threads have been dedicated to the anti-evolution ID argument from the SLoT (Sewell's, kairosfocus' (comments off), Sheldon's and mine). Overall so far these articles have got 600+ comments. This is a clear sign that, among IDers, the awareness of the power of this ID argument is increasing. And, in the same time, among evolutionists, the awareness of the weakness of evolution - before the SLoT - is increasing too. Evolutionists continue to deny all, it is their tactics. But they are really afraid. They know that we know that "the evolution-king is naked", also from the SLoT point of view, beyond all others. niwrad
Joe:
Really? How the heck do you guys communicate?
We communicate by defining our terms with excruciating care. Elizabeth B Liddle
As Prof. Sewell says: if in a closed system a computer arises, it is insufficient that you says that order can arise.
Of course it is insufficient. Nobody is saying it is sufficient. It is however necessary. Therefore Granville's claim that it can't happen, and therefore evolution can't happen is incorrect. There may be perfectly good reasons why computers cannot arise spontaneously, i.e. be designed and built by evolved organisms that arose spontaneously, but it's not because order can't arise spontaneously. It can. Elizabeth B Liddle
Natural selection is eliminative. The only reward for the survivors is that they may get the chance to reproduce. That isn’t how EAs operate.
It is exactly how they operate. Elizabeth B Liddle
Ben W:
What we scientists mean when they talk about “information” is different from what Dembski means when he talks about it.
Really? How the heck do you guys communicate? What are all those words in your peer-reviewed papers? What are all of those words in your science textbooks? Those words are not information to you and your alleged scientists? We use the word information the same way that everyone uses it- the same way scientists use it when they communicate their ideas. It's nonsense like Ben's that demonstrates why people don't take their side seriously. Joe
Ben W
Imagine what happens to every Earth-like planet that is cooling down from its early, molten state. It goes from molten rock (high disorder) to solid rock (low disorder). The system spontaneously goes towards order. How can it do that? Because it’s an open system.
Nobody denies this, that "systems [in some circumstances] spontaneously go towards *order*". What I deny, based on the SLoT, is that systems spontaneously go towards *organization*. I explained the abysmal difference between organization and order, and even I symbolized such difference in my pictures as an insurmountable "hole".
compensation doesn’t “cause” evolution [...] compensation allows for evolution..
Compensation allows for order increasing, which has nothing to do with organization creation. As Prof. Sewell says: if in a closed system a computer arises, it is insufficient that you say that order can arise. Your order is ZERO compared to organization. Sewell continues: you must prove that the CSI of the computer gets in the system somehow. And your compensation doesn't provide such proof.
If your understanding of a physical law is contradicted by reality, then you’re not understanding the physical law correctly.
I assure you that my understanding of the SLoT is NEVER contradicted by reality. It is the understanding of the SLoT by evolutionists that is poor: in fact they continue to dream, also if the SLoT evidences should awake them. niwrad
Ben W:
Well, what organisms (besides humans) can even understand the idea of evolution or “goals”?
If James Shapiro is correct, all of them.
And it’s trivially obvious that a piece of code is not self-aware, or aware of a “goal”. It’s not sentient.
The programmer is. And the entire program is designed for a purpose. If a program is designed to do something, and it does it, then it did so by design, not by natural selection.
What I mean to say here is that evolution and EAs work regardless of whether the thing that’s being “tested” is aware of it.
EAs work because they were designed to. And according to ID, organisms were designed to evolve and eveolved by design.
That’s how EAs work, too. They eliminate the pieces of code that don’t work (or equivalently, these pieces of code don’t “reproduce”),...
No, there is a selection coefficient actively selecting which will (continue to) reproduce and which will not. It selects those which are deemed better suited to solve the problem. And yes that means it actively eliminates those which it deems are not suited to solve the problem. To sum it all up- EAs use reproduction and variation to achieve a goal. Natural selection doesn’t have any goals and a chance to reproduce is all that awaits the survivors, whatever they are. Joe
Ben W, I can’t make heads or tails out of anything you said, save to gather you do not want to be reasonable to the evidence.
BornAgain, I'm basically saying I can't see how your conclusions follow from the evidence you presented. I also have no problem with the classical/quantum information connection. To a physicist, the distinction between the two of these is irrelevant for this conversation. Neither of them have anything whatsoever to do with the idea of "organization", CSI, or what Dembski and Behe claim about evolution. And that's the problem. What we scientists mean when they talk about "information" is different from what Dembski means when he talks about it. We can measure physical information (whether classical or quantum), but you can't measure 'specified complexity'; heck, you can't even really rigorously define it. That's on reason many of us see it as nonsense. Ben W
Ben said: An important part of both is that the organism or code does not know about the “goal”,… On what evidence do you make that claim?
Well, what organisms (besides humans) can even understand the idea of evolution or "goals"? And it's trivially obvious that a piece of code is not self-aware, or aware of a "goal". It's not sentient. What I mean to say here is that evolution and EAs work regardless of whether the thing that's being "tested" is aware of it. The "goal" isn't held by the organism, it's held by the entire system (and even then, we shouldn't really call it a "goal", as that implies some kind of sentience. Does gravity "try" to pull things downward? Is that its "goal"? No, it just does what it does.)
Obvioulsy you don’t understand natural selection. As Mayr said it is eliminative, not selective. And BTW biological fitness is an after-the-fact assessment.
Surprise! That's how EAs work, too. They eliminate the pieces of code that don't work (or equivalently, these pieces of code don't "reproduce"), and we do this after they've been created. We don't create pieces of code that we think will work well, instead, we combine other pieces of code that work, and we see how they do, and then the ones that do well are allowed to "reproduce". Honestly, it's extremely analogous to evolution by natural selection. Ben W
Ben W, I can't make heads or tails out of anything you said, save to gather you do not want to be reasonable to the evidence. Good luck with all that! I'm out of this one. Welcome to Joe's world! :) bornagain77
Ben W:
On the contrary, “to reproduce” is as much of a goal as any other problem.
Well Lizzie's position cannot explain reproduction.
An important part of both is that the organism or code does not know about the “goal”,...
On what evidence do you make that claim?
In life, nature judges an organism; in EAs, the programmer has provided some criteria.
I doubt that nature judges and the programmer provides everything the program needs to solve the problem.
If we were to design a real-life “program” to solve the problem of “make an animal as fit as it can”, we couldn’t do better than evolution by natural selection.
Obvioulsy you don't understand natural selection. As Mayr said it is eliminative, not selective. And BTW biological fitness is an after-the-fact assessment. To sum it all up- EAs use reproduction and variation to achieve a goal. Natural selection doesn't have any goals and a chance to reproduce is all that awaits the survivors. Joe
And you cannot demonstrate that “EAs are an exact replication of natural selection in silico” and I can demonstrate they are design mechanisms, ie tools designed by us to solve specific problems (they have goals).
On the contrary, "to reproduce" is as much of a goal as any other problem. An important part of both is that the organism or code does not know about the "goal", it is simply judged by how well it meets it. In life, nature judges an organism; in EAs, the programmer has provided some criteria. But neither the organism nor the piece of code being judged needs to have a goal; they're simply judged by an external source, and the 'successful' ones reproduce. If we were to design a real-life "program" to solve the problem of "make an animal as fit as it can", we couldn't do better than evolution by natural selection. Ben W
Lizzie:
EAs are an exact replication of natural selection in silico, Joe.
Nope. EAs have a goal. Natural selection does not. Natural selection is eliminative. The only reward for the survivors is that they may get the chance to reproduce. That isn't how EAs operate.
I realise that you disagree, ...
Again, I can support my claims and you cannot. No one cares what you say, Lizzie. They only care what you can demonstrate. And you cannot demonstrate that "EAs are an exact replication of natural selection in silico" and I can demonstrate they are design mechanisms, ie tools designed by us to solve specific problems (they have goals). So blah, blah, blah all you want, reality refutes you. Joe
Joe
EAs have nothing to do with natural selection.
EAs are an exact replication of natural selection in silico, Joe. I realise that you disagree, but you are wrong. Elizabeth B Liddle
Hence more entropy in the Earth’s surroundings doesn’t give less entropy in the Earth. This refutes compensation as cause of evolution. Thus, evolutionists’ “money” doesn’t pay anything.
If anyone said that more entropy in the Earth's surroundings "gives" less entropy on Earth, they'd be wrong. Likewise, compensation doesn't "cause" evolution. I haven't heard any 'evolutionists' say that, but that doesn't really matter -- either way, it's not quite correct. The correct version: compensation allows for evolution. It doesn't cause evolution; it just shows how the 2LOT also doesn't hinder evolution. This is pretty much what Elizabeth and Keith have been saying all through this thread. More entropy in surrounding systems is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for local entropy decrease. If we were to continue the money analogy, it's like imagining that you'd have to pay \$10 to have any possibility whatsoever of getting a ticket for some concert. Paying \$10 wouldn't guarantee you get a concert ticket, it just removes one hindrance to the possibility. It means that now the "You must pay \$10 to get a ticket" law has been satisfied, and this no longer poses a problem for you obtaining a ticket.
The SLoT continues to say that systems spontaneously go towards disorder. Evolution continues to say that systems spontaneously go towards organization. Two incompatible things.
/sigh. Imagine what happens to every Earth-like planet that is cooling down from its early, molten state. It goes from molten rock (high disorder) to solid rock (low disorder). The system spontaneously goes towards order. How can it do that? Because it's an open system. If your understanding of a physical law is contradicted by reality, then you're not understanding the physical law correctly. Ben W
BornAgain, Quantum information is still physical, just like what you're calling "classical" information. For the sake of this discussion, the two can be treated identically. The problem is that neither of these have anything to do with complex specified information (CSI), which has to do with the functionality of a given sequence of bits, rather than its mathematical or physical amount of bits information. That's the big leap of logic that I'm not following. Quantum or not-quantum, I don't care - that's just reversible vs irreversible thermodynamics (and not necessarily that). Sure, maybe cells can use quantum information to help repair their cells. *Maybe*. (I'm really unclear on how you reached that conclusion from an article about quantum dots and DNA repair). But that still has nothing to do with biological "information" and CSI. I mean, sure, the two are tangentially related, but it's a huge stretch. This doesn't help you figure out how much CSI is in a given string of bits (or a wave function, if you want to include the quantum aspect). Ben W
Lizzie:
EAs are far from “off topic”, as Granville’s contention is that natural selection would violate the 2nd Law.
EAs have nothing to do with natural selection. EAs have nothing to do with darwinian evolution. EAs are a DESIGN mechanism. THAT is why they do not violate the 2LoT. Joe
Elizabeth B Liddle
A “statistical law” is only as good as the premise on which you computed your probability distribution.
We agree here, no problem. In the SLoT the premises are the laws of physics and mathematics (eminently probability and statistics). By the way, I am supporter of the "frequentist" approach in probability theory, according to which probabilities are real properties of objects and events (when they are aptly frame-worked in a well defined context, as you rightly noted). niwrad
Elizabeth B Liddle
We can see from an EA that natural selection does not violate the 2nd Law.
I would rephrase a bit: "We can see that an EA does not violate the 2nd Law because implies the intervention of an intelligent source...(the programmer)". ;) niwrad
keiths Thanks for the link. Yees, "The ball climbs the slope, but it falls down the hole (can't park) and reappears at the coin return .. SLoT". It well captures what I meant as double sense in my title! :) niwrad
EAs are far from "off topic", as Granville's contention is that natural selection would violate the 2nd Law. But we can see from an EA that natural selection does not violate the 2nd Law and can result in an decrease in entropy. And entropy is not a measure of disorganisation, so claiming that the results of an EA are not "organised" is not a rebuttal to the claim that EAs cannot reduce entropy. And, in any case, the results of EAs are frequently highly organised, by any standards - they include some pretty clever solutions to quite difficult problems. Elizabeth B Liddle
Elizabeth B Liddle
This [evolution] can be seen very dramatically in any simple evolutionary algorithm, where entirely random but heritable changes to the virtual critters rapidly lead to sequences that are far from uniform.
Non-uniformity has nothing to do with organization. Anyway with EAs we go off topic. In my articles pipeline there is also "The fake of EAs" (or something like that), where I show that EAs prove evolution like, say, my last PHP script "Sequences Probability Calculator v.1.1" proves the spontaneous arise of an aircraft carrier, i.e. exactly ZERO. niwrad
Ben W
The 2LOT is a phenomenological law. It is a law we have derived from observing physical phenomena, rather than derived from more basic laws. This means that there’s still some chance that far off in the future, we’ll discover some exotic physics that lets us break the 2LOT.
The SLoT is experimentally evident but, in the same time, is based also on principles. The chance that in the future it will be broken by some "exotic physics" is the same that in math someone discovers than 1 million is less than 1. niwrad
A "statistical law" is only as good as the premise on which you computed your probability distribution. This point seems to get no traction here at all. A probability is not a property of a pattern. A probability distribution is a property of a generative process. You cannot look at two patterns, and decide that one was more probable than the other, without specifying the conditions under which you are assuming it was generated. Elizabeth B Liddle
Ben W
The 2LOT is a statistical law.
Good for ID and bad for evolution. Nothing is more certain than a statistical law. The industry based on probability and statistics (casinos) is the most reliable. niwrad
Evolutionists, Obviously, nothing of what you said to defend evolution from the SLoT has helped. The SLoT continues to say that systems spontaneously go towards disorder. Evolution continues to say that systems spontaneously go towards organization. Two incompatible things. The models of SLoT and evolution I described (also with pictures) are exactly the model of the famous evolutionist Richard Dawkins ("mount improbable"...) and all evolutionists with him. They are so simple to understand that also a child can do it. You have a ball forced by gravity. You have zones of the mountain the ball can reach. You have zones of the mountain the ball cannot reach. The SLoT says what is the "no parking" zone. You persist to deny clear evidence and continue to claim that in the history of Earth infinite balls went and still stay permanently in the "no parking" zone. The reason of your stubbornness is you fear the SLoT as fire. IDers/creationists know that. They will continue to "shot" this weak point (and all others obviously) endlessly. niwrad
Ben W
Entropy isn’t like money.
Evolutionists do use entropy like money in compensation, not me.
More entropy in one system doesn’t give you less entropy in another system.
Hence more entropy in the Earth's surroundings doesn’t give less entropy in the Earth. This refutes compensation as cause of evolution. Thus, evolutionists' "money" doesn't pay anything.
The difference is that you could also have more entropy in both systems, of course.
True. This worse the case for evolution, though. niwrad
keiths@53: I have found a fun way to further improve upon your gerbil poofing analogy. See the other thread. CS3
I'm sorry Ben, I mistakenly called you Bob bornagain77
Bob W you claim there is no connection between quantum information and classical information, such as what Dembski and Marks have established the conservation of, so yet once again I reference this paper: Encoded ‘classical’ information such as what Dembski and Marks have demonstrated the conservation of, and such as what we find encoded in computer programs, and yes, as we find encoded in DNA, is found to be a subset of ‘transcendent’ (beyond space and time) quantum entanglement/information by the following method:,,,
Quantum knowledge cools computers: New understanding of entropy – June 2011 Excerpt: No heat, even a cooling effect; In the case of perfect classical knowledge of a computer memory (zero entropy), deletion of the data requires in theory no energy at all. The researchers prove that “more than complete knowledge” from quantum entanglement with the memory (negative entropy) leads to deletion of the data being accompanied by removal of heat from the computer and its release as usable energy. This is the physical meaning of negative entropy. Renner emphasizes, however, “This doesn’t mean that we can develop a perpetual motion machine.” The data can only be deleted once, so there is no possibility to continue to generate energy. The process also destroys the entanglement, and it would take an input of energy to reset the system to its starting state. The equations are consistent with what’s known as the second law of thermodynamics: the idea that the entropy of the universe can never decrease. Vedral says “We’re working on the edge of the second law. If you go any further, you will break it.” http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/06/110601134300.htm
To refresh your memory Bob W,, Rolf Landauer held that the classical information encoded in a computer is merely 'physical',,
"Information is physical" Landauer
The reason Landauer held classical information to be merely physical, i.e.‘emergent’, from a material basis is he believed it always required energy to erase classical information from a computer. Yet in the preceding experiment there is a erasure of classical information without energy. Thus directly undercutting Landauer's contention that 'information is physical'. i.e The information was removed without the necessary consumption of energy as Landauer held. But Bob W, regardless of whether you accept this clear evidence or not that classical information is a subset of quantum information, let's dig a little deeper and see what the empirical evidence can tell us, thus far, about the relation between irreversible thermodynamics and the quantum entanglement/information inherent within the DNA and proteins of the cell (as I have already referenced for you: E. Rieper).,,, In the cell we find elaborate overlapping DNA repair mechanisms protecting the classical information on the DNA from the entropic decay of random mutations. The most spectacular example for DNA repair I have seen thus far is this:
Quantum Dots Spotlight DNA-Repair Proteins in Motion - March 2010 Excerpt: "How this system works is an important unanswered question in this field," he said. "It has to be able to identify very small mistakes in a 3-dimensional morass of gene strands. It's akin to spotting potholes on every street all over the country and getting them fixed before the next rush hour." Dr. Bennett Van Houten - of note: A bacterium has about 40 team members on its pothole crew. That allows its entire genome to be scanned for errors in 20 minutes, the typical doubling time.,, These smart machines can apparently also interact with other damage control teams if they cannot fix the problem on the spot. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/03/100311123522.htm
Please note, DNA repair machines ‘Fixing every pothole in America before the next rush hour’ is analogous to the traveling salesman problem. The traveling salesman problem is a NP-hard (read: very hard) problem in computer science; The problem involves finding the shortest possible route between cities, visiting each city only once. ‘Traveling salesman problems’ are notorious for keeping supercomputers busy for days.
NP-hard problem - Examples http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NP-hard#Examples
Since it is readily apparent that there is not a material CPU (central processing unit) in the DNA, or cell, busily computing answers (crunching bits) to this monster logistic problem, in a purely ‘material’ fashion, then it is readily apparent that this monster ‘traveling salesman problem’, for DNA repair, is somehow being computed by the ‘non-local’ quantum information inherent within the cell; And indeed we have evidence that quantum information can accomplish exactly this type of extremely difficult computational problem:
Speed Test of Quantum Versus Conventional Computing: Quantum Computer Wins - May 8, 2013 Excerpt: quantum computing is, "in some cases, really, really fast." McGeoch says the calculations the D-Wave excels at involve a specific combinatorial optimization problem, comparable in difficulty to the more famous "travelling salesperson" problem that's been a foundation of theoretical computing for decades.,,, "This type of computer is not intended for surfing the internet, but it does solve this narrow but important type of problem really, really fast," McGeoch says. "There are degrees of what it can do. If you want it to solve the exact problem it's built to solve, at the problem sizes I tested, it's thousands of times faster than anything I'm aware of. If you want it to solve more general problems of that size, I would say it competes -- it does as well as some of the best things I've looked at. At this point it's merely above average but shows a promising scaling trajectory." http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/05/130508122828.htm
Thus Bob W, you are in the unenviable position of denying that thermodynamics does not present any problems whatsoever for Darwinian evolution, and yet Quantum information strongly implicated, in a rather astonishing 'quantum computation' fashion, to be preventing the entropic effects of random mutations from accumulating in DNA. Go figure! It is definitely not a position I would wish to be arguing from Bob W! Supplemental notes:
Quantum no-hiding theorem experimentally confirmed for first time Excerpt: In the classical world, information can be copied and deleted at will. In the quantum world, however, the conservation of quantum information means that information cannot be created nor destroyed. This concept stems from two fundamental theorems of quantum mechanics: the no-cloning theorem and the no-deleting theorem. A third and related theorem, called the no-hiding theorem, addresses information loss in the quantum world. According to the no-hiding theorem, if information is missing from one system (which may happen when the system interacts with the environment), then the information is simply residing somewhere else in the Universe; in other words, the missing information cannot be hidden in the correlations between a system and its environment. http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-03-quantum-no-hiding-theorem-experimentally.html Quantum no-deleting theorem Excerpt: A stronger version of the no-cloning theorem and the no-deleting theorem provide permanence to quantum information. To create a copy one must import the information from some part of the universe and to delete a state one needs to export it to another part of the universe where it will continue to exist. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_no-deleting_theorem#Consequence Quantum Entanglement and Information Quantum entanglement is a physical resource, like energy, associated with the peculiar nonclassical correlations that are possible between separated quantum systems. Entanglement can be measured, transformed, and purified. A pair of quantum systems in an entangled state can be used as a quantum information channel to perform computational and cryptographic tasks that are impossible for classical systems. The general study of the information-processing capabilities of quantum systems is the subject of quantum information theory. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qt-entangle/
I will assume for the sake of brevity that I do not have to review the falsification of local realism for you: Verse and music:
John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. You Are I Am - Mercyme http://myktis.com/songs/you-are-i-am/
bornagain77
Keith: And there are really a few more caveats we can add, to discuss the limits of the 2LOT: The 2LOT is a phenomenological law. It is a law we have derived from observing physical phenomena, rather than derived from more basic laws. This means that there's still some chance that far off in the future, we'll discover some exotic physics that lets us break the 2LOT. The 2LOT is a statistical law. Correctly applied, it describes the tendencies of systems over periods of times. So, when we say that 2LOT says that something will "never" happen, we really just mean that it's extremely unlikely, not that it's completely impossible. If we're looking at just a few atoms or short period of time, this overly-simplified form of 2LOT can be broken (and indeed, we've seen observed it in real life). Systems can go "uphill", they just don't tend to, and the larger the system, the more unlikely it is. And you're right about the 2LOT applied to an open system; it's the same as the "compensation argument". If I look at nirwad's refuation of the compensation argument, I'm not sure that he understands the 2LOT. His first two points basically argue with the 2LOT itself, or, perhaps, he just misunderstands what evolutionists & thermodynamicists are actually saying. For instance: entropy isn't like money. More entropy in one system doesn't give you less entropy in another system. Rather, less entropy in one system requires more entropy in another. The difference is that you could also have more entropy in both systems, of course. But as long as one system has less, then the other one must have at least that much more. Maybe that's paradoxical or non-intuitive, but it's science. Ben W
Phinehas,
Please forgive my ignorance, but does this mean that the second law in effect has nothing whatsoever to do with anything (not just evolution) on this planet, since the Earth is not a closed system?
The second law applies to both open and isolated systems. (Note: Technically, there is a difference between closed and isolated systems, and we should really be using the term 'isolated' here, though it's usually clear from context what we actually mean. I'll try to use 'isolated' for that reason, though I often forget, and it's nothing to get worked up about.) The underlying principle is the same, but the second law is expressed differently with respect to open and isolated systems: The entropy of an isolated system never decreases. The entropy of an open system never decreases unless the decrease is compensated for by an equal or greater increase in the entropy of the surroundings. The latter statement is the familiar compensation argument, which is why I've been stressing that to deny the compensation argument is to deny the second law itself. niwrad doesn't seem to get that, though. keiths
Re closed systems: You can have open systems within closed systems. So what that means is that even if we regard the earth as a closed system, that doesn't stop there being local entropy decrease on earth, because those local systems will be "open" to the rest of earth. What matters is that the system isn't in equilibrium, whether we consider the system "just earth" or "earth + sun" or whatever. There are energy gradients still, and those energy gradients mean that work can be done, and when work is done, entropy can fall, although the system doing the work will always gain more entropy as a result of the work done, than the system on which the work is done loses. The reason that evolution isn't prevented from happening by the 2LoT isn't that "the earth" is an open system, but that because "the earth" isn't in equilibrium, it contains lots of open systems. Although it is, of course, an open system, and solar energy is what generates most of the energy gradients as far as I know. At least I think that's right. Elizabeth B Liddle
Please forgive my ignorance, but does this mean that the second law in effect has nothing whatsoever to do with anything (not just evolution) on this planet, since the Earth is not a closed system?
Well, you could theoretically have a closed system on Earth, if you're talking about extremely short time periods. And we might look at the law for systems where the system is almost closed, like when we're trying to figure out how what happens to a gas-air mixture inside an engine (on a timescale where no heat or matter escapes). Likewise, the 2LOT tells you that a perpetual motion machine can't give you useful energy back out, whether on Earth or not. So, it does has useful applications, but they're often pretty simplified or small. You'd have to be extremely careful about making broad, sweeping claims for long times or large systems based on the 2LOT. Ben W
Norbert Wiener wrote: “The amount of information in a system is a measure of its organization degree” (Cybernetics, Introduction). Since organization involves functionality then you disagree with Wiener.
I've no idea how to interpret what Wiener is trying to say there, with the quote out of context. I 'spect that "organization" may mean a different thing to a cyberneticist than to a materials scientist or mathematician.
Moreover, for you, 2 cases both inconsistent are possible: (1) DNA has functionality, but it has irrelevant information content; (2) DNA has information content, but it has irrelevant functionality. Even you disagree with most evolutionists, who after all admit DNA has information AND functionality.
I didn't say that. Rather, you can add more information, or functionality, or both, or neither. The two aren't strongly connected in biological systems. If I had another base pair to a DNA strand, in doing so, mucked up the cell's biological machinery, then I've increased information but decreased functionality. If, on the other hand, the new base pair happened to increase survival, then I've increased information and functionality. And I can give you examples of either case from real life. BornAgain, I'm having trouble following your point. Most of the science papers you gave discussed physical information, a measurable, quantifiable physical property of a system. And then you bait-and-switched to Dembski/Behe's idea of CSI, which really has no formal (physical/mathematical) definition or measure. Trust me, my understanding of thermodynamics is just fine, but I still can't see what quantum entanglement or physical information has to do with "specified" information, as the latter relies not on the mathematically-quantifiable information in a string of bits, but on their usefulness to an organism. It's apples and orangutans. Ben W
Ben W
Regardless, this still all has little to do with the second law and evolution on this planet. The Earth is not a closed system, so any impositions of the 2LOT on information in a closed system still don’t apply here.
Please forgive my ignorance, but does this mean that the second law in effect has nothing whatsoever to do with anything (not just evolution) on this planet, since the Earth is not a closed system? Phinehas
Ben W
Functionality is irrelevant to information content.
Norbert Wiener wrote: "The amount of information in a system is a measure of its organization degree" (Cybernetics, Introduction). Since organization involves functionality then you disagree with Wiener. Moreover, for you, 2 cases both inconsistent are possible: (1) DNA has functionality, but it has irrelevant information content; (2) DNA has information content, but it has irrelevant functionality. Even you disagree with most evolutionists, who after all admit DNA has information AND functionality. So no wonder that for you "evolution does not violate the 2LOT". If evolution implies neither information nor functionality, it is a void word only, about which it is futile to ask if it violates or doesn't violate the 2LOT. niwrad
Ben W you claim:
In other words, there’s no real connect between actual information as defined by chemists/physicists and the information as defined by Dembski et al.
BornAgain, the problem is that the "information" as defined in those quotes by chemists and physicists has nothing to do with "information" as defined by ID biologists. For physicists or a mathematician, information is defined by the number of equivalent states, which, yeah, increases as entropy increases. Configurational entropy is directly related to "information content". To me, a materials scientist, you can increase the information content of something by just adding more bits. Any random string of 250 bits is less information than a random string of 500 bits. Functionality is irrelevant to information content. But to an ID-biologist, a 250-bit string of DNA that performs some function has more "information" than a 500-bit string of DNA that does nothing. That requires a completely different definition of "information". In other words, there's no real connect between actual information as defined by chemists/physicists and the information as defined by Dembski et al. And if you have to change the definition of a word to make it "fit" in your quotes, then it's not really saying what you're saying. Regardless, this still all has little to do with the second law and evolution on this planet. The Earth is not a closed system, so any impositions of the 2LOT on information in a closed system still don't apply here. Ben W
as to: "It is completely, 100% wrong to say that the Second Law of Thermodynamics poses any problem for evolution whatsoever." Save of course for the fact that it actually does pose a very severe problem for evolution, namely: “Is there a real connection between entropy in physics and the entropy of information? ….The equations of information theory and the second law are the same, suggesting that the idea of entropy is something fundamental…” Siegfried, Dallas Morning News, 5/14/90, [Quotes Robert W. Lucky, Ex. Director of Research, AT&T, Bell Laboratories & John A. Wheeler, of Princeton & Univ. of TX, Austin] “Bertalanffy (1968) called the relation between irreversible thermodynamics and information theory one of the most fundamental unsolved problems in biology.” Charles J. Smith – Biosystems, Vol.1, p259. “Gain in entropy always means loss of information, and nothing more.” Gilbert Newton Lewis – preeminent Chemist of the first half of last century Is the a real relation between Thermodynamics and the information inherent in the cell? You bet: Maxwell's demon demonstration (knowledge of a particle's position) turns information into energy - November 2010 Excerpt: Until now, demonstrating the conversion of information to energy has been elusive, but University of Tokyo physicist Masaki Sano and colleagues have succeeded in demonstrating it in a nano-scale experiment. In a paper published in Nature Physics they describe how they coaxed a Brownian particle to travel upwards on a "spiral-staircase-like" potential energy created by an electric field solely on the basis of information on its location. As the particle traveled up the staircase it gained energy from moving to an area of higher potential, and the team was able to measure precisely how much energy had been converted from information. http://www.physorg.com/news/2010-11-maxwell-demon-energy.html Demonic device converts information to energy - 2010 Excerpt: "This is a beautiful experimental demonstration that information has a thermodynamic content," says Christopher Jarzynski, a statistical chemist at the University of Maryland in College Park. In 1997, Jarzynski formulated an equation to define the amount of energy that could theoretically be converted from a unit of information2; the work by Sano and his team has now confirmed this equation. "This tells us something new about how the laws of thermodynamics work on the microscopic scale," says Jarzynski. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=demonic-device-converts-inform Supplemental notes: Shining Light on Dark Energy – October 21, 2012 Excerpt: It (Entropy) explains time; it explains every possible (non-quantum) action in the universe;,, Even gravity, Vedral argued, can be expressed as a consequence of the law of entropy. ,,, The principles of thermodynamics are at their roots all to do with information theory. Information theory is simply an embodiment of how we interact with the universe —,,, http://crev.info/2012/10/shining-light-on-dark-energy/ Yet we find that entropy cannot explain the origination of information: The Capabilities of Chaos and Complexity: David L. Abel - Null Hypothesis For Information Generation - 2009 To focus the scientific community’s attention on its own tendencies toward overzealous metaphysical imagination bordering on “wish-fulfillment,” we propose the following readily falsifiable null hypothesis, and invite rigorous experimental attempts to falsify it: "Physicodynamics cannot spontaneously traverse The Cybernetic Cut: physicodynamics alone cannot organize itself into formally functional systems requiring algorithmic optimization, computational halting, and circuit integration." A single exception of non trivial, unaided spontaneous optimization of formal function by truly natural process would falsify this null hypothesis. http://www.mdpi.com/1422-0067/10/1/247/pdf Can We Falsify Any Of The Following Null Hypothesis (For Information Generation) 1) Mathematical Logic 2) Algorithmic Optimization 3) Cybernetic Programming 4) Computational Halting 5) Integrated Circuits 6) Organization (e.g. homeostatic optimization far from equilibrium) 7) Material Symbol Systems (e.g. genetics) 8) Any Goal Oriented bona fide system 9) Language 10) Formal function of any kind 11) Utilitarian work http://mdpi.com/1422-0067/10/1/247/ag Moreover,,,Encoded ‘classical’ information such as what Dembski and Marks have demonstrated the conservation of, and such as what we find encoded in computer programs, and yes, as we find encoded in DNA, is found to be a subset of ‘transcendent’ (beyond space and time) quantum entanglement/information by the following method:,,, Quantum knowledge cools computers: New understanding of entropy – June 2011 Excerpt: No heat, even a cooling effect; In the case of perfect classical knowledge of a computer memory (zero entropy), deletion of the data requires in theory no energy at all. The researchers prove that “more than complete knowledge” from quantum entanglement with the memory (negative entropy) leads to deletion of the data being accompanied by removal of heat from the computer and its release as usable energy. This is the physical meaning of negative entropy. Renner emphasizes, however, “This doesn’t mean that we can develop a perpetual motion machine.” The data can only be deleted once, so there is no possibility to continue to generate energy. The process also destroys the entanglement, and it would take an input of energy to reset the system to its starting state. The equations are consistent with what’s known as the second law of thermodynamics: the idea that the entropy of the universe can never decrease. Vedral says “We’re working on the edge of the second law. If you go any further, you will break it.” http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/06/110601134300.htm And quantum entanglement cannot be reduced to a within space-time cause: Looking Beyond Space and Time to Cope With Quantum Theory – (Oct. 28, 2012) Excerpt: To derive their inequality, which sets up a measurement of entanglement between four particles, the researchers considered what behaviours are possible for four particles that are connected by influences that stay hidden and that travel at some arbitrary finite speed. Mathematically (and mind-bogglingly), these constraints define an 80-dimensional object. The testable hidden influence inequality is the boundary of the shadow this 80-dimensional shape casts in 44 dimensions. The researchers showed that quantum predictions can lie outside this boundary, which means they are going against one of the assumptions. Outside the boundary, either the influences can’t stay hidden, or they must have infinite speed.,,, The remaining option is to accept that (quantum) influences must be infinitely fast,,, “Our result gives weight to the idea that quantum correlations somehow arise from outside spacetime, in the sense that no story in space and time can describe them,” says Nicolas Gisin, Professor at the University of Geneva, Switzerland,,, http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/10/121028142217.htm If that wasn't bad enough for the reductive materialistic basis of neo-Darwinism, non-reducible quantum entanglement is now found in molecular biology on a massive scale: Quantum Information/Entanglement In DNA - Elisabeth Rieper - short video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5936605/ bornagain77
keiths
You deny the compensation argument. An entire section of your OP is entitled Refutation of the “compensation argument”.
I deny it only insofar compensation pretends to save evolution from the SLoT. If its pretension is only the ball can climb until the yellow zone, then no problem, compensation is ok.
You and Granville are confused because you think the compensation argument should explain evolution. But why?
Because SLoT explains non-evolution, then compensation should explain evolution, what else. niwrad
Keiths and Elizabeth are 100% correct, and the knitting/gerbil analogies are spot-on. It's been said, "Thermodynamics is the science of the impossible". This means that thermodynamics doesn't tell you what's actually possible, it only tells you some of what's impossible. It gives you some reasons why some things won't work, and it says nothing about everything else. So: evolution does not violate the 2LOT, as the Earth is not a closed system. That's it, full stop. That's all that the 2LOT can tell you about evolution. It's a very narrow, very precise law, and it says nothing at all about "organization". Phrased most accurately, the 2LOT says that evolution "isn't impossible" by the standards of this law. Evolution passes this hurdle with flying colors, even if it might stumble at others. You can't derive any other information about evolution from the 2LOT. It is completely, 100% wrong to say that the Second Law of Thermodynamics poses any problem for evolution whatsoever. Ben W
KF
Re EL: It’s not just work that is done but highly specific, intricate and complex constructive work (including maintenance), through a complex of digital info controlled processing systems, including a von Neumann self replicator. FSCO/I all the way through. The only observed source for such is design. And, the point of the relevant analysis is that the idea that diffusion or the like would be able to account for such, is simply a belief in miraculously lucky noise, indistinguishable form believing in materialist miracles. Noise is not a credible source of that sort of info. KF
OK, and so Granville's argument is NOT an argument from the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, but rather the same argument as Dembski's (and yours). The 2nd Law is simply irrelevant. Elizabeth B Liddle
You haven’t invented the atomic bomb.
???
No one denies compensation.
You deny the compensation argument. An entire section of your OP is entitled Refutation of the "compensation argument". But as I showed earlier in the thread, you can't deny the compensation argument without denying the second law itself. The compensation argument is valid, and it shows that evolution doesn't violate the second law. That's all it shows. It doesn't explain evolution. You and Granville are confused because you think the compensation argument should explain evolution. But why? I explained this already:
niwrad, The compensation argument doesn’t explain evolution. It doesn’t have to explain evolution. It isn’t intended to explain evolution. It is only intended to show that evolution does not violate the second law — and it succeeds. Likewise, the compensation argument doesn’t explain knitting. It doesn’t have to explain knitting. It isn’t intended to explain knitting. It is only intended to show that knitting (and every other process) does not violate the second law — and it succeeds. You may very well be a knitting skeptic. You may demand evidence that knitting actually happens. You may argue that knitting is too improbable to be believable. Yet none of that has anything to do with the second law, because knitting doesn’t violate the second law. It’s the same with evolution: You may very well be a evolution skeptic. You may demand evidence that evolution actually happens. You may argue that evolution is too improbable to be believable. Yet none of that has anything to do with the second law, because evolution doesn’t violate the second law.
keiths
keiths You haven't invented the atomic bomb. Your argument is compensation, sic et simpliciter. No one denies compensation. We deny compensation causes organization. Compensation, at its maximum, can force the ball towards the yellow zone (order). But the ball cannot arrive to the red zone (organization). Suggestion for you and Lizzie, from a friend: resign. Don't worry, evolution doesn't go away from school, science, academy, media, tv .. there is no chance that happens because the Darwinian nomenklatura rules, but at least you get the satisfaction to know the truth. :) niwrad
kairosfocus:
Re KS: This ideologue is notoriously not credible in his assertions.
KF, This "ideologue" has presented a simple 4-step argument showing that your denial of the compensation argument is tantamount to denying the second law itself. You can't refute my argument, and the onlookers know it. keiths
Re KS: This ideologue is notoriously not credible in his assertions. He has shown no such thing as he tries to imply but has instead put forward and knocked over a strawman assertion [a fallacy of irrelevance -- he has not adequately accounted for the sort of constructive work creating FSCO/I on diffusion or the like that he leaves the impression of . . . ], for instance see the corrections here on where just today I had to bring back up a correction to a similarly misleading assertion. Unfortunately on track record he will be ding this sort of thing for years to come. KF kairosfocus
Re EL: It's not just work that is done but highly specific, intricate and complex constructive work (including maintenance), through a complex of digital info controlled processing systems, including a von Neumann self replicator. FSCO/I all the way through. The only observed source for such is design. And, the point of the relevant analysis is that the idea that diffusion or the like would be able to account for such, is simply a belief in miraculously lucky noise, indistinguishable form believing in materialist miracles. Noise is not a credible source of that sort of info. KF kairosfocus
Billions balls stay permanently on the top of the red zone and you deny they violate the law stating they cannot stay there!
But your model is not a model of evolution. Or even of the 2nd Law. If work is done on a system, the "config" space, as KF calls it changes. The most probable state, instead of being uniformity, may be something quite different. This can be seen very dramatically in any simple evolutionary algorithm, where entirely random but heritable changes to the virtual critters rapidly lead to sequences that are far from uniform. What was a sink becomes a peak and what was a peak becomes a sink. Elizabeth B Liddle
niwrad, The compensation argument shows that evolution does not violate the second law. I have shown, in a simple 4-step argument, that to deny the compensation argument is to deny the second law. You deny the compensation argument. Therefore, if you don't wish to deny the second law, you need to identify a flaw in my 4-step argument. Good luck. keiths
keiths #57
"Evolution doesn’t violate the second law."
Billions balls stay permanently on the top of the red zone and you deny they violate the law stating they cannot stay there! Analogy: billions cars stay permanently on a "no parking" zone and you deny they violate the "no parking" sign! You deny the evidence, a very simple and clear evidence though. I show you a red apple on the palm of my hand. You say you don't see it. I cannot see for you. niwrad
niwrad, The compensation argument doesn't explain evolution. It doesn't have to explain evolution. It isn't intended to explain evolution. It is only intended to show that evolution does not violate the second law -- and it succeeds. Likewise, the compensation argument doesn't explain knitting. It doesn't have to explain knitting. It isn't intended to explain knitting. It is only intended to show that knitting (and every other process) does not violate the second law -- and it succeeds. You may very well be a knitting skeptic. You may demand evidence that knitting actually happens. You may argue that knitting is too improbable to be believable. Yet none of that has anything to do with the second law, because knitting doesn't violate the second law. It's the same with evolution: You may very well be a evolution skeptic. You may demand evidence that evolution actually happens. You may argue that evolution is too improbable to be believable. Yet none of that has anything to do with the second law, because evolution doesn't violate the second law. keiths
Elizabeth B Liddle #55 Hello Let's try with the colored zones... (1) evolution = countless balls reach the red zone (2) SLoT = balls can never reach the red zone (3) SLoT disproves evolution You counter with compensation: (A) the ball in a system can reach the yellow zone if a ball in the surroundings reaches the green zone Do you see that your (A) doesn't refute 1+2+3? niwrad
I meet you and say: “car cannot run without engine”. You answer: “but in a car the wheels can rotate”. I reply: “Ok, the wheels rotate, but you have to show the car run without engine”.
I'd say it was more like: You meet me say: “car cannot run without engine". I answer: “but it's got an engine!”. You reply: “Ok, it's got an engine, but you have to show the car has wheels”. There is nothing in the 2nd Law that would prevent evolution. There may be other problems, but the 2nd Law isn't one of them :) Elizabeth B Liddle
keiths #53
"All the compensation argument says is that entropy cannot decrease locally unless there is a compensating entropy increase in the surroundings. No one is saying that the compensation argument explains evolution; just that it shows that evolution doesn’t violate the second law."
That SLoT says that evolution cannot happen is a thing clear as the sun as long as one looks at the 2 pictures. Before this evidence you oppose an argument that doesn't explain evolution (= organization), rather shows increase in entropy (= non evolution = non organization). But the compensation argument should do it, in that context!!! It is this thing that you, Lizzie and al. don't understand. Consider this metaphor. I meet you and say: "car cannot run without engine". You answer: "but in a car the wheels can rotate". I reply: "Ok, the wheels rotate, but you have to show the car run without engine". Analogously, if the compensation argument wants really oppose the ID argument from the SLoT, it must explain how evolution happens. It is not enough that you show that entropy increase, because entropy increase has nothing to do with evolution (like wheels are not enough for a car to run). niwrad
I didn’t argue that entropy cannot decrease locally.
All the compensation argument says is that entropy cannot decrease locally unless there is a compensating entropy increase in the surroundings. No one is saying that the compensation argument explains evolution; just that it shows that evolution doesn't violate the second law. Here is another comment from Granville's thread that may help:
CS3, You and Granville have fallen into the trap of wanting the second law to do more than it actually does. The second law forbids violations of the second law, no more and no less. Let me give an example of the same error, but in terms of the first law. Suppose a friend of yours claims that gerbils keep poofing into existence in his living room. He is constantly giving gerbils away to his friends as a result of the alleged gerbil influx. You find this wildly implausible, but he is adamant that it really happens. You try to reason him out of his delusion by showing him that gerbils can’t possibly materialize out of thin air. One of your arguments is that if gerbils really did poof into existence in his living room, this would be a violation of the first law of thermodynamics, which says that energy can be neither created nor destroyed. Since matter is a form of energy (by Einstein’s famous equation), the appearance of a gerbil out of thin air would violate the first law. He tells you he’s made careful measurements that show that every time a gerbil appears, the mass of the furniture in the living room decreases by a corresponding amount. In other words, the incarnation of the gerbil is compensated for by a decrease in mass of the living room furniture. You find this absurd and tell him “This compensation argument is bogus. The first law doesn’t allow gerbils to poof into existence merely because there is a compensatory loss of mass in the living room furniture!” But if you tell him this, you are wrong. The first law does allow gerbils to poof into existence, because the first law only forbids violations of the first law, no more and no less. As long as the mass of the furniture decreases by the correct amount, there is no violation of the first law. The gerbil-poofing idea is still ridiculous, and you have many reasons to doubt it, but the first law is not one of them, because the first law is not violated. The first law is not obligated to rule out every wildly improbable event in the universe, including gerbil poofing. It only rules out violations of the first law. Likewise with evolution and the second law. You and Granville may (and obviously do) think that evolution is ridiculous, and that people and locomotives and lava lamps can’t appear on a formerly barren planet simply because solar energy is streaming in and waste heat is radiating out. But your skepticism has nothing to do with the second law, because the second law is not violated. You just think evolution is improbable, like every other IDer and creationist.
keiths
JW sez:
Sorry Joe, your subjective dislike for the definition of cardinality is irrelevant.
LoL! As if I have any dislike for the definition of cardinality.... Joe
Elizabeth B Liddle I appreciated very much your words. I am honoured to discuss with a Lady who prefers to spend time to grasp SLoT, CSI, DNA.. instead of cinema's stars, beauty products, gossip.. All, evolutionists and IDers/creationists, should have interest in discovering the truth, for not being destroyed. Because "The Truth is a reality that cannot be destroyed by what opposes it, rather the Truth destroys what opposes it." [traditional dictum] You seem to have well understood what are the things that matter. niwrad
Boys, I am the thread owner. As such I would like that all maintain a suitable level of civility. Please, if possible, debate arguments, not ad hominen. Thank you. niwrad
keiths I didn't argue that entropy cannot decrease locally. I argued that such local decrease of entropy has nothing to do with organization. A local decrease can form ice or other trivial products, but will never form microprocessors or cellular DNA machineries. This is the problem. Prof. Sewell, like me and al., doesn't deny local decrease of entropy, ice formation, etc.. He simply denies that organization can arise spontaneously without importing CSI. niwrad
niwrad, In your OP, you claim to refute the compensation argument. On Granville's thread, I explained why denying the compensation argument amounts to denying the second law! Here's my comment:
CS3, I’ve mentioned this a couple of times already but people (including you) haven’t picked up on it, so let me try again. When Granville argues against the compensation idea, he is unwittingly arguing against the second law itself. It’s easy to see why. Imagine two open systems A and B that interact only with each other. Now draw a boundary around just A and B and label the contents as system C. Because A and B interact only with each other, and not with anything outside of C, we know that C is an isolated system (by definition). The second law tells us that the entropy cannot decrease in any isolated system (including C). We also know from thermodynamics that the entropy of C is equal to the entropy of A plus the entropy of B. All of us (including Granville) know that it’s possible for entropy to decrease locally, as when a puddle of water freezes. So imagine that system A is a container of water that becomes ice. Note: 1. The entropy of A decreases when the water freezes. 2. The second law tells us that the entropy of C cannot decrease. 3. Thermodynamics tells us that the entropy of C is equal to the entropy of A plus the entropy of B. 4. Therefore, if the entropy of A decreases, the entropy of B must increase by at least an equal amount to avoid violating the second law. The second law demands that compensation must happen. If you deny compensation, you deny the second law. Thus Granville’s paper is not only chock full of errors, it actually shoots itself in the foot by contradicting the second law! It’s a monumental mess that belongs nowhere near the pages of any respectable scientific publication. The BI organizers really screwed up when they accepted Granville’s paper.
keiths
Well, I know your discourse is pretty honest, and mine will be too.
Thanks! I really appreciate that!
We IDers/creationists are not bad guys who want to destroy evolutionism, as a sport, at any cost, because evolutionists are nasty people. No one of us combats for those reasons or for money or whatever advantage. We combat for the truth, nothing else.
That's good to hear.
We are simply people who believe in a simple principle: that more cannot come from less. Unfortunately evolutionism is exactly that.
It is indeed. And I think you have nailed it exactly. Many of us on the "evolution" side, do think that "more can come from less", and indeed that is the core of the concept of "emergent" properties. However, let me make it clear, that, wrong or right, the concept of "emergence" does not violate the 2LoT. A tornado is an "emergent" property of air moving in a very marked and powerful pattern, and a tornado, although it does represent a large decrease in entropy, does not violate the 2LoT, because it is caused by process that result in increased entropy in the surroundings.
So, when we read that you (as most evolutionists) believe in a “perfectly good mechanism that makes the emergence of life probable” we begin to argue the following points: (1) life implies much organization; (2) such organization cannot come from something less or lower; (3) if the “mechanism” you speak of is chance + necessity, it cannot create organization, because has the necessary power; (4) what is higher than organization is intelligence (the processor of organization); (5) in a system can emerge only what the system potentially contains (or what comes from the surroundings). From nothing, nothing comes. These principles assure us that a simple mechanism that creates true complexity doesn’t exist today and will not exist tomorrow.
And that is extremely clarifying :) The only problem with it, as I would see, is: is the premise on which it is based correct? I would say no. But the great thing is that we do seem to have drilled down to where the difference between our positions truly lies and that is a great achievement! Thank you! Elizabeth B Liddle
@DiEb: Joe has been warned by kf several times. But since Joe is not a darwinist materialist and this blog are the lands of trinitarian hypocracy, Joe will continue to express his bluntess, regardless of your cry for "civility". JWTruthInLove
Joe: Dweeb ... Liar ... dweeb ... ignorant cowards. Please see this comment, just replace Dirichelet by insignifacant, Dirichlet by insignificant and moderator by prolific contributor to this blog .
DiEb
Elizabeth B Liddle #41 Well, I know your discourse is pretty honest, and mine will be too. We IDers/creationists are not bad guys who want to destroy evolutionism, as a sport, at any cost, because evolutionists are nasty people. No one of us combats for those reasons or for money or whatever advantage. We combat for the truth, nothing else. We are simply people who believe in a simple principle: that more cannot come from less. Unfortunately evolutionism is exactly that. So, when we read that you (as most evolutionists) believe in a "perfectly good mechanism that makes the emergence of life probable" we begin to argue the following points: (1) life implies much organization; (2) such organization cannot come from something less or lower; (3) if the "mechanism" you speak of is chance + necessity, it cannot create organization, because has the necessary power; (4) what is higher than organization is intelligence (the processor of organization); (5) in a system can emerge only what the system potentially contains (or what comes from the surroundings). From nothing, nothing comes. These principles assure us that a simple mechanism that creates true complexity doesn't exist today and will not exist tomorrow. niwrad
@Joe Sorry Joe, your subjective dislike for the definition of cardinality is irrelevant. Go whine somewhere else. JWTruthInLove
Dweeb:
But Joe doesn’t understand the basic ideas of naive set theory
Liar. Just because i disagree with one small and insignifacant part of what Cantor sed, dweeb, et al., think that means I cannot understand any of set theory. And that meas they are just a bunch of ignorant cowards. Joe
“Evolutionists don’t think evolution is improbable” because “they think that things can happen that render otherwise improbable things much less improbable”. Sure, this explains all…but please.
It's a very important point, but perhaps I wasn't clear. Let's say I show you a video of me tossing 20 Heads. You think it's too improbable to be true. I point out that I spent a week tossing coins in front of a video camera, and have edited for you the one little set of tosses in which I happened to toss 20 Heads. In other words, the explanation isn't that even though 20 Heads is really really rare, if you toss enough coins, which I did, it will happen. That's one explanation. Now a different scenario: I show you a similar video. Again, you think this is extraordinary. However, this time I give you a different explanation. I say: most of the coins have two heads. Many IDists think that the evolutionist are proposing that the life is the like the first explanation: that we agree that it is really really rare, it's just that we think there has been enough time, or enough universes, to make it happening at least once quite likely. But what I'm saying is that most evolutionists I know think something different: that there is a (probably!) a perfectly good mechanism that makes the emergence of life probable, i.e. frequent: e.g. fairly common chemical and physical conditions on wet, atmosphere-bearing planets that make the formation of self-replicating assemblies of molecules really quite probable, and Darwinian evolution thenceforth possible. Darwinian evolution itself, given self-replication with heritable variance in reproductive success, is far more probable than not, but I agree we have not got as far as figuring out what made that first part "probable". But it's far too early, IMO, to come to the conclusion that we won't, or that there wasn't something. Elizabeth B Liddle
BTW, it's not only Cantor. Joe says: "mathematicians don’t seem to be able to appraise what i have said." Must be the fault of all these mathematicians, I assume. DiEb
@Joe: DiEB is proud to be an ignorant, and cowardly ass. Aren't there people on this board who enforce civility ? @BA77: DiEb, although I don’t know exactly what you are talking about in regards to Cantor, do you hold Cantor to be infallible in his work? No, of course not, he made errors. But Joe doesn't understand the basic ideas of naive set theory, he is - what MarkCC calls a "Cantor Crank". If he doesn't understand (he has neither to like nor to accept it) naive set theory, everything he says about maths and statistics is dubious at best. DiEb
Elizabeth B Liddle #28 "Evolutionists don’t think evolution is improbable" because "they think that things can happen that render otherwise improbable things much less improbable". Sure, this explains all...but please. :) niwrad
DiEb, although I don't know exactly what you are talking about in regards to Cantor, do you hold Cantor to be infallible in his work? Such as perhaps you hold your own atheistic philosophy to be infallible???,,, Even Einstein was shown to be wrong on denying the Beginning of the Universe (i.e. his fudge factor) as well as to be wrong on his insistence of using hidden variables to try to 'explain away' the quantum non-locality of quantum entanglement. Now since you hold Darwinism to be unquestionably true without any empirical support it would be interesting to know exactly where do you find Cantor infallible and another delusional for thinking Cantor's work missed a mark. Please do share this point. bornagain77
DiEB is proud to be an ignorant, and cowardly ass. Therefor, without an e at the end, is an accepted spelling of the word. And Joe F is clueless. It is very telling that DiEB has try a distraction rather than address what I posted. Joe
Therefor [sic] there isn’t any violation, just your ignorance. That's from the man who states so proudly: "I disagree with Cantor and I have explained why he is wrong." DiEb
Strange- Joe Felsenstein seems to think that we are saying that the 2LoT prevents plants/ trees from growing. Earth to Joe F- DESIGN- plants/ trees are designed to grow from seeds given the proper conditions. Therefor there isn't any violation, just your ignorance. Joe
Elizabeth B Liddle #31
"I agree that intelligent human designers increase in entropy when they design and make organised things, and thus do not violate the 2nd Law. So where is the corresponding decrease in entropy when the postulated non-human intelligent designer designs and makes things? What does the work (the moving of stuff)? Or are you claiming that non-human Intelligence can do work without decreasing in entropy?"
Obviously, when the design is the cosmos as a whole, the entire issue has to be aptly frame-worked according to traditional metaphysics. The Designer of the cosmos overarches it and all its laws. The LawGiver cannot be constrained by the laws he stated! But we risk to go off-topic... niwrad
Mark:
As Lizzie says the argument that evolution cannot produce organisation is just the classic ID argument based on information.
The argument refers to blind watchmaker evolution. It does not refer to intelligent design evolution. And the argument could be refuted if someone could just find some evidence to refute it. However here we are in the 21st century and no such evidence has been found. Joe
You maintain the second law has nothing to do with evolution. You know I disagree. Explain me please as a general law describing how physical systems evolve has nothing to do with evolution.
I meant that it has nothing to do with the argument over whether evolution as proposed can or can't occur. What is proposed is not a violation of the 2nd Law.
Any designer (also a human one) never violates the 2nd law. The 2nd law states how systems work when no intelligence is involved. So there is no conflict whatsoever. Intelligence is an information source, whose existence the 2nd law per se doesn’t absolutely deny.
I agree that intelligent human designers increase in entropy when they design and make organised things, and thus do not violate the 2nd Law. So where is the corresponding decrease in entropy when the postulated non-human intelligent designer designs and makes things? What does the work (the moving of stuff)? Or are you claiming that non-human Intelligence can do work without decreasing in entropy? Elizabeth B Liddle
Elizabeth B Liddle #28 You maintain the second law has nothing to do with evolution. You know I disagree. Explain me please as a general law describing how physical systems evolve has nothing to do with evolution. In addition you even reverse the accusation on our shoulders by saying:
"In contrast, the Designer hypothesis does posit a 2nd Law suspending system – a designer who can do work (make matter move) and yet apparently not suffer any entropy decrease."
Shameless :) Any designer (also a human one) never violates the 2nd law. The 2nd law states how systems work when no intelligence is involved. So there is no conflict whatsoever. Intelligence is an information source, whose existence the 2nd law per se doesn't absolutely deny. Mark Frank #29
"All that the compensation argument was ever meant to address was the argument that evolution cannot produce increase order."
Differently, I think the compensation argument is argued to prove that organization can arise as long as the system Earth exports entropy to its surroundings. I explained why it doesn't work. niwrad
niwrad #27 All that the compensation argument was ever meant to address was the argument that evolution cannot produce increase order. I guess you agree that is false. It can. As Lizzie says the argument that evolution cannot produce organisation is just the classic ID argument based on information. I am sure this is also fallacious but anyhow it is completely different and nothing to do with the second law except in the sense that organisation requires order - but we just accepted that is no barrier to evolution. Mark Frank
Mark Frank It seems to me that we agree on (A) and (B).
I cannot see that you have either refuted the compensation argument or shown it to be relevant.
What I tried to explain in simple words - my English doesn't allow me complex words :( - is the "compensation" or "open system" argument moves entropy/disorder, but is not weighty about organization (so doesn't save evolution). Prof. Sewell can speak for himself, but according what I read in his papers, he says - of course far more authoritatively than me - essentially the same thing. niwrad
Mr Fox, it depends on how you want to measure complexity, genome size trumps your cited papers thesis as well as this: Dr. Behe, on the important Table 7.1 on page 143 of Edge Of Evolution, finds that a typical cell might have some 10,000 protein-binding sites. Whereas a conservative estimate for protein-protein binding sites in a multicellular creature is,,, Largest-Ever Map of Plant Protein Interactions - July 2011 Excerpt: The new map of 6,205 protein partnerings represents only about two percent of the full protein- protein "interactome" for Arabidopsis, since the screening test covered only a third of all Arabidopsis proteins, and wasn't sensitive enough to detect many weaker protein interactions. "There will be larger maps after this one," says Ecker. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/07/110728144936.htm So taking into account that they only covered 2%, of the full protein-protein "interactome", then that gives us a number, for different protein-protein interactions, of 310,000. Thus, from my very rough 'back of the envelope' calculations, we find that this is at least 30 times higher than Dr. Behe's estimate of 10,000 different protein-protein binding sites for a typical single cell (Page 143; Edge of Evolution; Behe). Therefore, at least at first glance from my rough calculations, it certainly appears to be a impossible step that evolution cannot make, by purely unguided processes, to go from a single cell to a multi-cellular creature. Moreover Mr Fox, you have no evidence that such a dramatic increase in binding site complexity from single cell creatures to multi-cellular creatures can be attained by your beloved Darwinian processes: "The likelihood of developing two binding sites in a protein complex would be the square of the probability of developing one: a double CCC (chloroquine complexity cluster), 10^20 times 10^20, which is 10^40. There have likely been fewer than 10^40 cells in the entire world in the past 4 billion years, so the odds are against a single event of this variety (just 2 binding sites being generated by accident) in the history of life. It is biologically unreasonable." Michael J. Behe PhD. (from page 146 of his book "Edge of Evolution") bornagain77
And STILL no evidence tat blind watchmaker evolution can account for the diversity of life. Joe
Mark Frank, if it helps, I can show you the premise and conclusion of your argument against Slot making Darwinian evolution extremely improbable: Darwinism Not Proved Impossible Therefore Its True - Plantinga http://www.metacafe.com/watch/10285716/ bornagain77
Dan Mcshea on complexity: A COMPLEXITY DRAIN ON CELLS IN THE EVOLUTION OF MULTICELLULARITY Alan Fox
Prof. Sewell and many IDers/creationists think that SLoT and evolution cannot be both true.
I know they think that. But I cannot follow your argument as to why this is so. A picture is very useful but in the end a valid argument needs to have some premisses, logic and conclusions. If I have summarised your argument incorrectly in #19 just tell me where I have gone wrong. It is quite short. Mark Frank
Rayleigh-Bénard convection? Alan Fox
Mark Frank I provided 2 pictures. Almost, if you look at these pictures you need no words. Neither Prof. Sewell nor I deny that the red ball can move, that entropy can vary, that trivial order can appear in some specified circumstances. The question is not if "order can increase through evolution", rather if the SLoT is consistent with spontaneous organization (=evolution). Prof. Sewell and many IDers/creationists think that SLoT and evolution cannot be both true. And, with all due respect, the former gives more grants to be true. niwrad
niwrad I am struggling with your argument. I will try to summarise it as I understand it. Your key proposal seems to be (A) a high level of order (low entropy) is necessary (but not sufficient) for the organisation required for life. That seems like a reasonable assumption so let's go with it. I hope we all accept that according to the 2nd law (B) order can increase locally through compensation i.e. by decreasing it elsewhere. Granville's argument seems to be that entropy cannot decrease through evolution. Assuming he means order can cannot increase - it follows by (A) organisation cannot increase through evolution. However, (B) suggest that order can increase through evolution provided it takes place locally and therefore Granville's objection is refuted. I cannot see that you have either refuted the compensation argument or shown it to be relevant. An interesting related question for Granville is if evolution cannot increase order locally (which of course I don't accept) what kind of process could increase it without breaking the 2nd law? Mark Frank
Elizabeth B Liddle
" We may be wrong - "
Elizabeth B Liddle
"Order can increase without violation of the 2nd Law. Why can’t organisation?"
Because of the "hole". I wrote this post for describing the "hole". Organization cannot increase, as order does, because the hole blocks the red ball (see the picture please). If you admit that organization is essentially different from order you admit the hole. And, admitting the hole, the compensation sinks. niwrad
but are indeed you, evolutionists, who want to make the “compensation argument” work for organization! Are not us! The problem is indeed that your “compensation” should create organization. We have no problem with compensation of entropy, order or whatever. We have problems with a compensation that creates organization from thin air, while it cannot.
This makes no sense, niwrad. If the 2nd Law has nothing to do with organisation, then no "compensation" argument is required. As I keep saying, both yours and Granville's argument boils down to the same as Dembski's: that "organised" things are really really improbable, therefore they are really really improbable, given the number of possible opportunities for them to occur in the lifetime of the universe. But they are only "really really improbable" if you are assuming that they happened by "random chance". "Evolutionists" to not propose that they happened by "random chance". They propose that they happened by some set of conditions that made them really quite probable. And none of those conditions (chemistry, physics) are themselves particularly improbable. We may be wrong - but you can't just assert, a priori, that there is no way this stuff could have happened. There are potentially lots of non 2LoT-violating things that could have happened, including work done and local decreases in entropy, that might have made life probable - or not terribly improbable. The 2nd Law argument just doesn't work (nor does CSI, for that matter, but at least Dembski doesn't invoke the 2nd Law). But Elizabeth B Liddle
keiths:
Brits and the Europeans
Brits ARE Europeans! At least until the next referendum... Elizabeth B Liddle
Elizabeth B Liddle
"the “compensation argument” works perfectly well for “order”".
but are indeed you, evolutionists, who want to make the “compensation argument” work for organization! Are not us! The problem is indeed that your "compensation" should create organization. We have no problem with compensation of entropy, order or whatever. We have problems with a compensation that creates organization from thin air, while it cannot. niwrad
Of note as to how tightly constrained light is: Fine Tuning Of Light to the Atmosphere, to Biological Life, and to Water - graphs http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0AYmaSrBPNEmGZGM4ejY3d3pfMTljaGh4MmdnOQ bornagain77
I wrote: “what decreases order destroys also organization”. So the SLoT spontaneous trend towards disorder disagrees with evolution, which pretends to spontaneously create organization.
But the 2nd Law doesn't tell us that there is always a trend towards disorder within a local system. You simply haven't countered the "compensation" argument at all. "Compensation" is not simply some magic whereby if some remote star is increasing in entropy, spaceships can form on earth. It just means that entropy in one system can decrease if work is done on it by a neighbouring system. And because that neighbouring system will experience an increase in entropy (because that's what happens when a system does work) then the increase in one "compensates" for the decrease in the other (more than compensates normally, which is why the total entropy still increases).
So to speak, the parallelism between order and organization “works” only on the destructive side, not the constructive one.
You haven't shown that at all. Order can increase without violation of the 2nd Law. Why can't organisation? Elizabeth B Liddle
niwrad and others, an interesting sidenote in the atheist's claim that a increase in entropy from the sun can lead to a decrease in the entropy of life on earth is that DNA is optimized to prevent damage from light:
DNA Optimized for Photostability Excerpt: These nucleobases maximally absorb UV-radiation at the same wavelengths that are most effectively shielded by ozone. Moreover, the chemical structures of the nucleobases of DNA allow the UV-radiation to be efficiently radiated away after it has been absorbed, restricting the opportunity for damage. http://www.reasons.org/dna-soaks-suns-rays
i.e. if radiation from the sun were really driving the decrease in entropy then why in blue blazes is the optimized photostability in place for DNA to prevent the incoming energy from the sun from having any effect??? ,,, It is yet another sheer disconnect between empirical evidence and what Darwinists claim for reality that they will never really honestly address. bornagain77
There is absolutely nothing wrong with the compensation argument, niwrad. It is perfectly possible for entropy to decrease in a system if work is done on it by a neighbouring system, which will, as a result, experience an increase in entropy. This is what is meant by "compensation" and it not only works, if it didn't, as I point out in the other thread, tornadoes themselves would be impossible! But now you've defined a different concept, "organisation" which seems to be another word for "CSI", and are somehow trying to say that "compensation" doesn't work for that (I hope you agree that "compensation" works fine for good old ordinary entropy, which what the 2nd Law is about". Entropy and CSI/organisation are not the same thing as you yourself agree. So why would a Law about entropy have anything to say about CSI?
Prof. Sewell doesn’t say that evolution DOES violate the SLoT. The SLoT is never violated. He says (like me) that evolution never occurred indeed because it WOULD have violated the SLoT.
Yes, I know. And he is incorrect, because he, like you, is using "entropy" to mean something other than the meaning it has in the context of the 2nd Law, which is "order" not "organisation" as you have defined it. And the "compensation argument" works perfectly well for "order". Elizabeth B Liddle
Kantian Naturalist I wrote: "what decreases order destroys also organization". So the SLoT spontaneous trend towards disorder disagrees with evolution, which pretends to spontaneously create organization. So to speak, the parallelism between order and organization "works" only on the destructive side, not the constructive one. niwrad
Elizabeth B Liddle my notes refute the "compensation argument". As such they agree with Prof. Sewell's argument. So please do not try to divide Prof. Sewell and me. It's an impossible task, believe me. It is the evolutionist "compensation argument" that deals with entropy AND organization, by saying that the latter simply comes from a decrease of the former, while this is impossible. I am glad that you finally acknowledge that organization is more than order (your intelligence matters after all...). But, to be coherent, now you should also acknowledge that the "compensation argument" fails. Prof. Sewell doesn't say that evolution DOES violate the SLoT. The SLoT is never violated. He says (like me) that evolution never occurred indeed because it WOULD have violated the SLoT. Evolution doesn't pay you after all. So why to stay on the side of deception? niwrad
In other words, since: (1) order and organization are different; (2) evolution and development are changes in organization; (3) the 2nd Law is about the tendency towards less order in closed systems; (4) evolution and developmemt do not violate the 2nd Law. Kantian Naturalist
It's good to see that niwrad distinguishes between "order", as in entropy, and "organisation" ("Organization always involves functional hierarchies and complex specified information (CSI))". However, the 2nd Law is not about "organization" but about entropy, i.e. order. As niwrad points out,organisation is not the same thing as entropy ("the relation between organization and entropy is non symmetrical"). So niwrad has neatly shown why Granville Sewell's argument about evolution necessitating a violation of the 2nd Law is false. There may well be a different law (Dembski's conservation of information law?) that forbids the spontaneous generation of "CSI", but that law is not the 2nd law of thermodynamics. As I have consistently said, Granville's argument boils down to Dembski's - the 2nd Law part of it is both irrelevant and incorrect. Elizabeth B Liddle
Of note: One might reasonably ask, since random mutations persistently degrade functional information instead of create it, what prevents the functional information in life from degrading in fairly short order? Well the answer to that question, in so far as we are able to accurately answer that question, is multiple layers of extraordinary DNA repair mechanisms: Repair mechanisms in DNA include, but are not limited to:
A proofreading system that catches almost all errors A mismatch repair system to back up the proofreading system Photoreactivation (light repair) Removal of methyl or ethyl groups by O6 – methylguanine methyltransferase Base excision repair Nucleotide excision repair Double-strand DNA break repair Recombination repair Error-prone bypass http://www.newgeology.us/presentation32.html
The overlapping, integrated, fashion in which different repair mechanisms interact with each other is a wonder in and of itself,,
A Look at the Quality Control System in the Protein Factory - JonathanM - March 2012 Excerpt: The DNA damage response (DDR) system is like a cellular special ops force. The moment such damage is detected, an intricate network of communication and recruitment launches into action. If the cellular process for making proteins were a factory, this would be the most advanced quality-control system ever designed. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/03/a_look_at_the_q057791.html Quantum Dots Spotlight DNA-Repair Proteins in Motion - March 2010 Excerpt: "How this system works is an important unanswered question in this field," he said. "It has to be able to identify very small mistakes in a 3-dimensional morass of gene strands. It's akin to spotting potholes on every street all over the country and getting them fixed before the next rush hour." Dr. Bennett Van Houten - of note: A bacterium has about 40 team members on its pothole crew. That allows its entire genome to be scanned for errors in 20 minutes, the typical doubling time.,, These smart machines can apparently also interact with other damage control teams if they cannot fix the problem on the spot. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/03/100311123522.htm
,,and such extensively integrated repair mechanisms for DNA achieve such a fidelity that it caused even Richard Dawkins to remark:
‘How good would each typists have to be, in order to match the DNA’s performance? The answer is almost too ludicrous to express. For what it is worth, every typists would have to have an error rate of about one in a trillion; that is, he would have to be accurate enough to make only a single error in typing the Bible 250,000 times at a stretch. Richard Dawkins - The Blind Watchmaker - Page 123-124 Proof reading of DNA polymerase (error correction rate found to be to a greater fidelity of 1 in 100 million) - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tOi88novQV0
But the obvious problem that immediately pops out is that having such efficient, and extensively overlapping, repair mechanisms in place severely limits the ability of random mutations to DNA to be the 'driving force of evolution' as neo-Darwinists hold:
The Evolutionary Dynamics of Digital and Nucleotide Codes: A Mutation Protection Perspective - February 2011 Excerpt: "Unbounded random change of nucleotide codes through the accumulation of irreparable, advantageous, code-expanding, inheritable mutations at the level of individual nucleotides, as proposed by evolutionary theory, requires the mutation protection at the level of the individual nucleotides and at the higher levels of the code to be switched off or at least to dysfunction. Dysfunctioning mutation protection, however, is the origin of cancer and hereditary diseases, which reduce the capacity to live and to reproduce. Our mutation protection perspective of the evolutionary dynamics of digital and nucleotide codes thus reveals the presence of a paradox in evolutionary theory between the necessity and the disadvantage of dysfunctioning mutation protection. This mutation protection paradox, which is closely related with the paradox between evolvability and mutational robustness, needs further investigation." http://www.arn.org/blogs/index.php/literature/2011/04/26/dna_repair_mechanisms_reveal_a_contradic Contradiction in evolutionary theory - video - (The contradiction between extensive DNA repair mechanisms and the necessity of 'random mutations/errors' for Darwinian evolution) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dzh6Ct5cg1o
Of course all this should have humbled Darwinists in their grandiose claims for the power of random mutations,,, But alas, humbleness seems to have been naturally selected out of many of the Darwinian faithful. Supplemental note:
Extreme Genome Repair - 20 March 2009 Excerpt: If its naming had followed, rather than preceded, molecular analyses of its DNA, the extremophile bacterium Deinococcus radiodurans might have been called Lazarus. After shattering of its 3.2 Mb genome into 20–30 kb pieces by desiccation or a high dose of ionizing radiation, D. radiodurans miraculously reassembles its genome such that only 3 hr later fully reconstituted nonrearranged chromosomes are present, and the cells carry on, alive as normal. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0092867409002657
But all that 'repair' pales in comparison with the 'ultimate repair' that will happen for us if we are willing Verse and Music:
Psalms 49:15 But God will redeem my soul from the power of the grave: for he shall receive me. Selah. NEEDTOBREATHE - Washed By The Water (video) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OOjpkqrCEOU
bornagain77
Nice article niwrad. The simplest way for Darwinists to prove that they are not talking complete nonsense with their compensation argument would be for them to actually show an increase of functional information above what is already present in cells. But, as this article from Dr. Behe found for laboratory evolution experiments of microbes going back four decades, such evidence is not forthcoming for Darwinists:
“The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution”: Break or blunt any functional coded element whose loss would yield a net fitness gain - Michael Behe - December 2010 Excerpt: In its most recent issue The Quarterly Review of Biology has published a review by myself of laboratory evolution experiments of microbes going back four decades.,,, The gist of the paper is that so far the overwhelming number of adaptive (that is, helpful) mutations seen in laboratory evolution experiments are either loss or modification of function. Of course we had already known that the great majority of mutations that have a visible effect on an organism are deleterious. Now, surprisingly, it seems that even the great majority of helpful mutations degrade the genome to a greater or lesser extent.,,, I dub it “The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution”: Break or blunt any functional coded element whose loss would yield a net fitness gain. http://behe.uncommondescent.com/2010/12/the-first-rule-of-adaptive-evolution/
If one were practicing science rationally where evidence takes primacy over philosophy, instead of the other way around as Darwinists practice science, then Behe's finding should have, by all rights, severely humbled Darwinian claims claims in this area. But that is not what we find. We find Darwinists, such as keiths, calling other people, who are much more qualified than he is to assess the situation, 'confused', even though keiths, or any other Darwinists, have absolutely ZERO direct empirical evidence that they can appeal to to show that non-trivial functional information has been generated in life instead of persistently degraded. bornagain77
keiths, you write 2 sentences and just are self-contradictory: I cannot "take some of the pressure off Granville" and "prolong the pain for Granville" in the same time. niwrad
Alas, I'm off to bed so the Brits and the Europeans will get the first crack at this. keiths
Yay! Another second law thread! Niwrad seems to be pretty confused, so at least this should take some of the pressure off Granville. (On the other hand, it may prolong the pain for Granville, since we'll be talking about the errors that niwrad and Granville have both made, like disputing the compensation argument.) keiths