Evidence of Decay is Evidence of Progress?

_{Gil Dodgen

May 13, 2011

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

It’s called entropy, and it applies to everything. If you’re a pianist and don’t practice on a regular basis you don’t stay the same, you get worse, and it takes extra discipline, effort, and dedication to get better.

Natural selection is a buffer against decay that is constantly operating in nature. Natural selection throws out bad stuff in a competitive environment but has no creative powers. Since decay is the norm, and random errors, statistically speaking, essentially always result in decay, a creature living underground will lose its eyes because the informational cost of producing eyes is high.

Thus, a crippled, decayed creature in a pathologically hostile environment will have a survival advantage. This is devolution, not evolution.

This phenomenon is not only logically obvious, but Michael Behe and others have demonstrated that such is empirically the case.

Belief in the infinitely creative powers of natural selection is illogical, empirically falsified, and essentially represents, in my view, a cult-like mindset.

When evidence of decay is presented as evidence of progress, one must wonder what is going on in the minds of such people.

Comments

Mung since you don't believe in Entropy. Thus I take it that you don't believe the universe is heading for maximum entropy either, i.e. thermodynamic equilibrium??? notes,,, Did the Universe Hyperinflate? – Hugh Ross – April 2010 Excerpt: Perfect geometric flatness is where the space-time surface of the universe exhibits zero curvature (see figure 3). Two meaningful measurements of the universe’s curvature parameter, ½k, exist. Analysis of the 5-year database from WMAP establishes that -0.0170 < ½k < 0.0068.4 Weak gravitational lensing of distant quasars by intervening galaxies places -0.031 < ½k < 0.009.5 Both measurements confirm the universe indeed manifests zero or very close to zero geometric curvature,,, http://www.reasons.org/did-universe-hyperinflate A 'flat universe', which is actually another very surprising finely-tuned 'coincidence' of the universe, means this universe, left to its own present course of accelerating expansion due to Dark Energy, will continue to expand forever, thus fulfilling the thermodynamic equilibrium of the second law to its fullest extent (entropic 'Heat Death' of the universe). The Future of the Universe Excerpt: After all the black holes have evaporated, (and after all the ordinary matter made of protons has disintegrated, if protons are unstable), the universe will be nearly empty. Photons, neutrinos, electrons and positrons will fly from place to place, hardly ever encountering each other. It will be cold, and dark, and there is no known process which will ever change things. --- Not a happy ending. http://spiff.rit.edu/classes/phys240/lectures/future/future.html Psalm 102:25-27 Of old You laid the foundation of the earth, And the heavens are the work of Your hands. They will perish, but You will endure; Yes, they will all grow old like a garment; Like a cloak You will change them, And they will be changed. But You are the same, And Your years will have no end. ------------------- Mung since you are making the grand claim that Entropy does not exist, i.e. that things do not tend to decay towards thermodynamic equilibrium, I guess the burden is on you to prove it. To demonstrate that you are right and everybody else is wrong, all you have to do is to make time flow backwards, so that that thinks like broken eggs put themselves back together and all things old become new again!!! :)bornagain77_{May 14, 2011
May
05
May
14
14
2011
02:33 AM
2
02
33
AM
PDT}

B1paragwinn_{May 13, 2011
May
05
May
13
13
2011
10:26 PM
10
10
26
PM
PDT}

What's in a name? In the case of Shannon's measure the naming was not accidental. In 1961 one of us (Tribus) asked Shannon what he had though about when he had finally confirmed his famous measure. Shannon replied: "My greatest concern was what to call it. I thought of calling it 'information,' but the word was overly used, so I decided to call it 'uncertainty.' When I discussed it with John von Neumann, he had a better idea. Von Neumann told me, 'You should call it entropy, for two reasons. In the first place your uncertainty function has been used in statistical mechanics under that name. In the second place, and more important, no one knows what entropy really is, so in a debate you will always have the advantage.'" - Tribus and McIrvine
Mung_{May 13, 2011
May
05
May
13
13
2011
09:52 PM
9
09
52
PM
PDT}

Entropy cont.
By doing this, rather than extracting a name from the body of the current language (say: lost heat), he succeeded in coining a word that meant the same thing to everybody: nothing. - Leon Cooper
Mung_{May 13, 2011
May
05
May
13
13
2011
09:47 PM
9
09
47
PM
PDT}

Back to Entropy:
I prefer going to the ancient languages for the names of important scientific quantities, so that they mean the same thing in all living tongues. I propose, accordingly, to call S the entropy of a body, after the Greek word "transformation." I have designedly coined the word entropy to be similar to energy, for these two quantities are so analogous in their physical significance, that an analogy of denominations seems to me helpful. - Rudolf Clausius
Mung_{May 13, 2011
May
05
May
13
13
2011
09:46 PM
9
09
46
PM
PDT}

Long ago I was taught that in thermodynamics, the term "entropy" basically means thermal energy that is unavailable to do work. That definition seemed to make sense to me in the context of thermodynamics. From what I read here, it seems that there is some other concept of "entropy" as that term is used in thermodynamics. Could someone here please explain that different usage to me? It would be most appreciated.ocbouvieri_{May 13, 2011
May
05
May
13
13
2011
09:40 PM
9
09
40
PM
PDT}

While I find ID fascinating, even encouraging, at the same time I’ve never really felt that natural selection – properly understood – is in the running against ‘design’.
Raised Protestant but who cares, lol. I'd take communion with a Catholic any day. Natural selection was designed to absolve God of making the choice between who wins and who loses. That is a theological question, not a design question. I've come to be among those who do not feel a need to absolve God of being the author of "evil." Am I alone?Mung_{May 13, 2011
May
05
May
13
13
2011
09:36 PM
9
09
36
PM
PDT}

Kansas – Dust In the Wind
Even dust in the wind follows certain laws.Mung_{May 13, 2011
May
05
May
13
13
2011
09:22 PM
9
09
22
PM
PDT}

Mung, I have to admit, I find your approach interesting. And really, mine is similar. While I find ID fascinating, even encouraging, at the same time I've never really felt that natural selection - properly understood - is in the running against 'design'. Really, it just seems like yet another implementation OF design to me. Always has. Always does. Mind you, I've dived into the topic with a habit of ignoring people telling me what I'm supposed to think of evolution. Granted, in my (catholic) upbringing there was no YEC voice, so the main people I experienced pushing that were atheists, despite learning about evolution early on. When I finally encountered Dawkins going on about a blind watchmaker, all I could think is "How do you know what's blind and what's sighted, you smug hairball?" But hey, that's my take on it, at least in part.nullasalus_{May 13, 2011
May
05
May
13
13
2011
09:18 PM
9
09
18
PM
PDT}

The law that entropy always increases-the second law of thermodynamics-holds, I think, the supreme position among the laws of Nature. The second law of thermodynamics is a law. If you can formulate the law of entropy or supply a link to the law of entropy I'm interested.Mung_{May 13, 2011
May
05
May
13
13
2011
09:15 PM
9
09
15
PM
PDT}

Kansas - Dust In the Wind http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1qxSwJC3Ly0bornagain77_{May 13, 2011
May
05
May
13
13
2011
09:09 PM
9
09
09
PM
PDT}

Mung, with all due respect (and I appreciate your feedback at UD), this is hyper-illogical. Thank you, and yet, not thank you. ;) Hopefully if one looks at my overall contribution here it is clear that: 1. I am a Christian 2. I support Intelligent Design And yes, I state things in that order. If I were not a Christian I could care less about ID. But as a Christian FIRST, it is incumbent upon us to not bring the Gospel of Jesus Christ into disrepute. To be clear, I do not think that ID does that. But I honestly do not understand how I am being hyper-illogical.
Natural selection does not create opportunities.
This is simply the negation of what I stated. It's not a rebuttal. It's like saying, "you're wrong."
Your thesis is equivalent to saying that a computer program that crashes creates an opportunity for a program that doesn’t, when no programmers are involved.
My thesis is programmer agnostic. A program that crashes is "out of the running." If I were a designer I'd choose the program that didn't crash. But it's obvious that a running program has more opportunity to complete than a non-running program. So if these programs were 'evolving' by duplicating themselves and competing for processing power, which program would have more opportunities to evolve? The program that crashed, or the program that did not crash?Mung_{May 13, 2011
May
05
May
13
13
2011
09:07 PM
9
09
07
PM
PDT}

Mung you state; 'Entropy is not a law.' And yet Eddington states: The law that entropy always increases-the second law of thermodynamics-holds, I think, the supreme position among the laws of Nature. If someone points out to you that your pet theory of the universe is in disagreement with Maxwell’s equations-then so much the worse for Maxwell’s equations. If it is found to be contradicted by observation-well, these experimentalists do bungle things sometimes. But if your theory is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest humiliation.” (Eddington, A.S., “The Nature of the Physical World,” [1928], The Gifford Lectures 1927, Cambridge University Press: Cambridge UK, 1933, reprint, pp.74-75. Emphasis original). I don't know Mung. Entropy has been called the 'second LAW of thermodynamics' since it was developed in the 18th century, and yet you declare it is not a law and then tell me to do some research on the second law and then speak. Mung, you really impress me with some of your insights sometimes, but other times, and this is one of those other times, you really do seem like you have no clue what in the world you are talking about.bornagain77_{May 13, 2011
May
05
May
13
13
2011
08:57 PM
8
08
57
PM
PDT}

BA77:
Entropy is the tendency of things to decay in this universe
No, it isn't.
...and is considered by many to be the MOST irrefutable law of science;
Entropy is not a law. I offer you the following advice, research the subject, then speak.Mung_{May 13, 2011
May
05
May
13
13
2011
08:47 PM
8
08
47
PM
PDT}

Au contraire. Natural selection creates opportunities for “the good stuff” by getting rid of “the bad stuff.” Mung, with all due respect (and I appreciate your feedback at UD), this is hyper-illogical. Natural selection does not create opportunities. Your thesis is equivalent to saying that a computer program that crashes creates an opportunity for a program that doesn't, when no programmers are involved.GilDodgen_{May 13, 2011
May
05
May
13
13
2011
08:45 PM
8
08
45
PM
PDT}

But I do appreciate you not trying to swamp me with links and quotes.
Slap me for speaking too soon.Mung_{May 13, 2011
May
05
May
13
13
2011
08:42 PM
8
08
42
PM
PDT}

Mung, here is a good video that may give you some better understanding:
Better understanding of what? Entropy? Not likely (pun intended). But I do appreciate you not trying to swamp me with links and quotes. What is the relevance of the material at the link you posted?
Thermodynamic Arguments for Creation
I don't deny creation (sigh). Does it answer any of the questions I posed in #2 and #3 above? Historically, has Christianity ever been seen to be in opposition to an eternal universe?Mung_{May 13, 2011
May
05
May
13
13
2011
08:40 PM
8
08
40
PM
PDT}

Mung, the intelligent design objection to Natural Selection is that it always reduces information. It never creates information. ,,, Information is the whole key.bornagain77_{May 13, 2011
May
05
May
13
13
2011
08:37 PM
8
08
37
PM
PDT}

Mung, Entropy is the tendency of things to decay in this universe, and is considered by many to be the MOST irrefutable law of science; "The practical measure of the random element which can increase in the universe but can never decrease is called entropy. Measuring by entropy is the same as measuring by the chance explained in the last paragraph, only the unmanageably large numbers are transformed (by a simple formula) into a more convenient scale of reckoning. Entropy continually increases. We can, by isolating parts of the world and postulating rather idealised conditions in our problems, arrest the increase, but we cannot turn it into a decrease. That would involve something much worse than a violation of an ordinary law of Nature, namely, an improbable coincidence. The law that entropy always increases-the second law of thermodynamics-holds, I think, the supreme position among the laws of Nature. If someone points out to you that your pet theory of the universe is in disagreement with Maxwell's equations-then so much the worse for Maxwell's equations. If it is found to be contradicted by observation-well, these experimentalists do bungle things sometimes. But if your theory is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest humiliation." (Eddington, A.S., "The Nature of the Physical World," [1928], The Gifford Lectures 1927, Cambridge University Press: Cambridge UK, 1933, reprint, pp.74-75. Emphasis original). * A theory is the more impressive the greater the simplicity of its premises, the more different kinds of things it relates, and the more extended its area of applicability. Therefore the deep impression that classical thermodynamics made upon me. It is the only physical theory of universal content which I am convinced will never be overthrown, within the framework of applicability of its basic concepts. o Albert Einstein (author), Paul Arthur, Schilpp (editor). Autobiographical Notes. A Centennial Edition. Open Court Publishing Company. 1979. p. 31 [As quoted by Don Howard, John Stachel. Einstein: The Formative Years, 1879-1909 (Einstein Studies, vol. 8). Birkhäuser Boston. 2000. p. 1] As well Mung, Entropy was found by Roger Penrose to be far and away the most extremely fine tuned initial condition of the universe; ,,,Although 1 part in 10^120 for the expansion of the universe and 1 part in 10^60 for the mass density of the universe far exceeds, by many orders of magnitude, the highest tolerance ever achieved in any man-made machine, which is 1 part in 10^22 for a gravity wave detector, according to esteemed British mathematical physicist Roger Penrose (1931-present), the odds of one particular individual constant, the 'original phase-space volume' of the universe, required such precision that the "Creator’s aim must have been to an accuracy of 1 part in 10^10^123”. This number is gargantuan. If this number were written out in its entirety, 1 with 10^123 zeros to the right, it could not be written on a piece of paper the size of the entire visible universe, even if a number were written down on each sub-atomic particle in the entire universe, since the universe only has 10^80 sub-atomic particles in it. Roger Penrose discusses initial entropy of the universe. - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WhGdVMBk6Zo The Physics of the Small and Large: What is the Bridge Between Them? Roger Penrose Excerpt: "The time-asymmetry is fundamentally connected to with the Second Law of Thermodynamics: indeed, the extraordinarily special nature (to a greater precision than about 1 in 10^10^123, in terms of phase-space volume) can be identified as the "source" of the Second Law (Entropy)." How special was the big bang? - Roger Penrose Excerpt: This now tells us how precise the Creator's aim must have been: namely to an accuracy of one part in 10^10^123. (from the Emperor’s New Mind, Penrose, pp 339-345 - 1989) As well, contrary to speculation of 'budding universes' arising from Black Holes, Black Hole singularities are completely opposite the singularity of the Big Bang in terms of the ordered physics of entropic thermodynamics. In other words, Black Holes are singularities of destruction and disorder rather than singularities of creation and order. Roger Penrose - How Special Was The Big Bang? “But why was the big bang so precisely organized, whereas the big crunch (or the singularities in black holes) would be expected to be totally chaotic? It would appear that this question can be phrased in terms of the behaviour of the WEYL part of the space-time curvature at space-time singularities. What we appear to find is that there is a constraint WEYL = 0 (or something very like this) at initial space-time singularities-but not at final singularities-and this seems to be what confines the Creator’s choice to this very tiny region of phase space.” Entropy of the Universe - Hugh Ross - May 2010 Excerpt: Egan and Lineweaver found that supermassive black holes are the largest contributor to the observable universe’s entropy. They showed that these supermassive black holes contribute about 30 times more entropy than what the previous research teams estimated. http://www.reasons.org/entropy-universe Evolution is a Fact, Just Like Gravity is a Fact! UhOh! Excerpt: The results of this paper suggest gravity arises as an entropic force, once space and time themselves have emerged. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/evolution-is-a-fact-just-like-gravity-is-a-fact-uhoh/ This 1 in 10^10^123 number, for the time-asymmetry of the initial state of the 'ordered entropy' for the universe, also lends strong support for 'highly specified infinite information' creating the universe since; "Gain in entropy always means loss of information, and nothing more." Gilbert Newton Lewis - Eminent Chemistbornagain77_{May 13, 2011
May
05
May
13
13
2011
08:33 PM
8
08
33
PM
PDT}

The one thing natural selection obviously can’t do is create anything new, but this is what is perpetually claimed for it.
Well, like I said, what natural selection creates is opportunity. That's hardly an anti-design proposition. And as I stated in response to nullasalus, the objection to NS is primarily theological. If you can provide an "Intelligent Design" objection to natural selection I'd like to hear it.Mung_{May 13, 2011
May
05
May
13
13
2011
08:30 PM
8
08
30
PM
PDT}

If I’m reading you right, you’re saying that ID theorists should start to include some ‘mainstream’ findings (natural selection) under the ‘design’ header.
If they make sense from a design perspective, absolutely. As a software designer, I often get rid of my "poor designs" and continue on and improve my "better designs." Finding the same principle operating in nature only strengthens the design inference, imo. But NS is blind! Or is it. IMO, the major problem that Creationists (not labeling anyone here) have with Natural Selection is the elimination of some at the expense of others. That's hardly Godlike, right? But it is very "designer like." I'll probably never understand how Darwin's theory ever came to be interpreted as a theory which excludes design.Mung_{May 13, 2011
May
05
May
13
13
2011
08:24 PM
8
08
24
PM
PDT}

Gill at 5:
It is interesting that natural selection can both preserve good stuff that already exists and preserve bad stuff that happens by accident, if the bad stuff results in a survival advantage in a particular situation.
Good gosh. If something results in a survival advantage, then it's not bad. 'Good' and 'bad' in this context are completely relative. A new trait can be a 'good' trait if it helps its owner survive; that same trait can be a 'bad' trait if it is a detriment to survival.
The one thing natural selection obviously can’t do is create anything new, but this is what is perpetually claimed for it.
It is mutations that create novelty. Natural selection promotes this novelty if it's advantageous, and removes it if it's disadvantageous. If it's neutral, it may stick around. Surely you must know this. Who has ever claimed that natural selection by itself [with no variation to act on] creates anything? I'm all for someone questioning evolutionists. But please, question what they actually believe.
Since decay is the norm, and random errors, statistically speaking, essentially always result in decay,
It sounds like you're saying almost all mutations are detrimental. If so, this is incorrect; most are neutral - they have little to no effect on survival whatsoever.jurassicmac_{May 13, 2011
May
05
May
13
13
2011
08:09 PM
8
08
09
PM
PDT}

Mung, If I'm reading you right, you're saying that ID theorists should start to include some 'mainstream' findings (natural selection) under the 'design' header. Am I right?nullasalus_{May 13, 2011
May
05
May
13
13
2011
07:54 PM
7
07
54
PM
PDT}

It is interesting that natural selection can both preserve good stuff that already exists and preserve bad stuff that happens by accident, if the bad stuff results in a survival advantage in a particular situation. The one thing natural selection obviously can't do is create anything new, but this is what is perpetually claimed for it. This is so transparently obvious that I'm constantly bewildered by people in academia with Piled Higher and Deeper credentials who can't seem to figure this out.GilDodgen_{May 13, 2011
May
05
May
13
13
2011
07:51 PM
7
07
51
PM
PDT}

Mung, here is a good video that may give you some better understanding: Thermodynamic Arguments for Creation - Dr. Thomas Kindell http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ki0QB5i_gkgbornagain77_{May 13, 2011
May
05
May
13
13
2011
07:39 PM
7
07
39
PM
PDT}

Natural selection is a buffer against decay that is constantly operating in nature.
So why isn't it embraced by design theorists? Could "the designer" have come up with a better design?
Natural selection throws out bad stuff in a competitive environment but has no creative powers.
Au contraire. Natural selection creates opportunities for "the good stuff" by getting rid of "the bad stuff."
Since decay is the norm, and random errors, statistically speaking, essentially always result in decay, a creature living underground will lose its eyes because the informational cost of producing eyes is high.
Do you mean the informational cost of maintaining eyes? Presumably, these critters evolved from some other critters that had eyes.
Thus, a crippled, decayed creature in a pathologically hostile environment will have a survival advantage. This is devolution, not evolution.
No, that is evolution. A creature surviving in a pathologically hostile environment by shedding unnecessary and even hindering attributes can only be deemed crippled and decayed by twisted and tortuous logic.Mung_{May 13, 2011
May
05
May
13
13
2011
07:38 PM
7
07
38
PM
PDT}

Hi Gil, Thanks for opening a thread on entropy! Hopefully this will turn out to be an interesting debate. Don't we have a physicist who posts here at times? But seriously, not getting better at playing the piano is due to entropy? How so? Doesn't getting better at playing the piano increase entropy? So can I blame my poor piano playing on someone who is practicing too much? Is entropy a cause of anything at all? When Carbon 14 decays, is that caused by entropy? Does the decay of Carbon 14 cause an increase in entropy? Does entropy really apply to everything?
When evidence of decay is presented as evidence of progress, one must wonder what is going on in the minds of such people.
Decay is part of a cycle. Without decay would the cycle of life on earth continue? I don't have a problem seeing decay as evidence of progress, and from what I know of your background, neither should you. I'll let you think on that. Hint: What does it mean "to progress"?Mung_{May 13, 2011
May
05
May
13
13
2011
07:24 PM
7
07
24
PM
PDT}

Ahhh, but evolution doesn't equal progess. And obviously you don't understand the power of magical mystery mutations. So there. :razz: :cool:Joseph_{May 13, 2011
May
05
May
13
13
2011
07:01 PM
7
07
01
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply