112 Replies to ““When Scientists Ignore Science…” by Mark Champneys

  1. 1
    Seversky says:

    Mark Champneys is a Mormon/evangelical Christian who publishes a website called “Evolution Demolition”. I would not be inclined to regard him as an authority on the Second Law of Thermodynamics,

  2. 2
    Jim Thibodeau says:

    ‘2nd law prohibits evolution’ arguments go back to at least the book Scientific Creationism in 1974.

    http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CF/CF001.html

  3. 3
    Truthfreedom says:

    @1 Seversky
    If he were a barnacle collector with a big beard, then almost surely we could trust his expertise in… whatever, for example bacteria becoming dinosaurs thanks to a mindless mind that ‘selected’ the outcome and never was scientifically proven.

  4. 4
    polistra says:

    I’ve never found this argument especially convincing, maybe because I don’t find the 2nd law itself especially convincing. Unlike Newton or Ohm, it has the feel of a statistical manipulation, more like a poll than a formula.

    I didn’t buy ID until I started studying (and teaching via courseware) the details of human perception. Every single thing in our anatomy and physiology proves design.

  5. 5
    bornagain77 says:

    Contrary to Seversky, Jim Thibodeau and Polistra all dissing the second law as not really being impressive evidence for design, the second law, i.e. entropy, is actually one of the most powerful evidences, if not the most powerful evidence, for design that we have.

    First off, Entropy is, by a wide margin, the most finely tuned of the initial conditions of the Big Bang. Finely tuned to an almost incomprehensible degree of precision, 1 part in 10 to the 10 to the 123rd power. As Roger Penrose himself stated that, “This now tells us how precise the Creator’s aim must have been: namely to an accuracy of one part in 10^10^123.”

    “This now tells us how precise the Creator’s aim must have been: namely to an accuracy of one part in 10^10^123.”
    Roger Penrose – How special was the big bang? – (from the Emperor’s New Mind, Penrose, pp 339-345 – 1989)

    “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).”
    Roger Penrose – The Physics of the Small and Large: What is the Bridge Between Them?

    In the following video, Dr, Bruce Gordon touches upon just how enormous that number truly is. Dr. Gordon states, “you would need a hundred million, trillion, trillion, trillion, universes our size, with a zero on every proton and neutron in all of those universes just to write out this number. That is how fine tuned the initial entropy of our universe is.”

    “An explosion you think of as kind of a messy event. And this is the point about entropy. The explosion in which our universe began was not a messy event. And if you talk about how messy it could have been, this is what the Penrose calculation is all about essentially. It looks at the observed statistical entropy in our universe. The entropy per baryon. And he calculates that out and he arrives at a certain figure. And then he calculates using the Bekenstein-Hawking formula for Black-Hole entropy what the,,, (what sort of entropy could have been associated with,,, the singularity that would have constituted the beginning of the universe). So you’ve got the numerator, the observed entropy, and the denominator, how big it (the entropy) could have been. And that fraction turns out to be,, 1 over 10 to the 10 to the 123rd power. Let me just emphasize how big that denominator is so you can gain a real appreciation for how small that probability is. So there are 10^80th baryons in the universe. Protons and neutrons. No suppose we put a zero on every one of those. OK, how many zeros is that? That is 10^80th zeros. This number has 10^123rd zeros. OK, so you would need a hundred million, trillion, trillion, trillion, universes our size, with zero on every proton and neutron in all of those universes just to write out this number. That is how fine tuned the initial entropy of our universe is. And if there were a pre-Big Bang state and you had some bounces, then that fine tuning (for entropy) gets even finer as you go backwards if you can even imagine such a thing. ”
    Dr Bruce Gordon – Contemporary Physics and God Part 2 – video – 1:50 minute mark – video
    https://youtu.be/ff_sNyGNSko?t=110

    This extreme fine-tuning of the initial entropy of the universe creates some fairly embarrassing problems for atheistic naturalists.

    As Dr. William Lane Craig explains,

    Multiverse and the Design Argument – William Lane Craig
    Excerpt: Roger Penrose of Oxford University has calculated that the odds of our universe’s low entropy condition obtaining by chance alone are on the order of 1 in 10^10(123), an inconceivable number. If our universe were but one member of a multiverse of randomly ordered worlds, then it is vastly more probable that we should be observing a much smaller universe. For example, the odds of our solar system’s being formed instantly by the random collision of particles is about 1 in 10^10(60), a vast number, but inconceivably smaller than 1 in 10^10(123). (Penrose calls it “utter chicken feed” by comparison [The Road to Reality (Knopf, 2005), pp. 762-5]). Or again, if our universe is but one member of a multiverse, then we ought to be observing highly extraordinary events, like horses’ popping into and out of existence by random collisions, or perpetual motion machines, since these are vastly more probable than all of nature’s constants and quantities’ falling by chance into the virtually infinitesimal life-permitting range. Observable universes like those strange worlds are simply much more plenteous in the ensemble of universes than worlds like ours and, therefore, ought to be observed by us if the universe were but a random member of a multiverse of worlds. Since we do not have such observations, that fact strongly disconfirms the multiverse hypothesis. On naturalism, at least, it is therefore highly probable that there is no multiverse. — Penrose puts it bluntly “these world ensemble hypothesis are worse than useless in explaining the anthropic fine-tuning of the universe”.
    http://www.reasonablefaith.org.....n-argument

    The Fine Tuning of the Universe – drcraigvideos – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UpIiIaC4kRA

    On top of the fact that Boltzmann Brains, via the initial 1 in 10^10^123 entropy of the universe, driving atheistic naturalism into catastrophic epistemological failure as a coherent explanation for the initial entropy of our universe, entropy and how it relate to quantum mechanics, also empirically refutes naturalism as a rational explanation for the initial 1 in 10^10^123 entropy of our universe.

    One line of empirical evidence is from the Quantum Zeno effect.

    An old entry in wikipedia described the Quantum Zeno effect as such “an unstable particle, if observed continuously, will never decay.”

    Perspectives on the quantum Zeno paradox – 2018
    The quantum Zeno effect is,, an unstable particle, if observed continuously, will never decay.
    https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1742-6596/196/1/012018/pdf

    Likewise, the present day entry on wikipedia about the Quantum Zeno effect also provocatively states that “a system can’t change while you are watching it”

    Quantum Zeno effect
    Excerpt: Sometimes this effect is interpreted as “a system can’t change while you are watching it”
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_Zeno_effect

    Atheistic materialists have tried to get around the Quantum Zeno effect by postulating that interactions with the environment are sufficient to explain the Quantum Zeno effect.

    Perspectives on the quantum Zeno paradox – 2018
    Excerpt: The references to observations and to wavefunction collapse tend to raise unnecessary questions related to the interpretation of quantum mechanics. Actually, all that is required is that some interaction with an external system disturb the unitary evolution of the quantum system in a way that is effectively like a projection operator.
    https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1742-6596/196/1/012018/pdf

    Yet, the following interaction-free measurement of the Quantum Zeno effect demonstrated that the presence of the Quantum Zeno effect can be detected without interacting with a single atom.

    Interaction-free measurements by quantum Zeno stabilization of ultracold atoms – 14 April 2015
    Excerpt: In our experiments, we employ an ultracold gas in an unstable spin configuration, which can undergo a rapid decay. The object—realized by a laser beam—prevents this decay because of the indirect quantum Zeno effect and thus, its presence can be detected without interacting with a single atom.
    http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2.....S-20150415

    In short, the quantum zeno effect, regardless of how atheistic materialists may feel about it, is experimentally shown to be a real effect that is not reducible to any possible materialistic explanation.

    Moreover, on top of the Quantum Zeno effect demonstrating that an ‘observer’ must somehow have a intimate relationship with the entropy of the universe in that “an unstable particle, if observed continuously, will never decay’,,, on top of that astonishing fact, in 2011 researchers “show that when the bits to be deleted are quantum-mechanically entangled with the state of an observer, then the observer could even withdraw heat from the system while deleting the bits. Entanglement links the observer’s state to that of the computer in such a way that they know more about the memory than is possible in classical physics.,,,
    In measuring entropy, one should bear in mind that an object does not have a certain amount of entropy per se, instead an object’s entropy is always dependent on the observer.”

    Quantum knowledge cools computers: New understanding of entropy – June 1, 2011
    Excerpt: Recent research by a team of physicists,,, describe,,, how the deletion of data, under certain conditions, can create a cooling effect instead of generating heat. The cooling effect appears when the strange quantum phenomenon of entanglement is invoked.,,,
    The new study revisits Landauer’s principle for cases when the values of the bits to be deleted may be known. When the memory content is known, it should be possible to delete the bits in such a manner that it is theoretically possible to re-create them. It has previously been shown that such reversible deletion would generate no heat. In the new paper, the researchers go a step further. They show that when the bits to be deleted are quantum-mechanically entangled with the state of an observer, then the observer could even withdraw heat from the system while deleting the bits. Entanglement links the observer’s state to that of the computer in such a way that they know more about the memory than is possible in classical physics.,,,
    In measuring entropy, one should bear in mind that an object does not have a certain amount of entropy per se, instead an object’s entropy is always dependent on the observer. Applied to the example of deleting data, this means that if two individuals delete data in a memory and one has more knowledge of this data, she perceives the memory to have lower entropy and can then delete the memory using less energy.,,,
    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/re.....134300.htm

  6. 6
    bornagain77 says:

    And as the following 2017 article states: James Clerk Maxwell (said), “The idea of dissipation of energy depends on the extent of our knowledge.”,,,
    quantum information theory,,, describes the spread of information through quantum systems.,,,
    Fifteen years ago, “we thought of entropy as a property of a thermodynamic system,” he said. “Now in (quantum) information theory, we wouldn’t say entropy is a property of a system, but a property of an observer who describes a system.”,,,

    The Quantum Thermodynamics Revolution – May 2017
    Excerpt: the 19th-century physicist James Clerk Maxwell put it, “The idea of dissipation of energy depends on the extent of our knowledge.”
    In recent years, a revolutionary understanding of thermodynamics has emerged that explains this subjectivity using quantum information theory — “a toddler among physical theories,” as del Rio and co-authors put it, that describes the spread of information through quantum systems. Just as thermodynamics initially grew out of trying to improve steam engines, today’s thermodynamicists are mulling over the workings of quantum machines. Shrinking technology — a single-ion engine and three-atom fridge were both experimentally realized for the first time within the past year — is forcing them to extend thermodynamics to the quantum realm, where notions like temperature and work lose their usual meanings, and the classical laws don’t necessarily apply.
    They’ve found new, quantum versions of the laws that scale up to the originals. Rewriting the theory from the bottom up has led experts to recast its basic concepts in terms of its subjective nature, and to unravel the deep and often surprising relationship between energy and information — the abstract 1s and 0s by which physical states are distinguished and knowledge is measured.,,,
    Renato Renner, a professor at ETH Zurich in Switzerland, described this as a radical shift in perspective. Fifteen years ago, “we thought of entropy as a property of a thermodynamic system,” he said. “Now in (quantum) information theory, we wouldn’t say entropy is a property of a system, but a property of an observer who describes a system.”,,,
    https://www.quantamagazine.org/quantum-thermodynamics-revolution/

    Again to repeat that last sentence, “Now in (quantum) information theory, we wouldn’t say entropy is a property of a system, but a property of an observer who describes a system.”,,,

    This statement is just fascinating! Why in blue blazes should the finely tuned entropic actions of the universe, entropic actions which also happen to explain time itself,,,,

    Shining Light on Dark Energy – October 21, 2012
    Excerpt: It (Entropy) explains time; it explains every possible 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/shini.....rk-energy/

    ,,, why in blue blazes should the finely tuned entropic actions of the universe even care if I am consciously observing them or not unless ‘conscious observation’ really is more foundational to reality than the finely tuned 1 in 10^10^123 entropy of the universe is? To state the blatantly obvious, this finding of entropy being “a property of an observer who describes a system.” is very friendly to a Mind First, and/or to a Theistic view of reality which holds that it is the Mind of God who is “describing the universe” and is thus behind the initial 1 in 10^10^123 initial entropy of the universe.

    Moreover, Christianity predicted God to be behind the initial entropy of the universe. For instance, Romans chapter 8: verses 20 and 21 itself states, “For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God.”

    Romans 8:20-21
    For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God.

    “We have the sober scientific certainty that the heavens and earth shall ‘wax old as doth a garment’….
    Dark indeed would be the prospects of the human race if unilluminated by that light which reveals ‘new heavens and a new earth.’”
    Sir William Thomson, Lord Kelvin (1824 – 1907) – pioneer in many different fields, particularly electromagnetism and thermodynamics.

    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.

    Thus atheistic naturalism is refuted as an explanation for the creation of the universe by mathematics, via Boltzmann Brains, and is also refuted by quantum mechanics, via the Quantum Zeno Effect and the experimental realization of the Maxwell Demon thought experiment.

    As well this line of evidence from thermodynamics, i.e. quantum information theory, also plays out in the Darwinism vs. Intelligent Design debate in molecular biology.

    The positional information that is found to be in a simple one cell bacterium, when working from the thermodynamic perspective, is found to be on the order 10 to the 12 bits,,,

    Biophysics – Information theory. Relation between information and entropy: – Setlow-Pollard, Ed. Addison Wesley
    Excerpt: Linschitz gave the figure 9.3 x 10^12 cal/deg or 9.3 x 10^12 x 4.2 joules/deg for the entropy of a bacterial cell. Using the relation H = S/(k In 2), we find that the information content is 4 x 10^12 bits. Morowitz’ deduction from the work of Bayne-Jones and Rhees gives the lower value of 5.6 x 10^11 bits, which is still in the neighborhood of 10^12 bits. Thus two quite different approaches give rather concordant figures.
    http://www.astroscu.unam.mx/~a.....ecular.htm

    ,,, Which is the equivalent of 100 million pages of Encyclopedia Britannica. ‘In comparison,,, the largest libraries in the world,, have about 10 million volumes or 10^12 bits.”

    “a one-celled bacterium, e. coli, is estimated to contain the equivalent of 100 million pages of Encyclopedia Britannica. Expressed in information in science jargon, this would be the same as 10^12 bits of information. In comparison, the total writings from classical Greek Civilization is only 10^9 bits, and the largest libraries in the world – The British Museum, Oxford Bodleian Library, New York Public Library, Harvard Widenier Library, and the Moscow Lenin Library – have about 10 million volumes or 10^12 bits.”
    – R. C. Wysong – The Creation-evolution Controversy

    ‘The information content of a simple cell has been estimated as around 10^12 bits, comparable to about a hundred million pages of the Encyclopedia Britannica.”
    Carl Sagan, “Life” in Encyclopedia Britannica: Macropaedia (1974 ed.), pp. 893-894

    In is important to note that the information to build a human, atom by atom, cannot possibly be contained within the embryonic cell. In fact, Darwinists have no clue how multicellular creatures, (nor even bacterial cells), achieve their basic biological form

    Darwinism vs Biological Form
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JyNzNPgjM4w

    As Dr. Doug Axe states in the following video at the 1 hour 16 minute mark, “there are a quadrillion neural connections in the human brain, that’s vastly more neural connections in the human brain than there are bits (of information) in the human genome. So,,, there’s got to be something else going on that makes us what we are.”

    “There is also a presumption, typically when we talk about our genome, (that the genome) is a blueprint for making us. And that is actually not a proven fact in biology. That is an assumption. And (one) that I question because I don’t think that 4 billion bases, which would be 8 billion bits of information, that you would actually have enough information to specify a human being. If you consider for example that there are a quadrillion neural connections in the human brain, that’s vastly more neural connections in the human brain than there are bits (of information) in the human genome. So,,, there’s got to be something else going on that makes us what we are.”
    Doug Axe – Intelligent Design 3.0 – Stephen C. Meyer – video
    https://youtu.be/lgs6J4LqeqI?t=4575

    To give us a rough estimate as to how much ‘positional information’ is in a human body, since Bacterial cells are about 10 times smaller than most plant and animal cells.

    Size Comparisons of Bacteria, Amoeba, Animal & Plant Cells
    Excerpt: Bacterial cells are very small – about 10 times smaller than most plant and animal cells.
    https://education.seattlepi.com/size-comparisons-bacteria-amoeba-animal-plant-cells-4966.html

    And since there are conservatively estimated to be around 30 trillion cells in the average human body,

    Revised Estimates for the Number of Human and Bacteria Cells in the Body – 2016
    Abstract: Reported values in the literature on the number of cells in the body differ by orders of magnitude and are very seldom supported by any measurements or calculations. Here, we integrate the most up-to-date information on the number of human and bacterial cells in the body. We estimate the total number of bacteria in the 70 kg “reference man” to be 3.8·10^13. For human cells, we identify the dominant role of the hematopoietic lineage to the total count (?90%) and revise past estimates to 3.0·10^13 human cells. Our analysis also updates the widely-cited 10:1 ratio, showing that the number of bacteria in the body is actually of the same order as the number of human cells, and their total mass is about 0.2 kg.
    https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.1002533

    Then that gives us a rough ballpark estimate, (via the 10^12 bits calculated to be in bacterial cells from the thermodynamic prespective), of around 300 trillion times 100 million pages of Encyclopedia Britannica. Or about 300 trillion times the information content contained within the books of the largest libraries in the world. Needless to say, that is a massive amount of positional information that is somehow coming into a developing embryo from the outside by some non-material method.

    And as the following article states, the information to build a human infant, atom by atom, would take up the equivalent of enough thumb drives to fill the Titanic, multiplied by 2,000.

    In a TED Talk, (the Question You May Not Ask,,, Where did the information come from?) – November 29, 2017
    Excerpt: Sabatini is charming.,,, he deploys some memorable images. He points out that the information to build a human infant, atom by atom, would take up the equivalent of enough thumb drives to fill the Titanic, multiplied by 2,000. Later he wheels out the entire genome, in printed form, of a human being,,,,:
    [F]or the first time in history, this is the genome of a specific human, printed page-by-page, letter-by-letter: 262,000 pages of information, 450 kilograms.,,,
    https://evolutionnews.org/2017/11/in-a-ted-talk-heres-the-question-you-may-not-ask/

    So just where is this massive amount of ‘positional’ information coming from in a developing embryo if it cannot possibly be contained within the DNA of the fertilized egg of a human?

    At about the 41:00 minute mark of the following video, Dr. Wells, using a branch of mathematics called category theory, demonstrates that, during embryological development, ‘positional information’ must somehow be added to the developing embryo, ‘from the outside’, by some ‘non-material’ method, in order to explain the transdifferentiation of cells into multiple different states during embryological development.

    Design Beyond DNA: A Conversation with Dr. Jonathan Wells – video (41:00 minute mark) – January 2017
    https://youtu.be/ASAaANVBoiE?t=2484

  7. 7
    bornagain77 says:

    Moreover, as the following video highlights, there is now found to be a massive amount of non-local, beyond space and time, quantum entanglement and/or quantum information within the molecular biology of living organisms.

    Darwinian Materialism vs. Quantum Biology – Part II – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oSig2CsjKbg

    The thing about quantum entanglement that is so interesting is that it requires a ‘non-local’ cause that is beyond space and time. As the following article states, ““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,”

    Looking beyond space and time to cope with quantum theory – 29 October 2012
    Excerpt: “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,”
    http://www.quantumlah.org/high.....uences.php

    In other words, Intelligent Design, and a direct inference to God as the Intelligence behind life, (via the non-locality of quantum information and/or the non-locality of quantum entanglement ), has, for all intents and purposes, finally achieved experimental confirmation.

    Darwinists simply have no beyond space and time cause to appeal to in order to be able to explain where this massive amount of positional and/or quantum information could possibly be coming from in a developing embryo. Whereas, on the other hand, Christians have postulated a beyond space and time cause all along.

    Colossians 1:17
    He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.

    Psalm 139:13-16
    For you created my inmost being;
    you knit me together in my mother’s womb.
    I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made;
    your works are wonderful,
    I know that full well.
    My frame was not hidden from you
    when I was made in the secret place,
    when I was woven together in the depths of the earth.
    Your eyes saw my unformed body;
    all the days ordained for me were written in your book
    before one of them came to be.

    On top of all that, quantum information is physically conserved and therefore cannot be created nor destroyed,,,

    Quantum no-hiding theorem experimentally confirmed for first time – 2011
    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/20.....tally.html

    The implication of finding ‘non-local’, beyond space and time, and ‘conserved’, quantum information in molecular biology on such a massive scale, in every important biomolecule in our bodies, is fairly, and pleasantly, obvious. That pleasant implication is, of course, the fact that we now have very strong empirical evidence suggesting that we do indeed have an eternal soul that is capable of living beyond the death of our material bodies. As Stuart Hameroff states in the following article, the quantum information,,, isn’t destroyed. It can’t be destroyed.,,, it’s possible that this quantum information can exist outside the body. Perhaps indefinitely as a soul.”

    Leading Scientists Say Consciousness Cannot Die It Goes Back To The Universe – Oct. 19, 2017 – Spiritual
    Excerpt: “Let’s say the heart stops beating. The blood stops flowing. The microtubules lose their quantum state. But the quantum information, which is in the microtubules, isn’t destroyed. It can’t be destroyed. It just distributes and dissipates to the universe at large. If a patient is resuscitated, revived, this quantum information can go back into the microtubules and the patient says, “I had a near death experience. I saw a white light. I saw a tunnel. I saw my dead relatives.,,” Now if they’re not revived and the patient dies, then it’s possible that this quantum information can exist outside the body. Perhaps indefinitely as a soul.”
    – Stuart Hameroff – Quantum Entangled Consciousness – Life After Death – video (5:00 minute mark)
    https://www.disclose.tv/leading-scientists-say-consciousness-cannot-die-it-goes-back-to-the-universe-315604

    Verse:

    Mark 8:37
    Is anything worth more than your soul?

    John 1:1-4
    In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind.

    Supplemental note:

    How Quantum Mechanics and Consciousness Correlate – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4f0hL3Nrdas

    Thus in conclusion, while Darwinists, (and others), might try to play the second law, i.e. entropy, off as not that big of a deal, the fact of the matter is that, from top to bottom, entropy is one of the most powerful, if not the most powerful, scientific evidences that we have for Intelligent Design.

    Romans 8:19-21
    …19 The creation waits in eager expectation for the revelation of the sons of God. 20 For the creation was subjected to futility, not by its own will, but because of the One who subjected it, in hope 21 that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God.…

  8. 8
    ET says:

    seversky- Pure cowardice has one attacking the messenger instead of the message. Nice own goal

  9. 9
    ET says:

    The 2nd law isn’t needed. The fact that there isn’t any evidence for natural selection or any other blind and mindless process’s ability to create is all that is required. The fact that evos don’t even know how to test their own claims is the nail in the coffin.

  10. 10
    Jim Thibodeau says:

    My word.

    The Second Law of Thermodynamics is vastly more reliable than the inaptly-named Ohm’s Law.

    The Second Law of Thermodynamics applies to any macroscopic system.

    Ohm’s “Law” does not. It only works for direct currents in the first place, only works for voltages in a certain range, doesn’t work if the conductor is moving, doesn’t work in a strong magnetic field, doesn’t work if the temperature changes, doesn’t work on “non-Ohmic” materials, doesn’t work in diodes, doesn’t work in semi-conductors…

    Ohms law only ever works for a narrow set of phenomena, the Second Law of Thermodynamics works all over the place.

  11. 11
    ET says:

    Evolutionism doesn’t work. No one uses it for anything.

  12. 12

    Seversky- So if my resume was better than yours, only then would the arguments in my video be true? This is called the ad hominem fallacy. Why not argue your case, instead of personalities?

  13. 13

    ET- “The 2nd law isn’t needed.” Granted, but by itself it is sufficient. More than that, it is foundational mathematical reality, within which evolution would have to work. Life is all about arrangements, and arrangements are the essence of the second law. At its heart, the evolution model is supposed to be an explanation for ever-more-sophisticated “fantastically improbable” arrangements. But to make such an attempt without reference to a law of mathematical reality? Pure nonsense.

  14. 14

    Polistra- “…I don’t find the 2nd law itself especially convincing.” How about gravity? Do you find that convincing? You depend upon the generalized second law every day of your life, but you say you don’t find it convincing? So are you worried that the particular corner of the room you are in will not have 20% oxygen near your face when you take your next breath? Just sayin’…

  15. 15
    Ed George says:

    BA77

    Contrary to Seversky, Jim Thibodeau and Polistra all dissing the second law as not really being impressive evidence for design, the second law, i.e. entropy, is actually one of the most powerful evidences, if not the most powerful evidence, for design that we have.

    If the second law is the most powerful evidence for ID then the second most powerful evidence must be extremely weak, little more than wishful thinking.

  16. 16
    bornagain77 says:

    Ed George, perhaps instead of a snide comment, you can honestly address the evidence? But then again, if you honestly addressed the evidence, you wouldn’t be an atheistic troll on the internet would you?

  17. 17
    bornagain77 says:

    Of note, there is a comment between posts 5 and 6 that is hung up in moderation, Hopefully it will be out of moderation shortly.

  18. 18
    ET says:

    LoL! @ Ed George- Unlike your position at least ID has something positive. You can’t even account for the any laws, let alone the 2nd LoT.

  19. 19
    BrunoAr says:

    @Momentoftruth ” So if my resume was better than yours, only then would the arguments in my video be true? This is called the ad hominem fallacy.”
    It could be but not necessary! There will be always two sides of the medal.

  20. 20
    Jim Thibodeau says:

    @Ed George I do think second law arguments are the best creationists have, and I would encourage them to take even the simplest thermodynamics classes, to understand why they’re complete nonsense. Creationism makes more sense the less you know.

  21. 21
    Jim Thibodeau says:

    If somebody wants to take all three calculus classes, then ordinary differential equations, then partial differential equations, so they can understand the heat equation, so they can take a decent thermodynamics class, I would love to hear the explanation of how delta S means evolution can’t happen.

  22. 22
    Truthfreedom says:

    @15 EG
    And now Ed George presents the self-assembling Universe…
    Once Upon a Time…

  23. 23
    Latemarch says:

    Jim T@20:
    I wake up every day to the effects of the 2nd Law but now I have to have differential equations to actually understand it?
    Hahahahahaha! wheeze Hahahahaha!
    Best bluff yet!

  24. 24
    Truthfreedom says:

    @12 Momentofruth:

    (Seversky) This is called the ad hominem fallacy. Why not argue your case, instead of personalities?

    You know, when adversaries resort to the ad hominem, it reeks of desperation. 🙂
    Excellent video, thank you Marks Champneys. Watched it in its entirety (something that others did not do).
    ___

    It seems this thing entropy has already casted its shadow upon that silly darwinian theory of evolution (via RM+NS). Because it is already starting to lose form, to decay, to disintegrate. 🙂
    ___

    Look at this paper (a peer-reviewed one, not a pre-print). 🙂

    Updating Darwin: Information and entropy drive the evolution of life

    “After a half century of research, any ruling paradigm, however revered, needs reexamination in the light of the findings that have emerged since its conception. Science advances by periodic review of its most cherished teachings; an outdated paradigm is not mere excess baggage: it actually obstructs new ideas and new experiments.”

    […]

    “Here I discuss two mechanisms that can resolve these paradoxical features; both mechanisms arise from viewing life as the evolution of information. Information has two inevitable outcomes; it increases by autocatalyis and it is destroyed by entropy. On the one hand, the autocalalysis of information inexorably drives the evolution of complexity, irrespective of its fragility. On the other hand, only those strategic arrangements that accommodate the destructive forces of entropy survive – cooperation, diversification, and programmed death result from the entropic selection of evolving species”.

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5200945.1/?report=reader#!po=11.8750

  25. 25
    Tom Robbins says:

    The argument is still valid – information theory prohibits highly specified information suddenly emerging from an open or closed system – if you don’t have a mind, you are not going to get encoded and decoded specific information, no matter how long you wait. Also life both uses entropy AFTER it takes molecules to a state of low entropy – this is impossible in a materialistic world. A cell will build up molecules using lots of energy (and moving to low entropy), stores it for later, and then releases it suddenly in a state of very high entropy – this does not happen in a materialist only landscape, no laws of physics or chemistry permit this… accidental evolution is nonsense sold as science.

  26. 26
    Truthfreedom says:

    @23 Latemarch

    (JT) I wake up every day to the effects of the 2nd Law but now I have to have differential equations to actually understand it?
    Hahahahahaha! wheeze Hahahahaha!
    Best bluff yet!

    The fact that moderators let certain types to post here is a testament to their intrisic goodness.
    You shall shelter the mentally challenged. 🙂

  27. 27
    Tom Robbins says:

    Not to mention – when molecules react naturally, they go to useless junk for life, they do not build up organic membranes and organelles – AND once they make one fatal but natural reaction, moving to get to a low energy state, there is no going back – random evolution ignores this, that each step of the way is impossible X impossible X impossible

  28. 28
    bornagain77 says:

    Jim Thibodeau

    If somebody wants to take all three calculus classes, then ordinary differential equations, then partial differential equations, so they can understand the heat equation, so they can take a decent thermodynamics class, I would love to hear the explanation of how delta S means evolution can’t happen.

    As to, “so they can understand the heat equation” in particular, in the very first part of the video, starting at 1 minute 23 seconds, the narrator states that it is not just about heat, and further comments that it is amazing how many scientists have not gotten the memo but it is not just about energy.,,

    When Scientists Ignore Science: The Second Law of Thermodynamics
    https://youtu.be/0oOt317kSro?t=83

    Apparently Jim Thibodeau did not watch the video and/or he is one those who have not gotten the memo. Most likely both.

    Moreover, Granville Sewell, Brian Miller and Andy McIntosh are certainly no slouches in terms of understanding the math behind entropy,

    (Professor) Granville Sewell
    Mathematics Dept. – University of Texas El Paso
    “The Numerical Solution of Ordinary and Partial Differential Equations, 3rd Edition,” World Scientific Publishing, 2015 || Book Home Page
    “Computational Methods of Linear Algebra, 3rd Edition,” World Scientific Publishing, 2014 || Book Home Page
    “Solving Partial Differential Equation Applications with PDE2D” John Wiley and Sons, 2018 || Book Home Page
    http://www.math.utep.edu/Faculty/sewell/

    Dr. Brian Miller is Research Coordinator for the Center for Science and Culture at Discovery Institute. He holds a B.S. in physics with a minor in engineering from MIT and a Ph.D. in physics from Duke University
    https://www.discovery.org/p/miller/

    Andrew McIntosh (also known as Andy McIntosh) professor of thermodynamics and combustion theory at the University of Leeds.
    https://eps.leeds.ac.uk/staff/46/Professor_Andy_McIntosh

    A few more notes,

    Physicist Brian Miller: Two Conundrums for Strictly Materialist Views of Biology – January 2020
    Excerpt: Nothing in nature will ever simultaneously go to both low entropy and high energy at the same time. It’s a physical impossibility. Yet life had to do that. Life had to take simple chemicals and go to a state of high energy and of low entropy. That’s a physical impossibility.
    https://evolutionnews.org/2020/01/physicist-brian-miller-two-conundrums-for-strictly-materialist-views-of-biology/

    Asking the Right Questions: My Visit to Brown University and MIT – Brian Miller – March 22, 2017
    Excerpt: In the portion of my presentations dealing with the origin of life, I addressed the fact that nature always tends towards high entropy (disorder) and low energy. However, life is both low entropy (highly ordered) and high energy. No natural process would ever take the basic building blocks of life and form a cell, since nature would have to move in the opposite direction from how it always proceeds. In response, I received another standard question.
    Question: Cannot a system move from higher to lower entropy locally, if the surrounding environment increases in entropy to compensate for the local change?
    Response: A system can only move to lower entropy if the process is exothermic, which means it gives off heat. In that case, the heat that enters the surrounding environment increases the entropy more than the local entropy decreases. However, the formation of a cell corresponds to a decrease in entropy, and in endothermic processes, heat is absorbed. Therefore, both the local system and the surrounding environment go to lower entropy, which is physically impossible.
    https://www.evolutionnews.org/2017/03/asking-the-right-questions-my-visit-to-brown-university-and-mit/

    Thermodynamic Challenges to the Origin of Life – Brian Miller – March 27, 2020
    Excerpt: The thermodynamic barriers to the origin of life have become decidedly more well defined since this book’s first publication. The initial challenges described in the original edition still stand. Namely, spontaneous natural processes always tend toward states of greater entropy, lower energy, or both. The change of entropy and energy are often combined into the change of free energy, and all spontaneous processes move toward lower free energy. However, the generation of a minimally functional cell on the ancient Earth required a local system of molecules to transition into a state of both lower entropy and higher energy. Therefore, it must move toward dramatically higher free energy. The chance of a system accomplishing this feat near equilibrium is astronomically small.
    Many origin-of-life researchers have responded to this challenge by arguing that a system driven far from equilibrium could self-organize into a functional cell through processes that are connected to such monikers as complex systems, emergence, synergetics, or nonequilibrium dissipative systems. The basic hope is that some new physical principles could overcome the barriers to life’s origin mandated by classical thermodynamics. However, advances in nonequilibrium thermodynamics have proven that the odds of a system driven far from equilibrium generating an autonomous cell are no greater than the odds for one near equilibrium.
    Others have proposed that “natural engines” on the early Earth converted one form of energy into another that could drive a local system to sufficiently high free energy. These approaches have proven equally disappointing. The only plausible explanation for the origin of life is intelligent agency.
    https://evolutionnews.org/2020/03/thermodynamic-challenges-to-the-origin-of-life/

  29. 29
    bornagain77 says:

    Why Tornados Running Backward do not Violate the Second Law – Granville Sewell – May 2012 –
    Excerpt: So, how does the spontaneous rearrangement of matter on a rocky, barren, planet into human brains and spaceships and jet airplanes and nuclear power plants and libraries full of science texts and novels, and supercomputers running partial differential equation solving software , represent a less obvious or less spectacular violation of the second law—or at least of the fundamental natural principle behind this law—than tornados turning rubble into houses and cars? Can anyone even imagine a more spectacular violation?
    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....econd-law/

    On “compensating” entropy decreases – Granville Sewell
    Mathematics Department, University of Texas El Paso, – 24 January 2017
    Abstract: The “compensation” argument, widely used to dismiss the claim that evolution violates the more general statements of the second law of thermodynamics, is based on the idea that there is a single quantity called “entropy” which measures disorder of all types. This article shows that there is no such total entropy, and that the compensation argument is not a valid way to dismiss the claim that evolution violates the second law. Note that the article does not argue that evolution violates the second law, only that the compensation argument is logically invalid.
    http://www.math.utep.edu/Facul.....sewell.pdf

    In the following paper, Andy C. McIntosh, professor of thermodynamics and combustion theory at the University of Leeds, holds that non-material information is what is constraining the cell to be so far out of thermodynamic equilibrium. Moreover, Dr. McIntosh holds that regarding information as independent of energy and matter ‘resolves the thermodynamic issues and invokes the correct paradigm for understanding the vital area of thermodynamic/organisational interactions’.

    Information and Thermodynamics in Living Systems – Andy C. McIntosh – 2013
    Excerpt: ,,, information is in fact non-material and that the coded information systems (such as, but not restricted to the coding of DNA in all living systems) is not defined at all by the biochemistry or physics of the molecules used to store the data. Rather than matter and energy defining the information sitting on the polymers of life, this approach posits that the reverse is in fact the case. Information has its definition outside the matter and energy on which it sits, and furthermore constrains it to operate in a highly non-equilibrium thermodynamic environment. This proposal resolves the thermodynamic issues and invokes the correct paradigm for understanding the vital area of thermodynamic/organisational interactions, which despite the efforts from alternative paradigms has not given a satisfactory explanation of the way information in systems operates.,,,
    http://www.worldscientific.com.....08728_0008

    Here is a video by Dr. Giem, that gets the main points of Dr. McIntosh’s paper over in a fairly easy to understand manner for the lay person:

    Biological Information – Information and Thermodynamics in Living Systems 11-22-2014 by Paul Giem (A. McIntosh) – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IR_r6mFdwQM

    David Berlinski, who is also no slouch in terms of understanding mathematics, weighs in here,

    “It is the second law of thermodynamics that holds dominion over the temporal organization of the universe,,, things go from bad to worse. And overall, they go only from bad to worse.,,,
    Life appears to offer at least a temporary rebuke to the second law of thermodynamics.,,, Whatever the universe as a whole may be doing,,,, biologically things have gone from bad to better,, ”
    David Berlinski – The Deniable Darwin – 1994
    https://www.discovery.org/a/130/

  30. 30
    Truthfreedom says:

    @28 Bornagain77:

    Apparently JT did not watch the video and/or he is one those who have not gotten the memo. Most likely both.

    Both. And if I don’t recall it badly, he said he sells cosmetics…

  31. 31
    bornagain77 says:

    Since we are talking about the second LAW, it is interesting to note that one of the main reasons that Darwinian evolution fails to even qualify as a rigorous science in the first place is because there is no ‘LAW of evolution’ within the known physical universe for mathematicians and physicists to ever build a realistic mathematical model for evolution upon.

    As Professor Murray Eden of MIT, in a paper entitled “Inadequacies of Neo-Darwinian Evolution as a Scientific Theory” stated. “the randomness postulate is highly implausible and that an adequate scientific theory of evolution must await the discovery and elucidation of new natural laws—physical, physico-chemical, and biological.”

    “It is our contention that if ‘random’ is given a serious and crucial interpretation from a probabilistic point of view, the randomness postulate is highly implausible and that an adequate scientific theory of evolution must await the discovery and elucidation of new natural laws—physical, physico-chemical, and biological.”
    Murray Eden, “Inadequacies of Neo-Darwinian Evolution as a Scientific Theory,” Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution, editors Paul S. Moorhead and Martin M. Kaplan, June 1967, p. 109.
    https://people.eecs.berkeley.edu/~christos/evol/compevol_files/Wistar-Eden-1.pdf

    Robert Marks weighs in here, “there exists no model successfully describing undirected Darwinian evolution. According to our current understanding, there never will be.,,,”

    Top Ten Questions and Objections to ‘Introduction to Evolutionary Informatics’ – Robert J. Marks II – June 12, 2017
    Excerpt: “There exists no model successfully describing undirected Darwinian evolution. Hard sciences are built on foundations of mathematics or definitive simulations. Examples include electromagnetics, Newtonian mechanics, geophysics, relativity, thermodynamics, quantum mechanics, optics, and many areas in biology. Those hoping to establish Darwinian evolution as a hard science with a model have either failed or inadvertently cheated. These models contain guidance mechanisms to land the airplane squarely on the target runway despite stochastic wind gusts. Not only can the guiding assistance be specifically identified in each proposed evolution model, its contribution to the success can be measured, in bits, as active information.,,,”,,, “there exists no model successfully describing undirected Darwinian evolution. According to our current understanding, there never will be.,,,”
    https://evolutionnews.org/2017/06/top-ten-questions-and-objections-to-introduction-to-evolutionary-informatics/

    In fact, not only is there no ‘law of evolution’ within the known physical universe for Darwinists to ever build a realistic mathematical model upon, the second law of thermodynamics, entropy, a law with great mathematical explanatory power in science, almost directly contradicts, if not directly contradicts, the primary Darwinian claim that greater and greater levels of functional complexity can easily be had and/or ‘naturally selected’ for over long periods of time. Indeed, entropy’s main claim is that, over long periods of time, everything in the universe will decay into simpler and simpler states until what is termed thermodynamic equilibrium is finally reached.

    And please remember,, we find that life is far from being anywhere near thermodynamic equilibrium. (see post 6 in this thread).

    And whereas Darwinian evolution has no known law of the universe to appeal to so as to establish itself as a proper, testable, science, Intelligent Design does not suffer from such an embarrassing disconnect from physical reality. In other words, Intelligent Design can appeal directly to ‘the laws of conservation of information’ (Dembski, Marks, etc..) to base its math on and to build realistic mathematical models upon in order to establish itself as a proper, testable, and rigorous science.

    Evolutionary Computing: The Invisible Hand of Intelligence – June 17, 2015
    Excerpt: William Dembski and Robert Marks have shown that no evolutionary algorithm is superior to blind search — unless information is added from an intelligent cause, which means it is not, in the Darwinian sense, an evolutionary algorithm after all. This mathematically proven law, based on the accepted No Free Lunch Theorems, seems to be lost on the champions of evolutionary computing. Researchers keep confusing an evolutionary algorithm (a form of artificial selection) with “natural evolution.” ,,,
    Marks and Dembski account for the invisible hand required in evolutionary computing. The Lab’s website states, “The principal theme of the lab’s research is teasing apart the respective roles of internally generated and externally applied information in the performance of evolutionary systems.” So yes, systems can evolve, but when they appear to solve a problem (such as generating complex specified information or reaching a sufficiently narrow predefined target), intelligence can be shown to be active. Any internally generated information is conserved or degraded by the law of Conservation of Information.,,,
    What Marks and Dembski (mathematically) prove is as scientifically valid and relevant as Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem in mathematics. You can’t prove a system of mathematics from within the system, and you can’t derive an information-rich pattern from within the pattern.,,,
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....96931.html

    And since Intelligent Design is mathematically based on the ‘law of conservation of information’, that makes Intelligent Design very much testable and potentially falsifiable, and thus makes Intelligent Design, unlike Darwinism, a rigorous science instead of a unfalsifiable pseudoscience.

    The Law of Physicodynamic Incompleteness – David L. Abel
    Excerpt: “If decision-node programming selections are made randomly or by law rather than with purposeful intent, no non-trivial (sophisticated) function will spontaneously arise.”
    If only one exception to this null hypothesis were published, the hypothesis would be falsified. Falsification would require an experiment devoid of behind-the-scenes steering. Any artificial selection hidden in the experimental design would disqualify the experimental falsification. After ten years of continual republication of the null hypothesis with appeals for falsification, no falsification has been provided.
    The time has come to extend this null hypothesis into a formal scientific prediction:
    “No non trivial algorithmic/computational utility will ever arise from chance and/or necessity alone.”
    https://www.academia.edu/Documents/in/The_Law_of_Physicodynamic_Incompleteness

    In fact there is currently up to a 10 million dollar prize being offered for the first person that can “Show an example of Information that doesn’t come from a mind. All you need is one.”

    The Origin of Information: How to Solve It – Perry Marshall
    Where did the information in DNA come from? This is one of the most important and valuable questions in the history of science. Cosmic Fingerprints has issued a challenge to the scientific community:
    “Show an example of Information that doesn’t come from a mind. All you need is one.”
    “Information” is defined as digital communication between an encoder and a decoder, using agreed upon symbols. To date, no one has shown an example of a naturally occurring encoding / decoding system, i.e. one that has demonstrably come into existence without a designer.
    A private equity investment group is offering a technology prize for this discovery (up to 10 million dollars). We will financially reward and publicize the first person who can solve this;,,, To solve this problem is far more than an object of abstract religious or philosophical discussion. It would demonstrate a mechanism for producing coding systems, thus opening up new channels of scientific discovery. Such a find would have sweeping implications for Artificial Intelligence research.
    http://cosmicfingerprints.com/solve/

    Thus again, by all rights, Intelligent Design, since it is based on a universal law, (i.e. the conservation of information), qualifies as a rigorous and testable science that is ‘potentially’ falsifiable, whereas, again, Darwinian evolution, since it has no universal law it can appeal to, fails to qualify as a rigorous science.

    Shoot, by any other reasonable measure one may try to use to determine if Darwinism even qualifies as a science, Darwinism fails those other criteria as well

    “There are five standard tests for a scientific hypothesis. Has anyone observed the phenomenon — in this case, Evolution — as it occurred and recorded it? Could other scientists replicate it? Could any of them come up with a set of facts that, if true, would contradict the theory (Karl Popper’s “falsifiability” tests)? Could scientists make predictions based on it? Did it illuminate hitherto unknown or baffling areas of science? In the case of Evolution… well… no… no… no… no… and no.”
    – Tom Wolfe – The Kingdom of Speech – page 17
    Darwinian Evolution Fails the Five Standard Tests of a Scientific Hypothesis
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L7f_fyoPybw

    Verse

    1 Thessalonians 5:21
    but test everything; hold fast what is good.

  32. 32
    Seversky says:

    The TalkOrigins Archive

    Index to Creationist Claims

    Claim CF001:

    The second law of thermodynamics says that everything tends toward disorder, making evolutionary development impossible.

    Source:

    Morris, Henry M., 1974. Scientific Creationism, Green Forest, AR: Master Books, pp. 38-46.

    Response:

    The second law of thermodynamics says no such thing. It says that heat will not spontaneously flow from a colder body to a warmer one or, equivalently, that total entropy (a measure of useful energy) in a closed system will not decrease. This does not prevent increasing order because

    > the earth is not a closed system; sunlight (with low entropy) shines on it and heat (with higher entropy) radiates off. This flow of energy, and the change in entropy that accompanies it, can and will power local decreases in entropy on earth.

    > entropy is not the same as disorder. Sometimes the two correspond, but sometimes order increases as entropy increases. (Aranda-Espinoza et al. 1999; Kestenbaum 1998) Entropy can even be used to produce order, such as in the sorting of molecules by size (Han and Craighead 2000).

    > even in a closed system, pockets of lower entropy can form if they are offset by increased entropy elsewhere in the system.

    In short, order from disorder happens on earth all the time.

    The only processes necessary for evolution to occur are reproduction, heritable variation, and selection. All of these are seen to happen all the time, so, obviously, no physical laws are preventing them. In fact, connections between evolution and entropy have been studied in depth, and never to the detriment of evolution (Demetrius 2000).

    Several scientists have proposed that evolution and the origin of life is driven by entropy (McShea 1998). Some see the information content of organisms subject to diversification according to the second law (Brooks and Wiley 1988), so organisms diversify to fill empty niches much as a gas expands to fill an empty container. Others propose that highly ordered complex systems emerge and evolve to dissipate energy (and increase overall entropy) more efficiently (Schneider and Kay 1994).

    Creationists themselves admit that increasing order is possible. They introduce fictional exceptions to the law to account for it.

    Creationists themselves make claims that directly contradict their claims about the second law of thermodynamics, such as hydrological sorting of fossils during the Flood.

    References:

    Aranda-Espinoza, H., Y. Chen, N. Dan, T. C. Lubensky, P. Nelson, L. Ramos and D. A. Weitz, 1999. Electrostatic repulsion of positively charged vesicles and negatively charged objects. Science 285: 394-397.
    Brooks, D. R. and E. O. Wiley, 1988. Evolution As Entropy, University of Chicago Press.
    Kestenbaum, David, 1998. Gentle force of entropy bridges disciplines. Science 279: 1849.
    Han, J. and H. G. Craighead, 2000. Separation of long DNA molecules in a microfabricated entropic trap array. Science 288: 1026-1029.
    Demetrius, Lloyd, 2000. Theromodynamics and evolution. Journal of Theoretical Biology 206(1): 1-16. http://www.idealibrary.com/lin......2000.2106
    McShea, Daniel W., 1998. Possible largest-scale trends in organismal evolution: eight live hypotheses. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 29: 293-318.
    Schneider, Eric D. and James J. Kay, 1994. Life as a manifestation of the second law of thermodynamics. Mathematical and Computer Modelling 19(6-8): 25-48. http://www.fes.uwaterloo.ca/u/.....lifeas.pdf

  33. 33
    Jim Thibodeau says:

    @seversky yeah the basic expression of the second law of thermodynamics is dS/dt>0 for an isolated system. When somebody tells you this is some kinda problem for evolution, all they’re really saying is they’ve never calculated dS.

  34. 34
    bornagain77 says:

    Oh goody, Seversky references talkorigins as a supposedly authoritative source on entropy. (must try not to LOL)

    Tell you what Seversky, if you, or any authoritative source of your choosing, can give a reasonably coherent explanation for the following question, then I will believe that Darwinists are not just blowing smoke when they try to claim entropy is not that big of a deal for Darwinian premises.

    What power, force, and/or thing, is constraining life to be so far out of thermodynamic equilibrium for precisely a lifetime and not a moment longer?

    Or as Stephen Talbott so eloquently put the question, “,,, the question, rather, is why things don’t fall completely apart — as they do, in fact, at the moment of death. What power holds off that moment — precisely for a lifetime, and not a moment longer?”

    The Unbearable Wholeness of Beings – Stephen L. Talbott – 2010
    Excerpt: Virtually the same collection of molecules exists in the canine cells during the moments immediately before and after death. But after the fateful transition no one will any longer think of genes as being regulated, nor will anyone refer to normal or proper chromosome functioning. No molecules will be said to guide other molecules to specific targets, and no molecules will be carrying signals, which is just as well because there will be no structures recognizing signals. Code, information, and communication, in their biological sense, will have disappeared from the scientist’s vocabulary.
    ,,, the question, rather, is why things don’t fall completely apart — as they do, in fact, at the moment of death. What power holds off that moment — precisely for a lifetime, and not a moment longer?
    Despite the countless processes going on in the cell, and despite the fact that each process might be expected to “go its own way” according to the myriad factors impinging on it from all directions, the actual result is quite different. Rather than becoming progressively disordered in their mutual relations (as indeed happens after death, when the whole dissolves into separate fragments), the processes hold together in a larger unity.
    http://www.thenewatlantis.com/.....-of-beings

    Unlike Darwinists, ID advocates have a ready explanation. Life is constrained to be so far out of thermodynamic equilibrium, for precisely a lifetime, simply because it is immaterial information and/or the ‘soul’ that is holding the trillions of molecules of a organism into a single unified whole for precisely a lifetime.

    Information and entropy – top-down or bottom-up development in living systems? A.C. McINTOSH – Dr Andy C. McIntosh is the Professor of Thermodynamics (the highest teaching/research rank in U.K. university hierarchy) Combustion Theory at the University of Leeds.
    Excerpt: This paper highlights the distinctive and non-material nature of information and its relationship with matter, energy and natural forces. It is proposed in conclusion that it is the non-material information (transcendent to the matter and energy) that is actually itself constraining the local thermodynamics to be in ordered disequilibrium and with specified raised free energy levels necessary for the molecular and cellular machinery to operate.
    http://journals.witpress.com/paperinfo.asp?pid=420

    “Since living organisms consistently resist the ravages of entropy that all forms of inanimate matter are subject to, there must be some non-physical principle allowing living matter to consistently defy the Second Law of Thermodynamics. And for Davies there is; the demon in the machine turns out to be information.”
    Robert Shedinger, “Hey, Paul Davies — Your ID Is Showing”
    https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/darwin-skeptic-robert-shedinger-calls-out-paul-davies/
    comment: It is the ‘soul’ holding the body together for ‘precisely for a lifetime’
    https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/darwin-skeptic-robert-shedinger-calls-out-paul-davies/#comment-695364

    Darwinian Materialism vs. Quantum Biology – Part II – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oSig2CsjKbg

    Drawing – soul leaving the body at death
    https://slm-assets.secondlife.com/assets/5935044/lightbox/Spirit%20Release.jpg?1342658045

    Verse:

    Mark 8:37
    37 Is anything worth more than your soul?

  35. 35
    ET says:

    Talk origins is nothing but a propaganda site. Notice how they FAILed to produce any evidence or science that refutes the claim.

  36. 36
    Ed George says:

    I’m sitting here looking at the snow falling and concluding that the snowflakes must be designed because they have lower entropy than water and, by BA77’s logic, violating the 2nd law.

  37. 37
    bornagain77 says:

    Ed George. unfortunately for you, I did not, nor did any of my references, make the claim that snowfalkes violate the second law. .

    Undeniable: Thermodynamics and Life
    BY JONATHAN SILCOX JUNE 4, 2017
    Some atheists argue that spontaneous, improbable events do happen in nature, like snowflakes. This is true, but, nonetheless, nature behaves in a way that is expected according to the laws of physics. Miller argues that we observe driving forces and dynamic patterns in nature. He says nature moves from low entropy to high entropy, or high energy to low energy. Water, for example, naturally runs downhill. In order for it to go uphill, it would need to be pumped.
    He also notes that systems give off heat. But nothing in nature goes from low energy to high energy and disorder to order. Therefore, if there are no examples to the contrary, it’s a stretch for any atheist to claim that it could have happened at least once at some point during earth’s history.
    Miller refers to tornados and hurricanes are examples of spontaneous, self-organized processes, but they operate according to law-driven patterns and natural processes. They have increased entropy, but lower free energy. Yet, when we observe organization in a cell, we see a completely different process at work than when a tornado forms.
    When it comes to the origin of life, the correct ingredients don’t spontaneously attract. Instead, they diffuse. That’s a big problem for those who believe life formed spontaneously.,,,
    https://sixdaysblog.com/2017/06/04/undeniable-thermodynamics-and-life/

    What you have done by attributing an argument to me that I did not make is known as a ‘strawman argument’

    2. Strawman Argument
    https://thebestschools.org/magazine/15-logical-fallacies-know/

  38. 38
    Jim Thibodeau says:

    @Ed George I don’t believe that those supposed “snowflakes” exist. Snowflakes are more ordered than water molecules, and therefore they violate the Second Law. 🙂

  39. 39
    Jim Thibodeau says:

    Didn’t Answers in Genesis say that creationists should stop using second law of thermodynamics arguments because it makes them look dumb?

  40. 40
    Jim Thibodeau says:

    Anybody who’s ever had thermodynamics knows that thermodynamic equilibrium means the same temperature. That’s literally the definition. When people die they do not immediately go to room temperature, it takes several hours.

  41. 41
    Seversky says:

    The Second Law of Thermodynamics Began at the Fall

    by Dr. Tommy Mitchell on November 2, 2010

    Prior to the Fall, God upheld His creation perfectly. After man disobeyed God—which brought about the effects of the Curse—it was as if God withdrew some of His sustaining power (all the while still upholding the universe but not in a perfect state—giving us a taste of what life is like without Him). Thus we have a world that is suffering the cumulative effect of this increasing disorder (decay).

    So the argument that the second law of thermodynamics began at the Fall is one that we believe Christians should not use.

  42. 42
    bornagain77 says:

    Who is arguing for Young Earth Creationism? i.e. another strawman argument

    “Overwhelmingly strong proofs of intelligent and benevolent design lie around us… the atheistic idea is so nonsensical that I cannot put it into words.”
    Sir William Thomson, Lord Kelvin, – did important work in the formulation of the first and second laws of thermodynamics,

  43. 43
    Seversky says:

    Bornagain77 @ 31

    In fact there is currently up to a 10 million dollar prize being offered for the first person that can “Show an example of Information that doesn’t come from a mind. All you need is one.”

    Tree rings!

    I claim my prize! (Not holding my breath)

  44. 44
    Ed George says:

    Sev

    Tree rings!

    Radioactive decay.

  45. 45
    Seversky says:

    Bornagain77 @ 34

    What power, force, and/or thing, is constraining life to be so far out of thermodynamic equilibrium for precisely a lifetime and not a moment longer?

    Or as Stephen Talbott so eloquently put the question, “,,, the question, rather, is why things don’t fall completely apart — as they do, in fact, at the moment of death. What power holds off that moment — precisely for a lifetime, and not a moment longer?”

    What’s this “precisely for a lifetime” supposed to mean?

    Human beings die before they are born or live to be over a hundred and all values in between.

    They can die suddenly from acts of violence or being struck by a fast-moving vehicle. They can die of natural causes which may take minutes or hours. They can die of disease which can take months or years. They can simply drop dead from no detectable cause.

    So what is the justification for this nonsense about some power holding off the moment of death “precisely for a lifetime and not a moment longer”?

    Unlike Darwinists, ID advocates have a ready explanation. Life is constrained to be so far out of thermodynamic equilibrium, for precisely a lifetime, simply because it is immaterial information and/or the ‘soul’ that is holding the trillions of molecules of a organism into a single unified whole for precisely a lifetime.

    The Earth will continue in a state of thermodynamic equilibrium for as long the energy from incoming sunlight is balance by the radiation of heat into space If you were to switch off the Sun the planet would cool slowly but inexorably to the temperature of the void around it and all life would cease.

    You maintain thermodynamic equilibrium by balancing the energy used by your metabolism and radiated as heat by the food and drink you consume. Stop eating and drinking and your physical processes will stop and your body’s temperature cool slowly to being in equilibrium with that of the environment around you. In other words, you would be dead.

    Ill-founded speculation about immaterial information and ‘souls’ is just that, speculation, nothing more.

  46. 46
    Ed George says:

    BA77

    What power, force, and/or thing, is constraining life to be so far out of thermodynamic equilibrium for precisely a lifetime and not a moment longer?

    OOH! OOH! Can I play? Chemical reactions? I guess pathologists haven’t heard that human bodies reach thermodynamic equilibrium immediately after death. How many people have been wrongfully convicted because of this oversight.

  47. 47
  48. 48
    Truthfreedom says:

    @Seversky 45

    They can die suddenly from acts of violence or being struck by a fast-moving vehicle. They can die of natural causes which may take minutes or hours.

    So being struck by a fast-moving vehicle is not a ‘natural’ cause?
    Are you implying that cars are ‘supernatural’?
    According to naturalism, ‘everything is nature’, wasn’t it? Everything must include cars then. Well, everything includes everything of course.

  49. 49
    Ed George says:

    BA77

    ^^^^^^^^^^^^ Sigh

    My point exactly. Although, I did find it strange that a devout Christian would project using a gif of an open and proud sinner.

  50. 50
    Truthfreedom says:

    @49 Ed George

    on an open and proud sinner.

    I am proud of consensually f*****g my dad! (It’s all cultural, you know? And we are both adults. And it ‘exists in nature’).

  51. 51
    bornagain77 says:

    Whatever Ed. I am not the one using strawman arguments to avoid dealing honestly with the evidence.

  52. 52
    Ed George says:

    BA77

    Whatever Ed. I am not the one using strawman arguments to avoid dealing honestly with the evidence.

    I’m not the one making claims that a high school kid knows are erroneous.

  53. 53
    Ed George says:

    TruthFreedom

    I am proud of consensually f*****g my dad!

    Most people take pride in their work, or their children. But if having sex with your father is what you are proud of, who am I to suggest otherwise?

  54. 54
    ET says:

    Only a moron thinks that tree rings are a code or information. Trees are data recorders and they are themselves ALIVE. So seversky, the moron, is trying to use that which requires an explanation to do the explaining.

  55. 55
    ET says:

    Ed George:

    I’m sitting here looking at the snow falling and concluding that the snowflakes must be designed because they have lower entropy than water and, by BA77’s logic, violating the 2nd law.

    They exist in a designed universe, on a designed planet, which acts according to its design.

  56. 56
    ET says:

    And still absolutely no evidence to refute the claim of the OP. And that is very, very telling.

  57. 57
    ET says:

    What is the difference between data, ie tree rings, and information? Data is only information once it is analyzed and given meaning. Analyzed and given meaning by a mind.

  58. 58
    Jim Thibodeau says:

    @EG maybe it’s his biggest accomplishment?

  59. 59
    ET says:

    A big accomplishment for Ed, Jim and seversky would be to understand what science is. However it is obviously way too much to ask. 😛

  60. 60
  61. 61
    ET says:

    They need to use it in combination with zinc. I see a faulty trial by the NIH…

  62. 62
    Truthfreedom says:

    @53 Ed George

    Most people take pride in their work, or their children.

    My father takes a lot of pride in his children (me). Specially when I’m on my knees.

    But if having sex with your father is what you are proud of, who am I to suggest otherwise?

    Absolutely no one. You and your ilk are those that support ‘consensual sex between adults’. Meaning you support incest.
    This is the society you are leaving to your grandaughter.

  63. 63
    bornagain77 says:

    It is interesting to note that all the Darwinists on this thread, in their attempt to downplay the second law as not being that big of a deal for Darwinian premises, have not offered any empirical evidence that Darwinian processes are capable of overcoming the dissipative effects of Entropy. Appeals to ‘snowflakes’ not withstanding. 🙂

    Which is just as well, Darwinists simply have no empirical evidence that Darwinian processes are capable of overcoming the continual dissipative effects of Entropy. All the evidence we have tells us that life. instead of evolving into greater complexity, will instead devolve with what is termed ‘genetic entropy’ by Dr. John Sanford:

    Dr. John Sanford Lecture at NIH: Genetic Entropy – Can Genome Degradation be Stopped?
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Mfn2upw-O8

    WHAT IS “GENETIC ENTROPY”?
    What is Genetic Entropy? It is the genetic degeneration of living things. Genetic entropy is the systematic breakdown of the internal biological information systems that make life alive. Genetic entropy results from genetic mutations, which are typographical errors in the programming of life (life’s instruction manuals). Mutations systematically erode the information that encodes life’s many essential functions. Biological information consists of a large set of specifications, and random mutations systematically scramble these specifications – gradually but relentlessly destroying the programming instructions essential to life.
    Genetic entropy is most easily understood on a personal level. In our bodies there are roughly 3 new mutations (word-processing errors), every cell division. Our cells become more mutant, and more divergent from each other every day. By the time we are old, each of our cells has accumulated tens of thousands of mutations. Mutation accumulation is the primary reason we grow old and die. This level of genetic entropy is easy to understand.
    There is another level of genetic entropy that affects us as a population. Because mutations arise in all of our cells, including our reproductive cells, we pass many of our new mutations to our children. So mutations continuously accumulate in the population – with each generation being more mutant than the last. So not only do we undergo genetic degeneration personally, we also are undergoing genetic degeneration as a population. This is essentially evolution going the wrong way. Natural selection can slow down, but cannot stop, genetic entropy on the population level.
    Apart from intelligence, information and information systems always degenerate. This is obviously true in the human realm, but is equally true in the biological realm (contrary to what evolutionists claim). The more technical definition of entropy, as used by engineers and physicists, is simply a measure of disorder. Technically, apart from any external intervention, all functional systems degenerate, consistently moving from order to disorder (because entropy always increases in any closed system). For the biologist it is more useful to employ the more general use of the word entropy, which conveys that since physical entropy is ever-increasing (disorder is always increasing), therefore there is universal tendency for all biological information systems to degenerate over time – apart from intelligent intervention.
    https://www.geneticentropy.org/whats-genetic-entropy

    Dr. Michael Behe has come to the same conclusion as Dr. John Sanford which he outlined in his latest book, “Darwin Devolves”:

    Darwin Devolves: The New Science About DNA That Challenges Evolution – Behe – 2019
    — Behe contends that Darwinism actually works by a process of devolution—damaging cells in DNA in order to create something new at the lowest biological levels. This is important, he makes clear, because it shows the Darwinian process cannot explain the creation of life itself. “A process that so easily tears down sophisticated machinery is not one which will build complex, functional systems,” he writes.
    – per amazon book review

    Darwinists simply have no evidence that rare beneficial mutations are capable of overcoming the relentless onslaught of detrimental mutations in the genome that lead to ‘Genetic Entropy’?

    Multiple Overlapping Genetic Codes Profoundly Reduce the Probability of Beneficial Mutation George Montañez 1, Robert J. Marks II 2, Jorge Fernandez 3 and John C. Sanford 4 – May 2013
    Excerpt: It is almost universally acknowledged that beneficial mutations are rare compared to deleterious mutations [1–10].,, It appears that beneficial mutations may be too rare to actually allow the accurate measurement of how rare they are [11].
    1. Kibota T, Lynch M (1996) Estimate of the genomic mutation rate deleterious to overall fitness in E. coli . Nature 381:694–696.
    2. Charlesworth B, Charlesworth D (1998) Some evolutionary consequences of deleterious mutations. Genetica 103: 3–19.
    3. Elena S, et al (1998) Distribution of fitness effects caused by random insertion mutations in Escherichia coli. Genetica 102/103: 349–358.
    4. Gerrish P, Lenski R N (1998) The fate of competing beneficial mutations in an asexual population. Genetica 102/103:127–144.
    5. Crow J (2000) The origins, patterns, and implications of human spontaneous mutation. Nature Reviews 1:40–47.
    6. Bataillon T (2000) Estimation of spontaneous genome-wide mutation rate parameters: whither beneficial mutations? Heredity 84:497–501.
    7. Imhof M, Schlotterer C (2001) Fitness effects of advantageous mutations in evolving Escherichia coli populations. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 98:1113–1117.
    8. Orr H (2003) The distribution of fitness effects among beneficial mutations. Genetics 163: 1519–1526.
    9. Keightley P, Lynch M (2003) Toward a realistic model of mutations affecting fitness. Evolution 57:683–685.
    10. Barrett R, et al (2006) The distribution of beneficial mutation effects under strong selection. Genetics 174:2071–2079.
    11. Bataillon T (2000) Estimation of spontaneous genome-wide mutation rate parameters: whither beneficial mutations? Heredity 84:497–501.
    http://www.worldscientific.com.....08728_0006

    The Human Gene Mutation Database
    The Human Gene Mutation Database (HGMD®) represents an attempt to collate known (published) gene lesions responsible for human inherited disease.
    Deleterious Mutation total (as of January 9. 2020) – 269419
    http://www.hgmd.cf.ac.uk/ac/

    Critic ignores reality of Genetic Entropy – Dr John Sanford – 7 March 2013
    Excerpt: Where are the beneficial mutations in man? It is very well documented that there are thousands of deleterious Mendelian mutations accumulating in the human gene pool, even though there is strong selection against such mutations. Yet such easily recognized deleterious mutations are just the tip of the iceberg. The vast majority of deleterious mutations will not display any clear phenotype at all. There is a very high rate of visible birth defects, all of which appear deleterious. Again, this is just the tip of the iceberg. Why are no beneficial birth anomalies being seen? This is not just a matter of identifying positive changes. If there are so many beneficial mutations happening in the human population, selection should very effectively amplify them. They should be popping up virtually everywhere. They should be much more common than genetic pathologies. Where are they? European adult lactose tolerance appears to be due to a broken lactase promoter [see Can’t drink milk? You’re ‘normal’! Ed.].
    African resistance to malaria is due to a broken hemoglobin protein [see Sickle-cell disease. Also, immunity of an estimated 20% of western Europeans to HIV infection is due to a broken chemokine receptor—see CCR5-delta32: a very beneficial mutation. Ed.] Beneficials happen, but generally they are loss-of-function mutations, and even then they are very rare!
    http://creation.com/genetic-entropy

    Of supplemental note:

    Can Purifying Natural Selection Preserve Biological Information?
    Excerpt Abstract:
    Most deleterious mutations have very slight effects on total fitness, and it has become clear that below a certain fitness effect threshold, such low-impact mutations fail to respond to natural selection. The existence of such a selection threshold suggests that many low-impact deleterious mutations should accumulate continuously, resulting in relentless erosion of genetic information.,,,
    Excerpt Conclusion:
    In conclusion, numerical simulation shows that realistic levels of biological noise result in a high selection threshold. This results in the ongoing accumulation of low-impact deleterious mutations, with deleterious mutation count per individual increasing linearly over time. Even in very long experiments (more than 100,000 generations), slightly deleterious alleles accumulate steadily, causing eventual extinction. These findings provide independent validation of previous analytical and simulation studies [2–13]. Previous concerns about the problem of accumula-tion of nearly neutral mutations are strongly supported by our analysis. Indeed, when numerical simulations incorporate realistic levels of biological noise, our analyses indicate that the problem is much more severe than has been acknowledged, and that the large majority of deleterious mutations become invisible to the selection process. Even apart from numerical simulation, it would seem readily obvious that the following factors should interfere with selection effectiveness and thereby increase the threshold for selection: (a) large functional genome size; (b) high mutation rate; (c) significant environmental variance; (d) randomness in the selection process; (e) extensive linkage; and (f) small or fragmented popula-tions. These factors are characteristic of all higher life forms [14] and should therefore be included in any future analyses. Our numerical simulation program incorporates all these factors, and suggests that the threshold for selection break-down should be very substantial for most eukaryotic species. As stated by Keightley and Eyre-Walker “How humans and related species evade the effects of mutation load on an evolutionary time scale is also an open question”
    https://www.worldscientific.com/doi/pdf/10.1142/9789814508728_0010

    Dr. John Sanford – Links to Selected Papers
    https://www.logosresearchassociates.org/john-sanford

    Shoot, Darwinists, for the most part, don’t even seriously contest the fact that the vast majority of mutations are deleterious.

    So it is not a matter of Darwinists not knowing the science, it is a matter of Darwinists simply ignoring the science since it directly contradicts what they want to be true beforehand. Namely, they are, for whatever severely misguided reason, emotionally committed to atheism being true beforehand. Evidence to the contrary be damned for all they care!

    John Sanford – video playlist
    https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLUytqtt54JMKFcqD5smIY2MkqUOOYdPRO

  64. 64
    ET says:

    The thread pertains to them ignoring the science…

  65. 65
    Truthfreedom says:

    More (peer-reviewed) on the barnacle collector being wrong. My pleasure. 🙂

    Updating Darwin: Information and entropy drive the evolution of life

    “Note that Darwin’s natural selection takes place whenever variant individuals compete for survival in a resource-limited environment. Struggle is essential; natural selection will not operate in the absence of competition. Entropic selection, in contrast, operates wherever entropy operates, even in the absence of variant individuals or environmental straits. And entropy operates everywhere.”
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5200945.1/?report=reader#!po=11.8750

  66. 66

    truthfreedom- Thank you for the link to Cohen’s paper. He refers multiple times to the “autocatalysis” of information without explanation or definition. Using a chemistry term with information does not make it so. Words do not spontaneously bond to form sentences (or letters to make words) like a chemical reaction. So while it is Interesting psychobabble that is completely meaningless, it seems to be the basis of his _entire_ proposed ETM (as I defined it) for the arrival of information out of thin air. Are we supposed to be convinced?

  67. 67
    Latemarch says:

    Jim T @21:
    xkcd

    Thought you might appreciate this……

  68. 68

    bornagain77- I am so pleased to find that there are others who have thought deeply about these things. Granville Sewell confided to me that he often feels like one of the few voices “crying in the wilderness” to communicate to scientists that the second law is not just about energy. It is about statistical mechanics and the arrangement of anything in large numbers. But we are few who seem to notice this. There are those who have deep knowledge of the principle as it relates to chemistry and energy, as you have so astutely cited. But I am still waiting for our evolutionist friends to show any signs of having watched the video, and to hear acknowledgement of the expression of the generalized law in terms of probability of arrangement, or acknowledgement of the arrow of time, or acknowledgement of the role of constraints, or especially acknowledge the concept of entropy transfer mechanisms (ETM’s) that alter local probabilities. Snowflakes follow the probabilities (in terms of chemical geometry). They do not violate the law. When the photosynthesis ETM is present, sunlight follows the probabilities to produce ATP and carbohydrates; and, when absent, that same sunlight follows the probabilities to randomness and destruction. So, Seversky et al, what is the proposed ETM for originating the coded instruction in DNA base sequences??? In other words, what could possibly make specified sequences more probable than randomized sequences? I’m not asking for much. Just that. Anything but the Jeopardy theme song? And why do you guys waste everyone’s time commenting on a video that you have not watched?

  69. 69
    Jim Thibodeau says:

    Heh. I actually used Rankine 2 times in the last 10 years. 🙂

  70. 70
    bornagain77 says:

    Momentoftruth,

    Thanks for the video. Since Darwinists here on UD will never honestly admit it, let me tell you that I personally think that you did an excellent job explaining the subject matter on your video.

  71. 71
    Seversky says:

    Ed George @ 44

    Sev

    Tree rings!

    Radioactive decay.

    Radioactive decay of carbon isotopes in tree rings! Double whammy!

    Split the prize fifty-fifty?

  72. 72
    Seversky says:

    Bornagain77 @ 63

    It is interesting to note that all the Darwinists on this thread, in their attempt to downplay the second law as not being that big of a deal for Darwinian premises, have not offered any empirical evidence that Darwinian processes are capable of overcoming the dissipative effects of Entropy. Appeals to ‘snowflakes’ not withstanding.

    Which is just as well, Darwinists simply have no empirical evidence that Darwinian processes are capable of overcoming the continual dissipative effects of Entropy. All the evidence we have tells us that life. instead of evolving into greater complexity, will instead devolve with what is termed ‘genetic entropy’ by Dr. John Sanford:

    Life has existed on this planet for something over 3bn years. Has it not occurred to you that if Sanford were correct, that “genetic entropy” is an inexorable degradation of the genome, then even if it had managed ti get started in the first place, which seems unlikely, DNA-base life would have suffered a catastrophic collapse long ago. The evidence that Darwinian processes can overcome this effect is all around you – including you!

    Shoot, Darwinists, for the most part, don’t even seriously contest the fact that the vast majority of mutations are deleterious.

    And is that fact in the Bible somewhere or was it perhaps discovered by materialist evolutionary biologists in spite of the lack of divine assistance?

    So it is not a matter of Darwinists not knowing the science, it is a matter of Darwinists simply ignoring the science since it directly contradicts what they want to be true beforehand. Namely, they are, for whatever severely misguided reason, emotionally committed to atheism being true beforehand. Evidence to the contrary be damned for all they care!

    Not all biologists are atheists as I’m sure you know but it was materialistic biologists who did the science and found the evidence that we are all discussing.

  73. 73
    ET says:

    seversky and ed George are scientifically illiterate trolls. No wonder they accept evolutionism as something more than the nonsense that it is.

  74. 74
    ET says:

    Life has existed on this planet for something over 3bn years.

    That’s your opinion. However reality says you have to know how the earth formed before you can determine its age.

    The evidence that Darwinian processes can overcome this effect is all around you – including you!?

    Question-begging nonsense

    And is that fact in the Bible somewhere or was it perhaps discovered by materialist evolutionary biologists in spite of the lack of divine assistance?

    They haven’t been able to find anything else but that. They can’t find a mechanism capable of producing eukaryotes given starting populations of prokaryotes.

    Evolutionary biologists are so useless they don’t even know what determines form. Meaning they have no idea what makes an organism what it is!

    Not all biologists are atheists as I’m sure you know but it was materialistic biologists who did the science and found the evidence that we are all discussing.?

    That is also BS. But then again you are full of it, so there’s that

  75. 75
    Ed George says:

    Sev

    Radioactive decay of carbon isotopes in tree rings! Double whammy!

    You would almost think that non-intellligence created information is found everywhere in nature.

  76. 76
    Latemarch says:

    Sev@72:

    Life has existed on this planet for something over 3bn years. Has it not occurred to you that if Sanford were correct, that “genetic entropy” is an inexorable degradation of the genome, then even if it had managed ti get started in the first place, which seems unlikely, DNA-base life would have suffered a catastrophic collapse long ago.

    Given the evidence for genetic entropy maybe it would occur to you and others that life hasn’t existed on this planet for 3bn years….Just sayin’ ….real scientists don’t let the current paradigm blind them to the possible.

  77. 77
    ET says:

    OK, so both Ed George and seversky are completely ignorant with respect to information. With $10 million on the line they won’t submit their findings, though. That is very telling.

    Talk about being total losers…

  78. 78

    .

    The Second Law of Thermodynamics applies to any macroscopic system.

    Try using it to predict the gene code.

    Imagine that. The primal control hierarchy that enables specification among alternatives (making life and evolution possible) requires a complimentary description to the equations of physical law.

  79. 79
    ET says:

    That’s the rub, upright biped. The laws of nature cannot produce codes. And those laws are all mother nature has to work with. Enter chaos theory, as if that helps. 🙄

  80. 80
    bornagain77 says:

    Seversky’s post at 72 is so disjointed that it is laughable. First off Seversky states this,

    Life has existed on this planet for something over 3bn years. Has it not occurred to you that if Sanford were correct, that “genetic entropy” is an inexorable degradation of the genome, then even if it had managed ti get started in the first place, which seems unlikely, DNA-base life would have suffered a catastrophic collapse long ago. The evidence that Darwinian processes can overcome this effect is all around you – including you!

    Instead of offering any evidence that it is possible for Darwinian processes to overcome the dissipative effects of entropy, Seversky instead offers the fallacious argument of presupposing his desired conclusion into the premises of his argument. i,e, In answering the question of “where did life come from?, Seversky answer is, basically, “life exists so it must have evolved.” This logical fallacy is known as circular argumentation:

    Circular arguments are also called Petitio principii, meaning “Assuming the initial [thing]” (commonly mistranslated as “begging the question”). This fallacy is a kind of presumptuous argument where it only appears to be an argument. It’s really just restating one’s assumptions in a way that looks like an argument. You can recognize a circular argument when the conclusion also appears as one of the premises in the argument.
    https://thebestschools.org/magazine/15-logical-fallacies-know/

    Seversky arguments don’t get any better. Seversky goes on

    BA77: Shoot, Darwinists, for the most part, don’t even seriously contest the fact that the vast majority of mutations are deleterious.

    Sev: And is that fact in the Bible somewhere or was it perhaps discovered by materialist evolutionary biologists in spite of the lack of divine assistance?

    This answer is just astonishing.

    Seversky’s hatred for Christianity is apparently so overwhelming that it has completely blinded him to the obvious fact that it is the evidence itself that falsifies a hypothesis no matter who discovers that falsifying evidence. Hitler himself could have discovered the fact that the vast majority of mutations are deleterious and just because it was Hitler himself who discovered that fact that still would not matter one bit in regards to the fact that it is the evidence itself that falsifies the theory, not the person.

    As Richard Feynman stated, “it doesn’t matter how smart you are who made the guess, or what his name is… If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. That’s all there is to it.”

    If it (your hypothesis) disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It doesn’t make any difference how beautiful your guess is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are who made the guess, or what his name is… If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. That’s all there is to it.”
    – Richard Feynman
    https://www.presentationzen.com/presentationzen/2014/04/richard-feynman-on-the-scientific-method-in-1-minute.html

    Seversky goes on to state,

    Not all biologists are atheists as I’m sure you know but it was materialistic biologists who did the science and found the evidence that we are all discussing.

    Actually I would like to see Seversky prove that point. I gave a list of reference of several studies in post 63. Perhaps Seversky would be so kind as to look up the religious beliefs of each scientist in that long list of studies? I bet quite a few in that list would turn out not to be atheist but to be Christian or Jewish, or some other faith..

    Moreover, adding the adjective ‘materialist’ to the word biologist or to the word scientist, as Seversky did in his sentence, is an oxymoron.

    Materialism has nothing to with biology or to whether you are a scientist or not. Materialism is a philosophical presupposition. Moreover, it is a philosophical presupposition that has been falsified by advances in quantum mechanics. i.e. falsified by science:

    Quantum Physics Debunks Materialism (v2)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wM0IKLv7KrE

    Moreover, contrary to what many people have been falsely led to believe by Darwinian atheists, about Intelligent Design supposedly being a pseudo-science, the fact of the matter is that all of science, every nook and cranny of it, is based on the presupposition of intelligent design and is certainly not based on the presupposition of methodological naturalism and/or atheistic materialism.
    From the essential Christian presuppositions that undergird the founding of modern science itself, (namely that the universe is rational and that the minds of men, being made in the ‘image of God’, can dare understand that rationality), to the intelligent design of the scientific instruments and experiments themselves, to the logical and mathematical analysis of experimental results themselves, from top to bottom, science itself is certainly not to be considered a ‘natural’ endeavor of man.
    Not one scientific instrument would ever exist if men did not first intelligently design that scientific instrument. Not one test tube, microscope, telescope, spectroscope, or etc.. etc.., was ever found just laying around on a beach somewhere which was ‘naturally’ constructed by nature. Not one experimental result would ever be rationally analyzed since there would be no immaterial minds to rationally analyze the immaterial logic and immaterial mathematics that lay behind the intelligently designed experiments in the first place.
    Again, all of science, every nook and cranny of it, is based on the presupposition of intelligent design and is certainly not based on the presupposition of methodological naturalism and/or the presupposition of atheistic materialism.

    How Christianity Gave Rise to Modern Science – Stephen Meyer
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oizn1l5e9_4

  81. 81
    bornagain77 says:

    In post 34 I asked Darwinists to answer this question,

    What power, force, and/or thing, is constraining life to be so far out of thermodynamic equilibrium for precisely a lifetime and not a moment longer?

    Or as Stephen Talbott so eloquently put the question, “,,, the question, rather, is why things don’t fall completely apart — as they do, in fact, at the moment of death. What power holds off that moment — precisely for a lifetime, and not a moment longer?”

    My answer to that question was,,,

    Unlike Darwinists, ID advocates have a ready explanation. Life is constrained to be so far out of thermodynamic equilibrium, for precisely a lifetime, simply because it is immaterial information and/or the ‘soul’ that is holding the trillions of molecules of a organism into a single unified whole for precisely a lifetime.

    Information and entropy – top-down or bottom-up development in living systems? A.C. McINTOSH – Dr Andy C. McIntosh is the Professor of Thermodynamics (the highest teaching/research rank in U.K. university hierarchy) Combustion Theory at the University of Leeds.
    Excerpt: This paper highlights the distinctive and non-material nature of information and its relationship with matter, energy and natural forces. It is proposed in conclusion that it is the non-material information (transcendent to the matter and energy) that is actually itself constraining the local thermodynamics to be in ordered disequilibrium and with specified raised free energy levels necessary for the molecular and cellular machinery to operate.
    http://journals.witpress.com/paperinfo.asp?pid=420

    “Since living organisms consistently resist the ravages of entropy that all forms of inanimate matter are subject to, there must be some non-physical principle allowing living matter to consistently defy the Second Law of Thermodynamics. And for Davies there is; the demon in the machine turns out to be information.”
    Robert Shedinger, “Hey, Paul Davies — Your ID Is Showing”
    https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/darwin-skeptic-robert-shedinger-calls-out-paul-davies/
    comment: It is the ‘soul’ holding the body together for ‘precisely for a lifetime’
    https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/darwin-skeptic-robert-shedinger-calls-out-paul-davies/#comment-695364

    Darwinian Materialism vs. Quantum Biology – Part II – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oSig2CsjKbg

    Drawing – soul leaving the body at death
    https://slm-assets.secondlife.com/assets/5935044/lightbox/Spirit%20Release.jpg?1342658045

    Seversky at 45 and Ed George at 46 tried to answer the question. Their answers reveal that they have no real clue as to what the question actually is. To repeat the question,

    “,,, the question, rather, is why things don’t fall completely apart — as they do, in fact, at the moment of death. What power holds off that moment — precisely for a lifetime, and not a moment longer?”

    Or to put the question another way,

    What power, force, and/or thing, enables life to resist the ravages of entropy, that all forms of inanimate matter are subject to, precisely a lifetime and not a moment longer?

    That Darwinists have no clue how to answer this question is revealed by the following,

    In 2006 Harvard University, via “BioVisions”, made a video entitled The Inner Life of the Cell

    The Inner Life of the Cell
    http://www.xvivo.net/animation.....-the-cell/

    The video was one of the first videos that animated some of the amazing molecular machines that are now being found in cells.
    The overwhelming impression of design of the cell literally leaps out of the video. Since the Intelligent Design of the cell is readily apparent in the video for all to see, Dr. William Dembski, one of the pioneers of the Intelligent Design movement, would, circa 2007, show the video in some of his talks on Intelligent Design:

    Inner Life of a Cell w William Dembski commentary – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jNs5kBE66Xo

    When Harvard BioVisions found out about Dr. Dembski using the video in his lectures they ‘warned’ him not to use the video.

    William A. Dembski
    Excerpt: The Inner Life of the Cell copyright controversy,,
    David Bolinsky, creator of the video, wrote that Dembski was warned about using the video without permission,,,
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_A._Dembski

  82. 82
    bornagain77 says:

    Their effort to stop Dembski was futile since the video soon went viral on the web and anyone with access to a computer could download the video and watch it whenever they wanted., and see for themselves the amazing design that is readily apparent in the cell.

    Anyways, fast forward to 2013. In 2013, apparently trying to undo some of the damage done to Darwinian thinking by the ‘Inner Life of the Cell’ video, Harvard BioVisions then made another video entitled ‘Inner Life of the Cell: Protein Packing’.

    In this 2013 video, Harvard Biovisions tried to make the inner workings of the cell look as random, chaotic, and haphazard as possible. As you can see in the video clip, they tried to make the inner workings of the cell look as random and accidental and therefore “Darwinian” as they possibly could so as to try to dispel any impression of design in the cell that they had inadvertently created in their first video.

    Inner Life of a Cell | Protein Packing
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uHeTQLNFTgU

    And here is a New York times article on the ‘Protein Packing’ video. In the article, Carl Zimmer states that ‘ “In the 2006 version, we can’t help seeing intention in the smooth movements of the molecules” but of the 2013 video he said that the molecules of the cell are “barely constrained randomness.’ and that they ‘flail blindly in the crowd. Our cells work almost in spite of themselves.’

    Watch Proteins Do the Jitterbug – Carl Zimmer – APRIL 10, 2014
    Excerpt: “barely constrained randomness.’, In the 2006 version, we can’t help seeing intention in the smooth movements of the molecules; it’s as if they’re trying to get from one place to another. In reality, however, the parts of our cells don’t operate with the precise movements of the springs and gears of a clock. They flail blindly in the crowd. Our cells work almost in spite of themselves.
    https://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/10/science/watch-proteins-do-the-jitterbug.html

    Moreover, although the Darwinists at Harvard Biovisions and Carl Zimmer, and thus Darwinists in general , believed that life is dominated by “barely constrained randomness’ it is now found that life is anything but “barely constrained randomness.’

    Darwinian Materialism vs. Quantum Biology – Part II – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oSig2CsjKbg

    For instance, in the following 2016 paper, it was found that “crowding in cells doesn’t hamper protein binding as much as they thought it did.” In fact, finding a lack of ‘collisions’ in the crowded cell was a ‘counterintuitive surprise’ for the researchers: Specifically one of the researchers stated: “This was a surprise,” “It’s counterintuitive, because one would think collisions between a protein and other molecules on DNA would slow it down. But the system is so dynamic, it doesn’t appear to be an issue.”

    Proteins put up with the roar of the crowd – June 23, 2016
    Excerpt: It gets mighty crowded around your DNA, but don’t worry: According to Rice University researchers, your proteins are nimble enough to find what they need.
    Rice theoretical scientists studying the mechanisms of protein-DNA interactions in live cells showed that crowding in cells doesn’t hamper protein binding as much as they thought it did.,,,
    If DNA can be likened to a library, it surely is a busy one. Molecules roam everywhere, floating in the cytoplasm and sticking to the tightly wound double helix. “People know that almost 90 percent of DNA is covered with proteins, such as polymerases, nucleosomes that compact two meters into one micron, and other protein molecules,” Kolomeisky said.,,,
    That makes it seem that proteins sliding along the strand would have a tough time binding, and it’s possible they sometimes get blocked. But the Rice team’s theory and simulations indicated that crowding agents usually move just as rapidly, sprinting out of the way.
    “If they move at the same speed, the molecules don’t bother each other,” Kolomeisky said. “Even if they’re covering a region, the blockers move away quickly so your protein can bind.”
    In previous research, the team determined that stationary obstacles sometimes help quicken a protein’s search for its target by limiting options. This time, the researchers sought to define how crowding both along DNA and in the cytoplasm influenced the process.
    “We may think everything’s fixed and frozen in cells, but it’s not,” Kolomeisky said. “Everything is moving.”,,,
    Floating proteins appear to find their targets quickly as well. “This was a surprise,” he said. “It’s counterintuitive, because one would think collisions between a protein and other molecules on DNA would slow it down. But the system is so dynamic, it doesn’t appear to be an issue.”
    http://phys.org/news/2016-06-p.....crowd.html

    There are many more examples in the Darwinian Materialism vs. Quantum Biology that falsify the Darwinian belief in “barely constrained randomness.’

    But what is more troubling is that Darwinists, (whether it is tightly controlled randomness, or whether it is “barely constrained randomness’ as they had falsely presupposed), never tell us exactly what it is that is supposedly doing the so called ‘constraining’ within their reductive materialistic framework, i.e. “What power, force, and/or thing, enables life to resist the ravages of entropy, that all forms of inanimate matter are subject to, precisely a lifetime and not a moment longer?”

    Darwinists simply have nothing within their reductive materialistic framework to appeal to so as to tell us what exactly it is that is doing the so called ‘constraining’.

    This is no matter of playing semantics (as Darwinists are fond of doing), This irresolvable problem of providing a overarching ‘context’ to any given situation is inherent to the reductive materialist framework.

    For example, Jim Al-Khalil states, “Biologists, on the other hand have got off lightly in my view. They are very happy with their balls and sticks models of molecules.,,, living organisms have a certain order. A structure to them that’s very different from the random thermodynamic jostling of atoms and molecules in inanimate matter of the same complexity. In fact, living matter seems to behave in its order and its structure just like inanimate matter cooled down to near absolute zero.

    Jim Al-Khalili, at the 2:30 minute mark of the following video states,
    “,,and Physicists and Chemists have had a long time to try and get use to it (Quantum Mechanics). Biologists, on the other hand have got off lightly in my view. They are very happy with their balls and sticks models of molecules. The balls are the atoms. The sticks are the bonds between the atoms. And when they can’t build them physically in the lab nowadays they have very powerful computers that will simulate a huge molecule.,, It doesn’t really require much in the way of quantum mechanics in the way to explain it.”
    At the 6:52 minute mark of the video, Jim Al-Khalili goes on to state:
    “To paraphrase, (Erwin Schrödinger in his book “What Is Life”), he says at the molecular level living organisms have a certain order. A structure to them that’s very different from the random thermodynamic jostling of atoms and molecules in inanimate matter of the same complexity. In fact, living matter seems to behave in its order and its structure just like inanimate matter cooled down to near absolute zero. Where quantum effects play a very important role. There is something special about the structure, about the order, inside a living cell. So Schrodinger speculated that maybe quantum mechanics plays a role in life”.
    Jim Al-Khalili – Quantum biology – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zOzCkeTPR3Q

    To further drive this point home that Darwinists have no clue as to exactly what it is that is ‘constraining’ life to be so far out of thermodynamic equilibrium, In the following article entitled ‘Quantum physics problem proved unsolvable: Gödel and Turing enter quantum physics’, which studied the derivation of macroscopic properties from a complete microscopic description, the researchers remark that even a perfect and complete description of the microscopic properties of a material is not enough to predict its macroscopic behaviour.,,, The researchers further commented that their findings challenge the reductionists’ point of view, as the insurmountable difficulty lies precisely in the derivation of macroscopic properties from a microscopic description.”

    Quantum physics problem proved unsolvable: Gödel and Turing enter quantum physics – December 9, 2015
    Excerpt: A mathematical problem underlying fundamental questions in particle and quantum physics is provably unsolvable,,,
    It is the first major problem in physics for which such a fundamental limitation could be proven. The findings are important because they show that even a perfect and complete description of the microscopic properties of a material is not enough to predict its macroscopic behaviour.,,,
    “We knew about the possibility of problems that are undecidable in principle since the works of Turing and Gödel in the 1930s,” added Co-author Professor Michael Wolf from Technical University of Munich. “So far, however, this only concerned the very abstract corners of theoretical computer science and mathematical logic. No one had seriously contemplated this as a possibility right in the heart of theoretical physics before. But our results change this picture. From a more philosophical perspective, they also challenge the reductionists’ point of view, as the insurmountable difficulty lies precisely in the derivation of macroscopic properties from a microscopic description.”
    http://phys.org/news/2015-12-q.....godel.html

    In short and in conclusion, Darwinian materialists have no clue, and never will have a clue in how they might answer this question,

    What power, force, and/or thing, enables life to resist the ravages of entropy, that all forms of inanimate matter are subject to, precisely a lifetime and not a moment longer?

    Whereas Christians, to repeat, readily do have an answer, i.e. immaterial information and/or a ‘soul’

    Verse

    John 1:1-4
    1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4 In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind.

  83. 83
    bornagain77 says:

    In further examining entropy, it is interesting to note that, “supermassive black holes are the largest contributor to the observable universe’s entropy” and that “supermassive black holes contribute about 30 times more entropy than what the previous research teams estimated.”

    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

    And as the following article states, “when black holes form they do have thermodynamic properties and possess a colossal entropy.,,,” and “the early universe began in an exceptionally uniform state, which, if Penrose is right, corresponds to a very low entropy. Since then entropy has greatly increased, above all through the formation of black holes.,,,”

    The Mystery of Time’s Arrow – April 2019
    Excerpt: As conscious beings, we are constantly aware of the relentless march of time. You can make an egg into an omelet, but you can’t turn an omelet back into an egg. Dropped glasses shatter and do not reassemble themselves. Above all, we age and become decrepit; there is no return to youth.
    But this is a great scientific mystery.,,,
    ,,, Einstein’s wonderful theory of gravity—his general theory of relativity—does show that when black holes form they do have thermodynamic properties and possess a colossal entropy.,,,
    Cosmological observations indicate that the early universe began in an exceptionally uniform state, which, if Penrose is right, corresponds to a very low entropy. Since then entropy has greatly increased, above all through the formation of black holes.,,,
    http://nautil.us/issue/71/flow.....s-arrow-rp

    In the following quote, Kip Thorne gives us a good illustration as to just how ‘colossal’ the entropy actually is of a black hole,

    “Einstein’s equation predicts that, as the astronaut reaches the singularity (of the black-hole), the tidal forces grow infinitely strong, and their chaotic oscillations become infinitely rapid. The astronaut dies and the atoms which his body is made become infinitely and chaotically distorted and mixed-and then, at the moment when everything becomes infinite (the tidal strengths, the oscillation frequencies, the distortions, and the mixing), spacetime ceases to exist.”
    Kip S. Thorne – “Black Holes and Time Warps: Einstein’s Outrageous Legacy” pg. 476
    of note: Kip Thorne and Charles Misner, and John Wheeler wrote Gravitation (1973), which was, or is, considered the definitive textbook on general relativity.

    Thus since entropy is the primary reason why we grow old and die,

    Entropy Explains Aging, Genetic Determinism Explains Longevity, and Undefined Terminology Explains Misunderstanding Both – 2007
    Excerpt: There is a huge body of knowledge supporting the belief that age changes are characterized by increasing entropy, which results in the random loss of molecular fidelity, and accumulates to slowly overwhelm maintenance systems [1–4].,,,
    http://www.plosgenetics.org/ar.....en.0030220

    Genetic Entropy – Down Not Up – Dr. John Sanford – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_edD5HOx6Q0
    *3 new mutations every time a cell divides in your body
    * Average cell of 15 year old has up to 6000 mutations
    *Average cell of 60 year old has 40,000 mutations
    Reproductive cells are ‘designed’ so that, early on in development, they are ‘set aside’ and thus they do not accumulate mutations as the rest of the cells of our bodies do. Regardless of this protective barrier against the accumulation of slightly detrimental mutations still we find that,,,
    *60-175 mutations are passed on to each new generation.

    And since gravity, specifically the gravity of black holes, are “the largest contributor to the observable universe’s entropy”, then it follows that if Jesus really did conquer death in his resurrection from the dead, then Jesus must have somehow dealt with the entropy that is deeply associated with gravity.

    And that is exactly what has been found in the examination of the details of the Shroud of Turin,

    In the following video Isabel Piczek states,,, The muscles of the body are absolutely not crushed against the stone of the tomb. They are perfect. It means the body is hovering between the two sides of the shroud. What does that mean? It means there is absolutely no gravity.

    “When you look at the image of the shroud, the two bodies next to each other, you feel that it is a flat image. But if you create, for instance, a three dimensional object, as I did, the real body, then you realize that there is a strange dividing element. An interface from which the image is projected up and the image is projected down. The muscles of the body are absolutely not crushed against the stone of the tomb. They are perfect. It means the body is hovering between the two sides of the shroud. What does that mean? It means there is absolutely no gravity. Other strange you discover is that the image is absolutely undistorted. Now if you imagine the clothe was wrinkled, tied, wrapped around the body, and all of the sudden you see a perfect image, which is impossible unless the shroud was made absolutely taut, rigidly taut.”
    Isabel Piczek – 2:20 mark
    Turin shroud – (Particle Physicist explains event horizon) – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PIpdIz5Rp3I

    The following article states that ‘The bottom part of the cloth (containing the dorsal image) would have born all the weight of the man’s supine body, yet the dorsal image is not encoded with a greater amount of intensity than the frontal image.’

    Particle Radiation from the Body – July 2012 – M. Antonacci, A. C. Lind
    Excerpt: The Shroud’s frontal and dorsal body images are encoded with the same amount of intensity, independent of any pressure or weight from the body. The bottom part of the cloth (containing the dorsal image) would have born all the weight of the man’s supine body, yet the dorsal image is not encoded with a greater amount of intensity than the frontal image. Radiation coming from the body would not only explain this feature, but also the left/right and light/dark reversals found on the cloth’s frontal and dorsal body images.
    http://www.academicjournals.or.....onacci.pdf

    Kevin Moran, an optical engineer working on the mysterious ‘3D’ nature of the Shroud image, states, “The radiation that made the image acted perfectly parallel to gravity. There is no side image.,,, It is not a continuum or spherical-front radiation that made the image, as visible or UV light. It is not the X-ray radiation that obeys the one over R squared law that we are so accustomed to in medicine. It is more unique,,, This suggests a quantum event where a finite amount of energy transferred abruptly. The fact that there are images front and back suggests the radiating particles were released along the gravity vector.”

    Optically Terminated Image Pixels Observed on Frei 1978 Samples – Kevin E. Moran – 1999
    Discussion
    Pia’s negative photograph, from 1898, showed what looked to be a body that was glowing, but slightly submerged in a bath of cloudy water. This condition is more properly described as an image that is visible, at a distance, but by locally attenuated radiation. The unique front-and-back only image can be best described as gravitationally collimated. The radiation that made the image acted perfectly parallel to gravity. There is no side image. The radiation is parallel to gravity and, if moving at light speed, only lasted about 100 picoseconds. It is particulate in nature, colliding only with some of the fibers. It is not a continuum or spherical-front radiation that made the image, as visible or UV light. It is not the X-ray radiation that obeys the one over R squared law that we are so accustomed to in medicine. It is more unique,,,
    Theoretical model
    It is suggested that the image was formed when a high-energy particle struck the fiber and released radiation within the fiber at a speed greater that the local speed of light. Since the fiber acts as a light pipe, this energy moved out through the fiber until it encountered an optical discontinuity, then it slowed to the local speed of light and dispersed.
    Discussion
    The fact that the pixels don’t fluoresce suggests that the conversion to their now brittle dehydrated state occurred instantly and completely so no partial products remain to be activated by the ultraviolet light. This suggests a quantum event where a finite amount of energy transferred abruptly. The fact that there are images front and back suggests the radiating particles were released along the gravity vector. The radiation pressure may also help explain why the blood was “lifted cleanly” from the body as it transformed to a resurrected state.”
    https://www.shroud.com/pdfs/moran.pdf

    Thus we find that the entropy that is deeply associated with gravity, and is thus deeply associated with death itself, was ‘mysteriously’ dealt with in Jesus’s resurrection from the dead.

    I find this ‘defiance of gravity’ witnessed in the Shroud of Turin to be yet another ‘surprising’ piece of evidence that further confirms the contention of Christianity that the primary reason why this entire universe exists in the first place is so that God could defeat death, (evil, and sin) once and for all:

    Colossians 1:15-20
    The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.

  84. 84
    bornagain77 says:

    Of supplemental note; besides gravity, (i.e. entropy), being dealt with, the shroud also gives us evidence that Quantum Mechanics itself was dealt with. In the following paper, it was found that it was not possible to describe the image formation on the Shroud in classical terms but they found it necessary to describe the formation of the image on the Shroud in discrete quantum terms.

    The absorbed energy in the Shroud body image formation appears as contributed by discrete (quantum) values – Giovanni Fazio, Giuseppe Mandaglio – 2008
    Excerpt: This result means that the optical density distribution,, can not be attributed at the absorbed energy described in the framework of the classical physics model. It is, in fact, necessary to hypothesize a absorption by discrete values of the energy where the ‘quantum’ is equal to the one necessary to yellow one fibril.
    http://cab.unime.it/mus/541/1/c1a0802004.pdf

    To give us a small glimpse of the power that was involved in Christ’s resurrection from the dead, the following recent article found that, ”it would take 34 Thousand Billion Watts of VUV radiations to make the image on the shroud. This output of electromagnetic energy remains beyond human technology.”

    Astonishing discovery at Christ’s tomb supports Turin Shroud – NOV 26TH 2016
    Excerpt: The first attempts made to reproduce the face on the Shroud by radiation, used a CO2 laser which produced an image on a linen fabric that is similar at a macroscopic level. However, microscopic analysis showed a coloring that is too deep and many charred linen threads, features that are incompatible with the Shroud image. Instead, the results of ENEA “show that a short and intense burst of VUV directional radiation can color a linen cloth so as to reproduce many of the peculiar characteristics of the body image on the Shroud of Turin, including shades of color, the surface color of the fibrils of the outer linen fabric, and the absence of fluorescence”.
    ‘However, Enea scientists warn, “it should be noted that the total power of VUV radiations required to instantly color the surface of linen that corresponds to a human of average height, body surface area equal to = 2000 MW/cm2 17000 cm2 = 34 thousand billion watts makes it impractical today to reproduce the entire Shroud image using a single laser excimer, since this power cannot be produced by any VUV light source built to date (the most powerful available on the market come to several billion watts )”.
    Comment
    The ENEA study of the Holy Shroud of Turin concluded that it would take 34 Thousand Billion Watts of VUV radiations to make the image on the shroud. This output of electromagnetic energy remains beyond human technology.
    http://westvirginianews.blogsp.....in-is.html

    One final note: allowing the Agent causality of God ‘back’ into physics, as the Christian founders of modern science originally envisioned,,,, (Isaac Newton, Michael Faraday, James Clerk Maxwell, and Max Planck, to name a few of the Christian founders),,, and as quantum mechanics itself now empirically demands (with the closing of the free will loophole by Anton Zeilinger and company), rightly allowing the Agent causality of God ‘back’ into physics provides us with a very plausible resolution for the much sought after ‘theory of everything’ in that Christ’s resurrection from the dead provides an empirically backed reconciliation, via the Shroud of Turin, between quantum mechanics and general relativity into the much sought after ‘Theory of Everything”. Here are a few posts where I lay out and defend some of the evidence for that claim:
    January 2020
    https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/welcome-to-the-brave-new-world-of-science/#comment-690569

    Verse and video

    John 20:4-10
    So they both ran together, and the other disciple outran Peter and came to the tomb first. And he, stooping down and looking in, saw the linen cloths lying there; yet he did not go in. Then Simon Peter came, following him, and went into the tomb; and he saw the linen cloths lying there, and the handkerchief that had been around His head, not lying with the linen cloths, but folded together in a place by itself. Then the other disciple, who came to the tomb first, went in also; and he saw and believed. For as yet they did not know the Scripture, that He must rise again from the dead. Then the disciples went away again to their own homes.

    Study with Holograms Reveal Words ‘The Lamb’ Under Turin Shroud Beard – video
    https://revelationstwelve.wordpress.com/2017/07/31/study-with-holograms-reveal-words-the-lamb-under-turin-shroud-beard/

  85. 85
    Truthfreedom says:

    @66 Momentoftruth
    What the paper is highlighting are the serious flaws of the neo-darwinian narrative and offering a new perspective based on seeing life as a flux that consists in the creation of information and its subsequent destruction via entropy.
    Since science does not know how life originated (there is speculation), no scientist can offer proof of how that information (associated to ‘life’) originated.

  86. 86
    Truthfreedom says:

    That crappy survival of the fittest (individual organism) can not explain that:

    1) Mutual cooperation marks living systems. A telling example of the importance of cooperative living – symbiosis – is the discovery that individual multi-cellular organisms, humans included, house as many bacterial cells – the microbiota – as eukaryote cells; indeed, healthy microbiota genes (the microbiome), which usually outnumber one’s inherited genes, are essential for health, and health is essential for adaptive survival.
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5200945.1/?report=reader#!po=11.8750

  87. 87
    Truthfreedom says:

    @36 Ed George

    I’m sitting here looking at the snow falling and concluding that the snowflakes must be designed because they have lower entropy than water and, by BA77’s logic, violating the 2nd law.

    Wrong.
    The chemical bonding (between water molecules) is the ‘part’ that seeks to maximize entropy. The fact that what you see looks ‘symmetrical’ does not mean that it has lower entropy.

  88. 88
    kairosfocus says:

    Folks,

    My own way towards Id was shaped by thermodynamics and particularly the statistical form; cf. my always linked.

    In key essence, the point is that we can set a space of possible outcomes W, where micro-states are consistent with macro-level gross state, so that we may cluster the microstates in relevant groups. What happens is readily seen by contemplating 1,000 coins . . . more relevantly, paramagnetic domains aligned with or against a weak B-field. Obviously, there are 2^1,000 possibilities. They form a peaked cluster dominated by being near 500:500 H:T, in no particular order. If we consider the coins to be continually agitated, in an enormous length of time far beyond age of cosmos to date, they would circulate through all states but on any reasonably observable time the cluster just described would dominate. Fluctuations beyond about 50 away from that peak would be rare indeed.

    And, were the coins to start in one of the unusual states, say HTHT . . . and were it allowed to change by agitation, it would strongly move towards that cluster with a maximum of statistical weight.

    That is in fact the heart of thermodynamics. Rich concentrations of energy or other special configurations tend towards that sort of equilibrium. As a result, heat tends to flow from a concentration to dissipate it by a sort of diffusion [and diffusion is actually a manifestation].

    Where, too, uncontrolled energy injections tend to exponentially open up further configurations, leading to an even stronger tendency to the sort of sticky cluster of states spoken of. It normally takes configurational information driving a source of shaft work to build up special configurations. Tornadoes and hurricanes are possible on fluid flow but in turn do not tend to build a watch or fishing reel, much less a 747 when they pass through a junkyard. Precisely because of that domination of sets of micro-possibilities.

    In the case of the living cell, we have coded genetic information used in algorithmic processes that build proteins. That is language, goal-directed process and execution machinery. There is no reasonable case that such could come about by blind thermodynamic processes. Appeals to open systems are frankly misleading, for the reason already pointed out.

    Design.

    KF

  89. 89
    kairosfocus says:

    EG, It seems you tried to appeal to snowflakes, which can be accounted for on the intermolecular bonding and structure of water molecules, similar to other crystallisation. That has precisely nothing to do with aperiodic, functionally specific complex organisation and associated information. Especially, language in alphanumeric algorithmic code. But then by this time it is obvious that ideologically driven polarisation and selective hyperskepticism are at work. The same factors we have been seeing with HCQ etc. KF

  90. 90
    Jim Thibodeau says:

    Here is the entire 29,903-base-pair sequence of the novel coronavirus. I’m thinking some ID researchers can calculate some CSI on this thing and find out if it was designed.

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/search/all/?term=MN908947

  91. 91
    Seversky says:

    I’m sure they’re working on it as we speak.

  92. 92
    Truthfreedom says:

    @90, 91 JT and Seversky
    Where in the ‘Tree of Life’ can we locate SARS-CoV-2?
    Could you please do me a drawing? I’ll lend you the crayons.

  93. 93
    ET says:

    Which evolutionary biologists are working to see if blind and mindless processes can produce the virus? HINT- Not one.

    And only an insipid troll thinks that CSI is the only methodology to see if something is designed. Enter Jim T.

    Why are evos so ignorant and desperate? And why do they think their ignorance and desperation are arguments?

  94. 94
    Peter says:

    The responses to this post prove the point that evolutionists don’t care about science. Evolution is a religion with its true believers and no amount of evidence can discredit evolution to them. .

    On a theological point – the universe was created THROUGH (Greek ???) Jesus, not BY Jesus. That is a fine point the evangelist is trying to make. It is too subtle for most people. What this means is that God the creator created the universe and Jesus participated as a vessel; not as the source of the creation. To say that Jesus created the universe is to make Him equal to God, thereby having two Gods. This theological impossibility is avoided by the evangelists by calling Jesus the ‘Son of God’ most of the time.

  95. 95
    kairosfocus says:

    JT,

    There is an informational school of thought regarding Entropy and thermodynamics, which draws out the reason why entropy pops up in information theory. In my always linked, I cited a summary against known ideological interest that was in Wikipedia at the time (I have no idea . . . and less interest . . . whether the April 2011 summary in the article on informational Entropy remains, that site suffers a sort of entropic ideological decay of soundness and elegant substance. ) The essential idea is missing information to specify micro-state on a given macro-state:

    At an everyday practical level the links between information entropy and thermodynamic entropy are not close. Physicists and chemists are apt to be more interested in changes in entropy as a system spontaneously evolves away from its initial conditions, in accordance with the second law of thermodynamics, rather than an unchanging probability distribution. And, as the numerical smallness of Boltzmann’s constant k_B indicates, the changes in S / k_B for even minute amounts of substances in chemical and physical processes represent amounts of entropy which are so large as to be right off the scale compared to anything seen in data compression or signal processing.

    But, at a multidisciplinary level, connections can be made between thermodynamic and informational entropy, although it took many years in the development of the theories of statistical mechanics and information theory to make the relationship fully apparent. In fact, in the view of Jaynes (1957), thermodynamics should be seen as an application of Shannon’s information theory: the thermodynamic entropy is interpreted as being an estimate of the amount of further Shannon information needed to define the detailed microscopic state of the system, that remains uncommunicated by a description solely in terms of the macroscopic variables of classical thermodynamics. For example, adding heat to a system increases its thermodynamic entropy because it increases the number of possible microscopic states that it could be in, thus making any complete state description longer. (See article: maximum entropy thermodynamics.[Also,another article remarks: >>in the words of G. N. Lewis writing about chemical entropy in 1930, “Gain in entropy always means loss of information, and nothing more” . . . in the discrete case using base two logarithms, the reduced Gibbs entropy is equal to the minimum number of yes/no questions that need to be answered in order to fully specify the microstate, given that we know the macrostate.>>]) Maxwell’s demon can (hypothetically) reduce the thermodynamic entropy of a system by using information about the states of individual molecules; but, as Landauer (from 1961) and co-workers have shown, to function the demon himself must increase thermodynamic entropy in the process, by at least the amount of Shannon information he proposes to first acquire and store; and so the total entropy does not decrease (which resolves the paradox).

    Harry S Robertson’s Statistical Thermophysics develops these ideas in detail. Let me excerpt:

    . . . the standard assertion that molecular chaos exists is nothing more than a poorly disguised admission of ignorance, or lack of detailed information about the dynamic state of a system . . . . If I am able to perceive order, I may be able to use it to extract work from the system, but if I am unaware of internal correlations, I cannot use them for macroscopic dynamical purposes. On this basis, I shall distinguish heat from work, and thermal energy from other forms . . . .

    It has long been recognized that the assignment of probabilities to a set represents information, and that some probability sets represent more information than others . . . if one of the probabilities say p2 is unity and therefore the others are zero, then we know that the outcome of the experiment . . . will give [event] y2. Thus we have complete information . . . if we have no basis . . . for believing that event yi is more or less likely than any other [we] have the least possible information about the outcome of the experiment . . . . A remarkably simple and clear analysis by Shannon [1948] has provided us with a quantitative measure of the uncertainty, or missing pertinent information, inherent in a set of probabilities [NB: i.e. a probability different from 1 or 0 should be seen as, in part, an index of ignorance] . . . .

    [deriving informational entropy, ]:

    H({pi}) = – C [SUM over i] pi*ln pi,

    [where [SUM over i] pi = 1, and we can define also parameters alpha and beta such that: (1) pi = e^-[alpha + beta*yi]; (2) exp [alpha] = [SUM over i](exp – beta*yi) = Z [Z being in effect the partition function across microstates, the “Holy Grail” of statistical thermodynamics]. . . .

    [H], called the information entropy, . . . correspond[s] to the thermodynamic entropy [i.e. s, where also it was shown by Boltzmann that s = k ln w], with C = k, the Boltzmann constant, and yi an energy level, usually ei, while [BETA] becomes 1/kT, with T the thermodynamic temperature . . . A thermodynamic system is characterized by a microscopic structure that is not observed in detail . . . We attempt to develop a theoretical description of the macroscopic properties in terms of its underlying microscopic properties, which are not precisely known. We attempt to assign probabilities to the various microscopic states . . . based on a few . . . macroscopic observations that can be related to averages of microscopic parameters. Evidently the problem that we attempt to solve in statistical thermophysics is exactly the one just treated in terms of information theory. It should not be surprising, then, that the uncertainty of information theory becomes a thermodynamic variable when used in proper context . . . .

    Jayne’s [summary rebuttal to a typical objection] is “. . . The entropy of a thermodynamic system is a measure of the degree of ignorance of a person whose sole knowledge about its microstate consists of the values of the macroscopic quantities . . . which define its thermodynamic state. This is a perfectly ‘objective’ quantity . . . it is a function of [those variables] and does not depend on anybody’s personality. There is no reason why it cannot be measured in the laboratory.” . . . . [pp. vii – viii, 3 – 6, 7, 36; replacing Robertson’s use of S for Informational Entropy with the more standard H.]

    This then sets up the context in which the strong tendency to the dominant clusters of possible microstates obtains, which then emerges as a sticky pattern, equilibrium in the statistical sense.

    These of course bridge to the classical formulations which tend to be framed on partial differential equations and related inequalities. Those, deal in macro-observables. The bridge to information and to concepts of randomness, order and functionally specific organisation will also be key.

    In the context of dynamical systems and states, Walker and Davies then point to some key related ideas, that draw out significance of fine tuning:

    In physics, particularly in statistical mechanics, we base many of our calculations on the assumption of metric transitivity, which asserts that a system’s trajectory will eventually [–> given “enough time and search resources”] explore the entirety of its state space – thus everything that is phys-ically possible will eventually happen. It should then be trivially true that one could choose an arbitrary “final state” (e.g., a living organism) and “explain” it by evolving the system backwards in time choosing an appropriate state at some ’start’ time t_0 (fine-tuning the initial state). In the case of a chaotic system the initial state must be specified to arbitrarily high precision. But this account amounts to no more than saying that the world is as it is because it was as it was, and our current narrative therefore scarcely constitutes an explanation in the true scientific sense.

    We are left in a bit of a conundrum with respect to the problem of specifying the initial conditions necessary to explain our world. A key point is that if we require specialness in our initial state (such that we observe the current state of the world and not any other state) metric transitivity cannot hold true, as it blurs any dependency on initial conditions – that is, it makes little sense for us to single out any particular state as special by calling it the ’initial’ state. If we instead relax the assumption of metric transitivity (which seems more realistic for many real world physical systems – including life), then our phase space will consist of isolated pocket regions and it is not necessarily possible to get to any other physically possible state (see e.g. Fig. 1 for a cellular automata example).

    [–> or, there may not be “enough” time and/or resources for the relevant exploration, i.e. we see the 500 – 1,000 bit complexity threshold at work vs 10^57 – 10^80 atoms with fast rxn rates at about 10^-13 to 10^-15 s leading to inability to explore more than a vanishingly small fraction on the gamut of Sol system or observed cosmos . . . the only actually, credibly observed cosmos]

    Thus the initial state must be tuned to be in the region of phase space in which we find ourselves [–> notice, fine tuning], and there are regions of the configuration space our physical universe would be excluded from accessing, even if those states may be equally consistent and permissible under the microscopic laws of physics (starting from a different initial state). Thus according to the standard picture, we require special initial conditions to explain the complexity of the world, but also have a sense that we should not be on a particularly special trajectory to get here (or anywhere else) as it would be a sign of fine–tuning of the initial conditions. [ –> notice, the “loading”] Stated most simply, a potential problem with the way we currently formulate physics is that you can’t necessarily get everywhere from anywhere (see Walker [31] for discussion). [“The “Hard Problem” of Life,” June 23, 2016, a discussion by Sara Imari Walker and Paul C.W. Davies at Arxiv.]

    We may then go to a discussion of information-rich organisation, i/l/o Orgel:

    living organisms are distinguished by their specified complexity. Crystals are usually taken as the prototypes of simple well-specified structures, because they consist of a very large number of identical molecules packed together in a uniform way. Lumps of granite or random mixtures of polymers are examples of structures that are complex but not specified. The crystals fail to qualify as living because they lack complexity; the mixtures of polymers fail to qualify because they lack specificity . . . .

    These vague idea can be made more precise by introducing the idea of information. Roughly speaking, the information content of a structure is the minimum number of instructions needed to specify the structure.

    [–> this is of course equivalent to the string of yes/no questions required to specify the relevant J S Wicken “wiring diagram” for the set of functional states, T, in the much larger space of possible clumped or scattered configurations, W, as Dembski would go on to define in NFL in 2002, also cf here,

    here and

    here

    — (with here on self-moved agents as designing causes).]

    One can see intuitively that many instructions are needed to specify a complex structure. [–> so if the q’s to be answered are Y/N, the chain length is an information measure that indicates complexity in bits . . . ] On the other hand a simple repeating structure can be specified in rather few instructions.  [–> do once and repeat over and over in a loop . . . ] Complex but random structures, by definition, need hardly be specified at all . . . . Paley was right to emphasize the need for special explanations of the existence of objects with high information content, for they cannot be formed in nonevolutionary, inorganic processes [–> Orgel had high hopes for what Chem evo and body-plan evo could do by way of info generation beyond the FSCO/I threshold, 500 – 1,000 bits.] [The Origins of Life (John Wiley, 1973), p. 189, p. 190, p. 196.]

    In this context, we then take off blinkers and notice protein synthesis. Molecular technology functional units, alphanumerically coded information using prong height patterns [similar to a Yale lock], algorithms used to chain AA’s that fold, agglomerate and add extra bits to form proteins such as haemoglobin, so too language and discernible goal directed processes. Such things need to be explained and blind chance and/or mechanical necessity is not a serious candidate. The only serious candidate is language using intelligence directing configuration. (Which is not a theological inference, in principle a molecular nanotech lab some generations beyond Venter et al could explain it. It is cosmological fine tuning that suspiciously sets up a context for C-chem, aqueous medium cell based life that does point to a cosmos designed for life.)

    KF

  96. 96
    bornagain77 says:

    I am surprised that the Darwinists on this thread have not at least mentioned the fact that the earth is an open system and that it receives energy from the sun. That is usually their first line of defense when confronted with the contradiction that entropy presents to the entire notion of evolution. As Mark Champneys stated in his video at the 18:00 minute mark,

    “What about evolution? It is not hard to see that the second law of thermodynamics, properly understood, devastates the entire idea of both chemical and biological evolution at the most basic possible level. It makes every other argument moot. But the human biases of evolutionists seem to block their understanding. since these are very smart people.
    Their primary defense is to excuse their theory by virtue of the fact that the earth is an open system. That’s it. That’s all they have. Richard Dawkins has stated that the second law can be disregarded simply because of the sun. The energy input of sunlight is suppose to invalidate the application of the laws of science to biology. You can almost here them shout ‘Loophole, Loophole!’ Evolutionists clai that sunlight is the magic ingredient that makes entropy decrease possible. But it is simply not true. Sunlight is actually very random, and what is needed is the polar opposite of random.”
    – Mark Champneys
    When Scientists Ignore Science: The Second Law of Thermodynamics – video – 18:00 minute mark
    https://youtu.be/0oOt317kSro?t=1081

    Perhaps the Darwinists on this thread were so enamored with their present ‘snowflake argument’ against entropy being applicable to biology that they forgot to mention their primary ‘open system argument”? 🙂

    Anyways, to correct this oversight on their part, let’s go ahead and address their open system argument. As Mark Champneys. Granville Sewell, and many others have noted. pouring raw energy into an open system actually increases the rate at which disorder increases in the system. This simple fact is clearly illustrated by the fact that any object left out in the open in a warm and wet environment will deteriorate much more rapidly than any object that is left out in the open in a cold and dry environment.
    In fact the more quickly that you pour raw energy into an open system then the more quickly the object deteriorates. Granville Sewell used the illustration of a tornado. But a nuclear bomb would have gotten the same point across. i.e. Pouring a massive amount of raw energy into a open system actually makes the problem of entropy that much worse for Darwinists.

    Obviously, in order for raw energy to be useful for life, it must first be somewhat ‘constrained’ in its disordering effects on physical objects and then further ‘harnessed’ so as to be of biological utility.

    There are two major areas where this ‘constraining’ and ‘harnessing’ of energy, so as to be of biological utility, takes place.

    First, the energy that is allowed to enter the atmosphere of the Earth is constrained, i.e. finely-tuned, to 1 trillionth of a trillionth of the entire electromagnetic spectrum:

    8:12 minute mark,,, “These specific frequencies of light (that enable plants to manufacture food and astronomers to observe the cosmos) represent less than 1 trillionth of a trillionth (10^-24) of the universe’s entire range of electromagnetic emissions.”
    Fine tuning of Light, Atmosphere, and Water to Photosynthesis (etc..) – video (2016) –
    https://youtu.be/NIwZqDkrj9I?t=384

    As the preceding video highlighted, visible light is incredibly fine-tuned for life to exist on earth. Though visible light is only a tiny fraction of the total electromagnetic spectrum, it happens to be the “most permitted” portion of the sun’s spectrum that is allowed to filter through the atmosphere. All the other bands of electromagnetic radiation, directly surrounding visible light, happen to be harmful to organic molecules, and are almost completely absorbed by the earth’s magnetic shield and the earth’s atmosphere.
    The size of light’s wavelengths and the constraints on the size allowable for the protein molecules of organic life, strongly indicate that they were tailor-made for each other, As Dr. Bradley notes:

    The visible portion of the electromagnetic spectrum (~1 micron) is the most intense radiation from the sun (Figure 1); has the greatest biological utility (Figure 2); and easily passes through atmosphere of Earth (Figure 3) and water (Figure 4) with almost no absorption. It is uniquely this same wavelength of radiation that is idea to foster the chemistry of life. This is either a truly amazing series of coincidences or else the result of careful design.
    – (Walter Bradley – Is There Scientific Evidence for the Existence of God? How the Recent Discoveries Support a Designed Universe – –
    http://www.leaderu.com/offices.....dence.html

    Moreover, the light coming from the sun must also be ‘tuned’ to the ‘right color’

    The ” just right ” relationship of the light spectrum and photosynthesis
    Excerpt: The American astronomer George Greenstein discusses this in The Symbiotic Universe, p 96:
    Chlorophyll is the molecule that accomplishes photosynthesis… The mechanism of photosynthesis is initiated by the absorption of sunlight by a chlorophyll molecule. But in order for this to occur, the light must be of the right color. Light of the wrong color won’t do the trick….
    The harmony between stellar and molecular physics that Greenstein refers to is a harmony too extraordinary ever to be explained by chance. There was only one chance in 10^25 of the Sun’s providing just the right kind of light necessary for us and that there should be molecules in our world that are capable of using that light. This perfect harmony is unquestionably proof of Intelligent Design.
    http://reasonandscience.catsbo.....osynthesis

    Moreover, even though the energy allowed to enter the atmosphere of the Earth is constrained, i.e. finely-tuned, to 1 trillionth of a trillionth of the entire electromagnetic spectrum, that still does not fully negate the disordering effects of pouring raw energy into an open system. (as was made clear previously).

    To offset this disordering effect that raw energy has on objects, the raw energy from the sun, which I remind is already finely-tuned to 1 in 10^24, must be further harnessed to be of biological utility. This harnessing of raw energy is accomplished in biology by the elaborate process of photosynthesis which converts sunlight into ATP.
    To say that the elaborate process of photosynthesis defies Darwinian explanations is to make a rather dramatic understatement:

    Evolutionary biology: Out of thin air John F. Allen & William Martin:
    The measure of the problem is here: “Oxygenetic photosynthesis involves about 100 proteins that are highly ordered within the photosynthetic membranes of the cell.”
    http://www.nature.com/nature/j.....5610a.html

    The 10 Step Glycolysis Pathway In ATP Production: An Overview – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Kn6BVGqKd8

    At the 14:00 minute mark of the following video, Chris Ashcraft, PhD – molecular biology, gives us an overview of the Citric Acid Cycle, which is, after the 10 step Glycolysis Pathway, also involved in ATP production:

    Evolution vs ATP Synthase – Chris Ashcraft – video – citric acid cycle at 14:00 minute mark
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=rUV4CSs0HzI#t=746

    Moreover, there is a profound ‘chicken and egg’ dilemma with ATP production for evolutionists:

    Evolutionist Has Another Honest Moment as “Thorny Questions Remain” – Cornelius Hunter – July 2012
    Excerpt: It’s a chicken and egg question. Scientists are in disagreement over what came first — replication, or metabolism. But there is a third part to the equation — and that is energy. … You need enzymes to make ATP and you need ATP to make enzymes. The question is: where did energy come from before either of these two things existed?
    http://darwins-god.blogspot.co.....oment.html

  97. 97
    bornagain77 says:

    Moreover, ATP synthase is also, ‘unexpectedly’ for Darwinists, found to be, thermodynamically, 100% efficient

    Your Motor/Generators Are 100% Efficient – October 2011
    Excerpt: ATP synthase astounds again. The molecular machine that generates almost all the ATP (molecular “energy pellets”) for all life was examined by Japanese scientists for its thermodynamic efficiency. By applying and measuring load on the top part that synthesizes ATP, they were able to determine that one cannot do better at getting work out of a motor,,, The article was edited by noted Harvard expert on the bacterial flagellum, Howard Berg.
    http://crev.info/content/11101.....generators

    Thermodynamic efficiency and mechanochemical coupling of F1-ATPase – 2011
    Excerpt: F1-ATPase is a nanosized biological energy transducer working as part of FoF1-ATP synthase. Its rotary machinery transduces energy between chemical free energy and mechanical work and plays a central role in the cellular energy transduction by synthesizing most ATP in virtually all organisms.,,
    Our results suggested a 100% free-energy transduction efficiency and a tight mechanochemical coupling of F1-ATPase.
    http://www.pnas.org/content/ea.....hort?rss=1

    As well, besides ATP synthase, the entire photosynthetic process itself was also ‘unexpectedly’ found to be astonishingly efficient. Moreover, photosynthesis achieves this astonishing efficiency by overcoming thermodynamic noise by way of ‘quantum coherence’ which shows ‘remarkable resistance to the aggressive, random background noise of biology and extreme environments.’:

    Unlocking nature’s quantum engineering for efficient solar energy – January 7, 2013
    Excerpt: Certain biological systems living in low light environments have unique protein structures for photosynthesis that use quantum dynamics to convert 100% of absorbed light into electrical charge,,,
    “Some of the key issues in current solar cell technologies appear to have been elegantly and rigorously solved by the molecular architecture of these PPCs – namely the rapid, lossless transfer of excitons to reaction centres.”,,,
    These biological systems can direct a quantum process, in this case energy transport, in astoundingly subtle and controlled ways – showing remarkable resistance to the aggressive, random background noise of biology and extreme environments. “This new understanding of how to maintain coherence in excitons, and even regenerate it through molecular vibrations, provides a fascinating glimpse into the intricate design solutions – seemingly including quantum engineering – ,,, and which could provide the inspiration for new types of room temperature quantum devices.”
    http://phys.org/news/2013-01-n.....nergy.html

    To repeat, photosynthesis is achieved via ‘coherence, a genuine quantum effect,,,’

    Uncovering Quantum Secret in Photosynthesis – June 20, 2013
    Excerpt: “These results show that coherence, a genuine quantum effect of superposition of states, is responsible for maintaining high levels of transport efficiency in biological systems, even while they adapt their energy transport pathways due to environmental influences” says van Hulst.
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/re.....142932.htm

    To say that ‘coherence, a genuine quantum effect’, is a problem for Darwinian materialists is to make another rather dramatic understatement.

    Quantum Coherence, like Quantum Entanglement, is a ‘non-local’, i.e. beyond space and time. effect.

    Physicists find quantum coherence and quantum entanglement are two sides of the same coin – June 25, 2015 by Lisa Zyga
    Excerpt: Quantum coherence and quantum entanglement are two landmark features of quantum physics, and now physicists have demonstrated that the two phenomena are “operationally equivalent”—that is, equivalent for all practical purposes, though still conceptually distinct.
    https://phys.org/news/2015-06-physicists-quantum-coherence-entanglement-sides.html

    In fact, quantum coherence violates locality much more strongly than ‘simple’ quantum entanglement does,

    A the following article states, ‘the greater the number of particles in a quantum hypergraph state, (such as what we see with quantum biology), the more strongly it violates local realism, with the strength increasing exponentially with the number of particles.’

    Physicists find extreme violation of local realism in quantum hypergraph states – Lisa Zyga – March 4, 2016
    Excerpt: The physicists also showed that the greater the number of particles in a quantum hypergraph state, the more strongly it violates local realism, with the strength increasing exponentially with the number of particles. In addition, even if a quantum hypergraph state loses one of its particles, it continues to violate local realism. This robustness to particle loss is in stark contrast to other types of quantum states, which no longer violate local realism if they lose a particle. This property is particularly appealing for applications, since it might allow for more noise in experiments.
    http://phys.org/news/2016-03-p.....alism.html

    The interesting thing about quantum ‘non-locality’ is that it is a ‘non-local’ effect. That is to say that it is a beyond space and time effect the requires a beyond space and time cause in order to explain its effect,

    Looking beyond space and time to cope with quantum theory – 29 October 2012
    Excerpt: “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,”
    http://www.quantumlah.org/high.....uences.php

    Darwinists simply have no beyond space and time cause that they can appeal to. Whereas Christians have always postulated a beyond space and time cause.

    Colossians 1:17
    He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together.

    Thus in conclusion, the ‘open system argument’ of evolutionists, when examined in detail, (like all other arguments from Darwinian atheists), collapses in on itself and, in the end, proves the contrary. Namely that life requires far more than the earth itself to be an open system, so as to allow energy in, but life also requires the universe itself to be an ‘open system’ so as to be able to explain the ‘beyond space and time’ quantum coherence in life that allows life, particularly photosynthesis, to overcome the disordering effects of entropy.

  98. 98
    Truthfreedom says:

    @52 Ed George

    I’m not the one making claims that a high school kid knows are erroneous.

    Why embarrass yourself then with that silly ‘snowflake’ no-argument? I know teenagers that would not commit such a mistake.

  99. 99
    ET says:

    bornagain77- see comment 32

  100. 100
    kairosfocus says:

    Sev and EG, I scrolled up for a moment and saw your suggestions that RA decay and tree rings constitute in effect spontaneous creation of functionally specific organisation and/or information. RA decay is a random process and if anything is disorganisation. It certainly is not creating anything like coded information or the key-lock fitting typical of say parts in a fishing reel. As for tree rings, they are simply an outcome of seasonal patterns, carrying nothing like the above. If you mean “information” in the sense that any random string of coin tosses would produce, again, such a string is so utterly unlikely to generate 500 – 1,000 bits of FSCO/I that the resort to such examples simply shows how bare the evolutionary materialistic cupboard is. KF

  101. 101
    ET says:

    kairosfocus, They are confused. They think that since we can create information from something that mindless processes put it there. Tree rings are not a code. Rad decay is not a code.

  102. 102
    bornagain77 says:

    Thanks ET, I never got past the “The TalkOrigins Archive” headline on that post. So many of “TalkOrigins” claims have been found to be false in the past that I pretty much skipped right over that comment from Seversky when I saw the headline since I consider “TalkOrigins” itself to be so unreliable.

    But post 32 does indeed mention the fallacious ‘open system argument’.

  103. 103
    ET says:

    I absolutely understand. But, like you, I knew that was their “go-to” argument, so I had to take another look- a closer look. And there it was, as predicted. 😎

  104. 104

    Seversky @72 “…over 3bn years. Has it not occurred to you that if Sanford were correct, that “genetic entropy” is an inexorable degradation of the genome, then even if it had managed ti get started in the first place, which seems unlikely, DNA-base life would have suffered a catastrophic collapse long ago. ” Sanford is a young earth creationist, and this is actually strong evidence for his position. The second law provides many such lines of evidence. The age of the universe/earth is an inference, not a known quantity, so I urge an open mind on this, as Sanford does also.

  105. 105

    Kairosfocus@95 I tend to be a “look at the forest” kind of guy, rather than a “look at the individual leaves on the individual trees” kind of guy, but I marvel at your understanding of the details of informational entropy and Shannon information. Some things that I have gleaned in my study is that entropy can be considered on multiple layers. For example, the entropy of the _message_ must be low to have certainty, but a the same time, the entropy of the _medium_ must be high in order to have high informational capacity. Writing a message in the sand of a pristine beach illustrates this. If the beach is newly washed, you can use a fine stick to write many words. But if the beach is made of 2-inch pebbles, your detailed message will be lost in the confusion. Shannon was all about certainty or uncertainty as a measure of information as he defined it. In the same way, thermal entropy plays a crucial role in the building of huge delicate nucleic acids, while simultaneously informational entropy is working within those bonded atoms to either write or destroy the message carried by the base sequenes in the molecules. My point? Specification versus randomness is often (if not always) to be considered in nested layers.

  106. 106

    Bornagain77: I, too, have been surprised that no one has yet taken up the “open system” argument or the compensation argument. (I would like to think that my video soundly precluded any such attempts, but, I doubt it.)

    As to ATP Synthase: Yes, I have stated in the past that when evolutionists can explain a plausible origin of ATP Synthase, they may have the first rudiments of a chemical evolution theory, but not until. As you said, it takes enzymes to make ATP, and it takes ATP to make enzymes. But what a remarkable molecular machine bridges the gap! Absolutely stunning! The crazy thing is that it requires the second law itself in a probability gradient to power this ETM!!!

  107. 107
    kairosfocus says:

    MoT,

    in my observation, an appreciation — depth understanding requires sophisticated math, physics and chem — of the statistical and probabilistic foundations of the second law provides a context to see what is at stake. Especially, when we add the insight that this can be interpreted in informational terms shaped by the macro vs micro view of state and evolution of states leading to the implications of a predominant cluster. Notice, the Wiki clip: >>n the words of G. N. Lewis writing about chemical entropy in 1930, “Gain in entropy always means loss of information, and nothing more” . . . in the discrete case using base two logarithms, the reduced Gibbs entropy is equal to the minimum number of yes/no questions that need to be answered in order to fully specify the microstate, given that we know the macrostate.>>

    Once such is in hand, we can look at information stored in configurations with fresh insights. In particular, in general an arbitrary 3-d entity can be described as a structured string of Y/N questions and answers through a suitably compact description language; yielding a configuration space from 0000 . . . 0 to FFFF . . . F for a space spanned by n bits. AutoCAD is of course Exhibit A.

    Thus, description on alphanumerical strings is WLOG. Further, once string length reaches or exceeds 500 – 1,000 bits, it is maximally implausible for blind chance and/or mechanical necessity acting on the gamut of the sol system [10^57 atoms, ~ 5 bn y] or the observed cosmos [10^80 atoms, ~ 10^17 s] to sufficiently search the config space to make finding deeply isolated islands of function a reasonable project. That’s because at ~ 10^12 – 15 atomic level interactions/s, the sample of configurations that can be explored is vanishingly small relative to 3.27*10^150 to 1.07*10^301 possibilities. Worse, as a search is a sampled subset of a config space, the secondary config space of searches for a space of n bits is 2^n possibilities, the power set. Search for a golden search is exponentially harder.

    That’s before we factor in the language and algorithms in DNA.

    As for entropy, yes, it seems to be a bit of an industry to come up with different flavours these days.

    The bottom-line is pretty clear, FSCO/I is a strong sign of intelligently directed configuration — design — as material causal factor. Of trillions of observed cases where we directly know the cause, it is design.

    Which is ideologically unpalatable to many.

    That carries us back to the headline above.

    KF

  108. 108
    jawa says:

    KF,

    “ideologically unpalatable to many”

    Yes, agree, but serious science must be evidence-based.

    That’s why the Darwinian flagship is taking so much water in through the widening cracks, leading some anti-ID scientists to jump out and swim to the exotic “third way” island, unaware of the Cat-7 hurricane (“upcoming discoveries” ) going their way.

  109. 109
    bornagain77 says:

    at 72 Seversky stated,

    BA77: Darwinists simply have no empirical evidence that Darwinian processes are capable of overcoming the continual dissipative effects of Entropy. All the evidence we have tells us that life. instead of evolving into greater complexity, will instead devolve with what is termed ‘genetic entropy’ by Dr. John Sanford:

    Sev: Life has existed on this planet for something over 3bn years. Has it not occurred to you that if Sanford were correct, that “genetic entropy” is an inexorable degradation of the genome, then even if it had managed ti get started in the first place, which seems unlikely, DNA-base life would have suffered a catastrophic collapse long ago. The evidence that Darwinian processes can overcome this effect is all around you – including you!

    At 80 I responded,

    Instead of offering any evidence that it is possible for Darwinian processes to overcome the dissipative effects of entropy, Seversky instead offers the fallacious argument of presupposing his desired conclusion into the premises of his argument. i,e, In answering the question of “where did life come from?, Seversky answer is, basically, “life exists so it must have evolved.” This logical fallacy is known as circular argumentation:,,,

    And at post 81, since they did answer the question properly the first time, I reiterated this question to Darwinists,

    What power, force, and/or thing, enables life to resist the ravages of entropy, that all forms of inanimate matter are subject to, precisely a lifetime and not a moment longer?

    The answer is, of course, that it is immaterial information and/or a soul that enables life to resist the ravages of entropy for precisely a lifetime. As Stephen Talbott put it, “Virtually the same collection of molecules exists in the canine cells during the moments immediately before and after death. But after the fateful transition (to death),,,, Code, information, and communication, in their biological sense, will have disappeared from the scientist’s vocabulary.”

    The Unbearable Wholeness of Beings – Steve Talbott
    Excerpt: Virtually the same collection of molecules exists in the canine cells during the moments immediately before and after death. But after the fateful transition no one will any longer think of genes as being regulated, nor will anyone refer to normal or proper chromosome functioning. No molecules will be said to guide other molecules to specific targets, and no molecules will be carrying signals, which is just as well because there will be no structures recognizing signals. Code, information, and communication, in their biological sense, will have disappeared from the scientist’s vocabulary.
    ,,,Rather than becoming progressively disordered in their mutual relations (as indeed happens after death, when the whole dissolves into separate fragments), the processes hold together in a larger unity.
    http://www.thenewatlantis.com/.....-of-beings

    And it is not just the classical sequential information on DNA that enables life to resist the ‘ravages of entropy’ for precisely a life time, but Quantum information is also directly involved, if not the primary thing, that enables life to resist the ‘ravages of entropy’ for precisely a life time,,,

    Darwinian Materialism vs. Quantum Biology – Part II
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oSig2CsjKbg

    As Dr. Elisabeth Rieper noted in the following video, practically the whole DNA molecule can be viewed as quantum information with classical information embedded within it

    “What happens is this classical information (of DNA) is embedded, sandwiched, into the quantum information (of DNA). And most likely this classical information is never accessed because it is inside all the quantum information. You can only access the quantum information or the electron clouds and the protons. So mathematically you can describe that as a quantum/classical state.”
    Elisabeth Rieper – Classical and Quantum Information in DNA – video (Longitudinal Quantum Information resides along the entire length of DNA discussed at the 19:30 minute mark; at 24:00 minute mark Dr Rieper remarks that practically the whole DNA molecule can be viewed as quantum information with classical information embedded within it)
    https://youtu.be/2nqHOnVTxJE?t=1176

    Shoot, Darwinists can’t even tell us how any particular organism achieves its basis biological form, much less can they tell us how it is possible for life to resist the ravages of entropy for precisely a life time.

    Darwinism vs Biological Form – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JyNzNPgjM4w

    February 2020 – So just where is this massive amount of ‘positional’ information coming from in a developing embryo if it cannot possibly be contained within the DNA of the fertilized egg of a human?
    https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/mike-egnor-vs-jerry-coyne-on-how-consciousness-evolved/#comment-692666

    But anyways, regardless of all these interesting questions that Darwinists leave on the cutting room floor, so as to try to pretend that the dissipative effects of entropy are not that a big of a problem to the entire notion of Darwinian evolution, Seversky still wanted to go on and claim that if genetic entropy were true then “life would have suffered a catastrophic collapse long ago.”

    I guess that Seversky is trying to claim that God only introduced life onto earth one time? But that is not so. The Bible speaks of several creative acts by God in introducing life onto earth in stages, culminating, of course, with His creation of man, whom He created in His image.

    And that is exactly what the fossil record, (and genetic evidence), reveals,

    Scientific study turns understanding about evolution on its head – July 30, 2013
    Excerpt: evolutionary biologists,,, looked at nearly one hundred fossil groups to test the notion that it takes groups of animals many millions of years to reach their maximum diversity of form.
    Contrary to popular belief, not all animal groups continued to evolve fundamentally new morphologies through time. The majority actually achieved their greatest diversity of form (disparity) relatively early in their histories.
    ,,,Dr Matthew Wills said: “This pattern, known as ‘early high disparity’, turns the traditional V-shaped cone model of evolution on its head. What is equally surprising in our findings is that groups of animals are likely to show early-high disparity regardless of when they originated over the last half a billion years. This isn’t a phenomenon particularly associated with the first radiation of animals (in the Cambrian Explosion), or periods in the immediate wake of mass extinctions.”,,,
    Author Martin Hughes, continued: “Our work implies that there must be constraints on the range of forms within animal groups, and that these limits are often hit relatively early on.
    Co-author Dr Sylvain Gerber, added: “A key question now is what prevents groups from generating fundamentally new forms later on in their evolution.,,,
    http://phys.org/news/2013-07-s.....ution.html

    Bechly: In the Fossil Record, “Abrupt Appearances Are the Rule” – February 20, 2018,
    Excerpt: , you might think that the Cambrian explosion some 530 million years is a singularity, a freak of nature: the sudden appearance of phyla, major categories of life,,,, Yet Dr. Bechly points out that the problem posed by the Cambrian event is not singular but in fact has been repeated numerous times in the long history of life — sudden explosions, abrupt appearances, followed by diversification. Each should multiply the distress of Darwin’s defenders, if they are honest with themselves about it.
    In a chapter co-authored with philosopher of science Stephen Meyer in the recent book Theistic Evolution: A Scientific, Philosophical, and Theological Critique (pg. 340-352), Bechly details 19 such “explosions.” As he observes, in the fossil record, “Abrupt appearances are the rule.” Each such event poses the same challenge to Darwinian thinking that the Cambrian explosion does.
    https://evolutionnews.org/2018/02/bechly-in-the-fossil-record-abrupt-appearances-are-the-rule/

    New Paper by Winston Ewert Demonstrates Superiority of Design Model – Cornelius Hunter – July 20, 2018
    Excerpt: Ewert’s three types of data are: (i) sample computer software, (ii) simulated species data generated from evolutionary/common descent computer algorithms, and (iii) actual, real species data.
    ,,, for the actual, real species data, the dependency graph model is astronomically superior compared to the common descent model.
    Where It Counts
    Let me repeat that in case the point did not sink in. Where it counted, common descent failed compared to the dependency graph model. The other data types served as useful checks, but for the data that mattered — the actual, real, biological species data — the results were unambiguous.
    Ewert amassed a total of nine massive genetic databases. In every single one, without exception, the dependency graph model surpassed common descent.
    Darwin could never have even dreamt of a test on such a massive scale. Darwin also could never have dreamt of the sheer magnitude of the failure of his theory. Because you see, Ewert’s results do not reveal two competitive models with one model edging out the other.
    We are not talking about a few decimal points difference. For one of the data sets (HomoloGene), the dependency graph model was superior to common descent by a factor of 10,064. The comparison of the two models yielded a preference for the dependency graph model of greater than ten thousand.
    Ten thousand is a big number. But it gets worse, much worse.,,,
    https://evolutionnews.org/2018/07/new-paper-by-winston-ewert-demonstrates-superiority-of-design-model/

  110. 110
    bornagain77 says:

    But Seversky has a point, if genetic entropy is true, then how long can a particular lineage of life go on before it subcumbs to the degraditive effects of genetic entropy? The answer is that a particular lineage can go on quite a long time before it goes extinct. For example, we find genetic entropy playing out in trilobites, over a span of 270 million years, in this way,

    The Cambrian’s Many Forms
    Excerpt: “It appears that organisms displayed “rampant” within-species variation “in the ‘warm afterglow’ of the Cambrian explosion,” Hughes said, but not later. “No one has shown this convincingly before, and that’s why this is so important.””From an evolutionary perspective, the more variable a species is, the more raw material natural selection has to operate on,”….(Yet Surprisingly)….”There’s hardly any variation in the post-Cambrian,” he said. “Even the presence or absence or the kind of ornamentation on the head shield varies within these Cambrian trilobites and doesn’t vary in the post-Cambrian trilobites.” University of Chicago paleontologist Mark Webster; article on the “surprising and unexplained” loss of variation and diversity for trilobites over the 270 million year time span that trilobites were found in the fossil record, prior to their total extinction from the fossil record about 250 million years ago.
    http://www.terradaily.com/repo.....s_999.html

    In fact, there is a general rule of thumb for Genetic Entropy, i.e. Dollo’s Law,

    Dollo’s law and the death and resurrection of genes:
    Excerpt: “As the history of animal life was traced in the fossil record during the 19th century, it was observed that once an anatomical feature was lost in the course of evolution it never staged a return. This observation became canonized as Dollo’s law, after its propounder, and is taken as a general statement that evolution is irreversible.”
    http://www.pnas.org/content/91.....l.pdf+html

    Dollo’s law and the death and resurrection of genes
    ABSTRACT: Dollo’s law, the concept that evolution is not substantively reversible, implies that the degradation of genetic information is sufficiently fast that genes or developmental pathways released from selective pressure will rapidly become nonfunctional. Using empirical data to assess the rate of loss of coding information in genes for proteins with varying degrees of tolerance to mutational change, we show that, in fact, there is a significant probability over evolutionary time scales of 0.5-6 million years for successful reactivation of silenced genes or “lost” developmental programs. Conversely, the reactivation of long (>10 million years)-unexpressed genes and dormant developmental pathways is not possible unless function is maintained by other selective constraints;
    http://www.pnas.org/content/91.....l.pdf+html

    Of supplemental note to the ‘top down’ nature of sub-speciation from a parent lineage,

    A. L. Hughes’s New Non-Darwinian Mechanism of Adaption Was Discovered and Published in Detail by an ID Geneticist 25 Years Ago – Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig – December 2011
    Excerpt: The original species had a greater genetic potential to adapt to all possible environments. In the course of time this broad capacity for adaptation has been steadily reduced in the respective habitats by the accumulation of slightly deleterious alleles (as well as total losses of genetic functions redundant for a habitat), with the exception, of course, of that part which was necessary for coping with a species’ particular environment….By mutative reduction of the genetic potential, modifications became “heritable”. — As strange as it may at first sound, however, this has nothing to do with the inheritance of acquired characteristics. For the characteristics were not acquired evolutionarily, but existed from the very beginning due to the greater adaptability. In many species only the genetic functions necessary for coping with the corresponding environment have been preserved from this adaptability potential. The “remainder” has been lost by mutations (accumulation of slightly disadvantageous alleles) — in the formation of secondary species.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....53881.html

    Thus, despite how badly Seversky and other Darwinists may hope and wish for Darwinian evolution to be true, they are, as far as the empirical evidence itself is concerned, found to be out of luck at each and every turn. From the fossil record, to the genetic evidence itself, to the real time empirical evidence of Doug Axe and many others, every piece of empirical evidence that we have betrays the Darwinist and supports the Christian.

    The only place that the Christian might get into trouble with the empirical evidence is if he tries to force a Young Earth interpretation of the bible onto the empirical evidence. Myself, since God’s conception of time is vastly different from ours, I have no problem with an Old Earth interpretation of the Bible. Thus, for me at least, I have no problem whatsoever with the empirical evidnce.

    2 Peter 3:8
    But do not overlook this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

    Why I Reject A Young Earth View: A Biblical Defense of an Old Earth – Jonathan M. – 2011
    Excerpt: If, therefore, it may be considered legitimate to take the seventh day as representative of a much longer period of time, then whence the mandate for supposing a commitment to interpreting the other six days as representative of 24-hour periods?
    Fourth, there is the multiple-usage of the word “day” in Genesis 1. Let’s take a look at the manner in which the word “day” is used in the Genesis 1 (up to 2:4) narrative alone:
    1. Genesis 1:5a: “God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night.” Here, “day” is contrasted with “night”: Thus, a 24-hour day is not in view, but rather “day” in the sense of “daytime” (i.e. 12 hours).
    2. Genesis 1:5b: “And there was evening and there was morning — the first day.” Here, the word does indeed mean a 24-hour day.
    3. Genesis 2:3: “By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested from all his work. 3 Then God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it he rested from all the work of creating that he had done.” To this, I have already alluded — the key point here is the absence of “evening” and “morning”, which denotes all of the previous six days.
    4. The correct rendering of the Hebrew with respect to Genesis 2:4 is “This is the account of the heavens and the earth in the day they were created, when the LORD God made the earth and the heavens.”
    http://crossexamined.org/why-i.....old-earth/

  111. 111
    Truthfreedom says:

    @108 jawa:

    That’s why the Darwinian flagship is taking so much water in through the widening cracks,

    A fantastic description. 🙂

  112. 112

    I am very much enjoying the stimulating conversation by all. There are some other topics untouched, however. For example, I made the point that Darwin got natural selection wrong. He saw it as a preservative, when, in fact, nothing about natural selection preserves the genome. It kills and culls, or spares killing, but sparing is not preserving. His mechanism presupposes that something else is making it function coherently in the absence of being culled. Where does that integrated functionality come from? Both Darwin and neo-Darwinists have nothing but dumb luck to offer. Honestly, it blows my mind that no one seems to have noticed this glaring flaw on the cover of his book. Natural selection does not and cannot preserve arrangements. What was he thinking?

Leave a Reply