“When Scientists Ignore Science…” by Mark Champneys

_{Granville Sewell
April 9, 2020

Intelligent Design

1}_{Categories
Intelligent Design}

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

Embedded below is a nice new video “When Scientists Ignore Science: The Second Law of Thermodynamics” produced by Mark Champneys.

Comments

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.Ed George_{April 10, 2020
April
04
Apr
10
10
2020
04:58 PM
4
04
58
PM
PDT}

Whatever Ed. I am not the one using strawman arguments to avoid dealing honestly with the evidence.bornagain77_{April 10, 2020
April
04
Apr
10
10
2020
04:47 PM
4
04
47
PM
PDT}

@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').Truthfreedom_{April 10, 2020
April
04
Apr
10
10
2020
04:47 PM
4
04
47
PM
PDT}

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.Ed George_{April 10, 2020
April
04
Apr
10
10
2020
04:40 PM
4
04
40
PM
PDT}

@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.Truthfreedom_{April 10, 2020
April
04
Apr
10
10
2020
04:22 PM
4
04
22
PM
PDT}

^^^^^^^^^^^^ Sigh https://tenor.com/view/neil-patrick-harris-sad-upset-disappointed-sigh-gif-14295309bornagain77_{April 10, 2020
April
04
Apr
10
10
2020
04:09 PM
4
04
09
PM
PDT}

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.Ed George_{April 10, 2020
April
04
Apr
10
10
2020
04:01 PM
4
04
01
PM
PDT}

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.Seversky_{April 10, 2020
April
04
Apr
10
10
2020
04:01 PM
4
04
01
PM
PDT}

Sev
Tree rings!
Radioactive decay.Ed George_{April 10, 2020
April
04
Apr
10
10
2020
03:52 PM
3
03
52
PM
PDT}

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)Seversky_{April 10, 2020
April
04
Apr
10
10
2020
03:36 PM
3
03
36
PM
PDT}

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,
bornagain77_{April 10, 2020
April
04
Apr
10
10
2020
03:18 PM
3
03
18
PM
PDT}

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.
Seversky_{April 10, 2020
April
04
Apr
10
10
2020
02:20 PM
2
02
20
PM
PDT}

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.Jim Thibodeau_{April 10, 2020
April
04
Apr
10
10
2020
01:58 PM
1
01
58
PM
PDT}

Didn’t Answers in Genesis say that creationists should stop using second law of thermodynamics arguments because it makes them look dumb?Jim Thibodeau_{April 10, 2020
April
04
Apr
10
10
2020
01:50 PM
1
01
50
PM
PDT}

@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. :-)Jim Thibodeau_{April 10, 2020
April
04
Apr
10
10
2020
01:45 PM
1
01
45
PM
PDT}

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/
bornagain77_{April 10, 2020
April
04
Apr
10
10
2020
12:21 PM
12
12
21
PM
PDT}

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.Ed George_{April 10, 2020
April
04
Apr
10
10
2020
10:59 AM
10
10
59
AM
PDT}

Talk origins is nothing but a propaganda site. Notice how they FAILed to produce any evidence or science that refutes the claim.ET_{April 10, 2020
April
04
Apr
10
10
2020
10:29 AM
10
10
29
AM
PDT}

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/publications/the-unbearable-wholeness-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?
bornagain77_{April 10, 2020
April
04
Apr
10
10
2020
10:19 AM
10
10
19
AM
PDT}

@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.Jim Thibodeau_{April 10, 2020
April
04
Apr
10
10
2020
10:13 AM
10
10
13
AM
PDT}

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/links/doi/10.1006/jtbi.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/jjkay/pubs/Life_as/lifeas.pdf
Seversky_{April 10, 2020
April
04
Apr
10
10
2020
09:39 AM
9
09
39
AM
PDT}

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/2015/06/evolutionary_co_1096931.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.
bornagain77_{April 10, 2020
April
04
Apr
10
10
2020
08:31 AM
8
08
31
AM
PDT}

@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...Truthfreedom_{April 10, 2020
April
04
Apr
10
10
2020
08:09 AM
8
08
09
AM
PDT}

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? https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/why-tornados-running-backward-do-not-violate-the-second-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/Faculty/sewell/articles/pe_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/doi/abs/10.1142/9789814508728_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/
bornagain77_{April 10, 2020
April
04
Apr
10
10
2020
07:48 AM
7
07
48
AM
PDT}

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/
bornagain77_{April 10, 2020
April
04
Apr
10
10
2020
07:47 AM
7
07
47
AM
PDT}

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 impossibleTom Robbins_{April 10, 2020
April
04
Apr
10
10
2020
06:42 AM
6
06
42
AM
PDT}

@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. :)Truthfreedom_{April 10, 2020
April
04
Apr
10
10
2020
06:40 AM
6
06
40
AM
PDT}

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.Tom Robbins_{April 10, 2020
April
04
Apr
10
10
2020
06:39 AM
6
06
39
AM
PDT}

@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=11.8750Truthfreedom_{April 10, 2020
April
04
Apr
10
10
2020
06:27 AM
6
06
27
AM
PDT}

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!Latemarch_{April 10, 2020
April
04
Apr
10
10
2020
06:18 AM
6
06
18
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply