I can prove God exists

[invest07]

robeph

A mutation is a replicating error. When the DNA molecule rips in half, a mistake may occur. It rarely does but somewhere around every 10,000 times a mistake happens. A proper division of the DNA molecule creates the division only at the base pair attachment location. Each base should detach from it's mating base but stay attached to it's strand. A mistake/mutation occurs when one of the bases detaches from the strand or one of the bases detaches entirely and is lost. Each strand should stay intact and have one base attached at each of the 3 billion locations after a normal (non mutated) division. This is a primarily a physical process, although it does involve breaking a chemical bond between the base pairs.

Human DNA has 3 billion nodal sites on each strand of DNA. Each site contains one of four different amino acids: A, G, T or C. (There are very rare instances of a 5th amino acid but 4 is normal for the mass majority of DNA.) A always pairs with G and T pairs with C. So the possible combinations at each node are A-G, G-A, T-C or C-T.

The chances of the correct amino acid locating at the first node on the left strand are 1 in 4. The chances of the correct amino acid attaching to the first node on the right strand are also 1 in 4. There are 3 billion nodes on each strand and 6 billion nodal locations in total. The possible combinations of amino acids on the DNA molecule then are 4 raised to the 6 billionth power. ( 4 x 4 x 4 x each nodal location) This is a 9th grade probability calculation.

Even if DNA started out with only 10 or 100 base pairs, Human DNA today contains 3 billion base pairs. Even if DNA started much smpler, the task (arranging 6 billion amino acids into the right sequence and location) remains the same. The possible combinations at each nodal location are the same, whether the DNA started simpler or not. My calculation of possible combinations at each nodal location is accurate and applies today regardless of how many base pairs DNA started with.

As a reference point to how simple DNA can be, EColi is one of our simpler organisms, a one celled bacteria. EColi has 4 million base pairs which equals 8 million nodal location. So the possible combinations of amino acids in EColi are 4 raised to the 8,000,000 power. Still an astronmically slim chance.

"the reason they're in the order they are is because they, over time evolved as such. " So if I understand you right, all 6 billion got into the correct location because "they evolved as such". That is the reason? How in the hell did this happen, specifically?

The odds against amino acids arranging themselves into the right sequence and location, even allowing 1-2 billion years, are astronomically slim. My calculator will only take an exponent up to 4 digits so I can't give you a specific number but 4 to the 6 billionth power is a number with several hundred (maybe thousand) pages of zeros. Effectively zero chance.

You keep saying this is all chemical. So explain the chemistry to us. Tell all of us in this forum specifically the mechanism used by the random and unfocused forces of evolution to place 6 billion chemicals into the right sequence and location. Don't hide behind the word "chemistry". Tell us the specifc mechanism.

I've disclosed all my reasoning and calculations. Time for you to do the same. Put up or shut up. Tell us your specific mechanism. Take your dump or get off the pot. Call, raise or fold. My cards have been face up on the table since the first post.

And let me correct one point you raised, previously. The existence of transitional forms does not affect ID as a scientific theory. To me, the existence of transitional fossils doesn't matter one iota. But to you Darwinistas, they are critical. They are the ONLY physical "proof" you have of your hypothesis. And there are damned few of them and most of those are disputed.

 

[Coyote]

"All codes spring from one source: DNA (can you prove otherwise?)" I already did. The mathematical probability of DNA evolving are astronomically slim. And even if DNA is hypothesized to have evolved from simpler forms, all 6 billion of those amino acids got into the right space by some method. No way it happened naturally, as the probability clearly demonstrates.

You did not prove that there are any known codes that do not spring either directly or indirectly from DNA.

I have shown that DNA can evolve naturally - in fact, scientists have found enough evidence to propose some theories as to how it might have.

Molecules coming together - chemical reactions - are not entirely random. They are constrained by laws of physics, energy, chemistry etc. which limits what they can do. That removes a certain element of chance and randomness which is what you are basing your probabilities on.

In addition - you are committing a major error in logic and science: absence of evidence for portions of one theory IS NOT evidence for another theory. Negative evidence is not evidence. Well, unless you're a Fundie maybe.

 

[Questerr]

...

You keep saying this is all chemical. So explain the chemistry to us. Tell all of us in this forum specifically the mechanism used by the random and unfocused forces of evolution to place 6 billion chemicals into the right sequence and location. Don't hide behind the word "chemistry". Tell us the specifc mechanism.

You keep talking about random and unfocused, but that is not what evolution is. Evolution specifically deals with mutation in response to ENVIROMENTAL factors. That is not random or unfocused. That is how the probability changes. That is how the equation stops being just one big number and becomes a massive string of causality.

DNA didn't evolve all at once. It evovled because of enviromental factors and it did it over time. It ended up in the shape and series that it did because of neccessary changes for survival, the local enviroment that was forcing the change, and chemical requirements.

Evolution is not a blind god throwing darts in the dark. Its a natural system working within the confines of its limitations. Evolution may not have a directing hand, but natural laws make it anything but "random".

 

[Coyote]

robeph
And let me correct one point you raised, previously. The existence of transitional forms does not affect ID as a scientific theory. To me, the existence of transitional fossils doesn't matter one iota. But to you Darwinistas, they are critical. They are the ONLY physical "proof" you have of your hypothesis. And there are damned few of them and most of those are disputed.

This is no physical proof for ID. Most hypothosis are not scientifically disputed. Of those that are legitimately incomplete or unclear - you are attempting to use that as positive evidence for ID.

Science just doesn't work that way (unless you are a Fundie).

 

[invest07]

questerr

Remember that every alleged evolutionary event begins with a mutation to an individual's DNA.

Mutation/mistakes do not usually occur in response to environmental conditions. Environmental conditions (also known as Natural Selection) act on the population after the mutation/mistake.

Mutations are a mistake during replication. They are random in that neither the location or extent of the mutation is predictable. While MacroE theorizes that Natural selection weeds out the "good" mistakes from the "bad" mistakes, the mistakes themselves are still random. And Natural Selection acts on a population only AFTER a mutation has occurred.

Mutations may be induced with radiation but the results of these mutations are random and unpredictable. Thousands of generations experimenting with Drysophila have verified that environmental conditions (in this case radiation) may induce mutations but can't be used to induce specific mutations or steer mutations in any direction. All mutated Drysophila are impaired in their function and no mutated Drysophila has ever been anything but a fruit fly.

Mutations are random in nature. You can't predict in advance when one will occur, at what node the mutation will occur and whether or not the mutation will be beneficial to the organism. If you can't predict the node, you don't know which chromosome will be affected and you can't predict what allele will be affected. And you can't predict whether or not the mutation/mistake will be beneficial.

There are a few, very few exceptions to this, with certain recurring mutations at specifc nodes Every one of these I know of causes severe im[pairment or death and I know of none that have ever been beneficial to the individual. According to MacroE theory, a mutation/mistake that is survival negative should eventually be eliminated by NS.

The forces which drive evolution are also unfocused. An example of the difference between focused and unfocused forces:

1. It requires focused energy to build a house. You deliver block to the site and then a mason lays the block. The mortar is mixed by a helper. The mason uses a string line for horizontal level and a plumbob for vertical level. After setting the block, the helper nust spray the wall to insure proper mortar strength. All of these human efforts represent focused energy. You start with a pile of blocks and wind up with a wall. The pile of blocks does zero for society but the wall becomes useful.

2. Unfocused energy would be to offload a pallet of block and then do nothing. Over time the sun would shine on the pile and the wind would blow on it. Given enough time, the unfocused forces acting on this pile of block would more than equal the amount of focused energy expended by the mason and helper. But you would still only have a pile of blocks. No wall. No useful work is done by unfocused forces.

Mutation/mistakes are random and unfocused. Mutation/mistakes may be beneficial, harmful or survival neutral. There is no predictable direction from any one mutation/mistake. Natural Selection is somewhat focused in that it may act to improve a species chances for survival. Natural Selection is capable of directing unfocused energy to perform a useful function. This has been demonstrated conclusively in MicroE but is only a theory for MacroE. But natural selection does not cause a mutation/mistake. NS enters the picture only after the mutation/mistake has established itself into the population. NS is the final test of whether or not the mutation/mistake
is benefical or harmful to the individual.

The forces that create a mutation are 99%+++ unfocused and random. And even when a mutation/mistake is caused by the environment, the result may be harmful, beneficial or neutral. No direction comes from the mutation/mistake. The only direction comes after the mutation/mistake and that is caused by NS.

 

[Coyote]

questerr

1. It requires focused energy to build a house. You deliver block to the site and then a mason lays the block. The mortar is mixed by a helper. The mason uses a string line for horizontal level and a plumbob for vertical level. After setting the block, the helper nust spray the wall to insure proper mortar strength. All of these human efforts represent focused energy. You start with a pile of blocks and wind up with a wall. The pile of blocks does zero for society but the wall becomes useful.

2. Unfocused energy would be to offload a pallet of block and then do nothing. Over time the sun would shine on the pile and the wind would blow on it. Given enough time, the unfocused forces acting on this pile of block would more than equal the amount of focused energy expended by the mason and helper. But you would still only have a pile of blocks. No wall. No useful work is done by unfocused forces.

You are completely overlooking the middle option: which is a degree of focus imposed by the laws of nature, physics, chemistry. Evolution is not 100% random and unfocused. Environment puts pressures (or focus) on an organism on what genetic changes will or will not occur and which will surive. Evolution does not occur in a vacuum.

Useful work and unfocused forces: Evolution is not "useful work" - it is nothing more or less then the progression of life forms from simple to complex in response to environmental pressures.

You could argue however that "useful work" is indeed done by "unfocused forces". Take for example the creation of mountain ranges due to (unfocused) tectonic shifts that in turn created a barrier between North and South America that allowed marsupials to continue developing in South America while mammels replaced them in North America.

 

[invest07]

coyote
I think you are dead wrong in one statement.
"Environment puts pressures (or focus) on an organism on what genetic changes will or will not occur and which will surive."
Environmental conditions have never been demonstrated as affecting what genetic changes will occur. When the DNA rips apart, the mistake happens at random. The location is random, the occurrence is random and the number of nodes affected is random. Thousands of generations of Drysophila have positively demonstrated this.

 

[Coyote]

coyote
I think you are dead wrong in one statement.
"Environment puts pressures (or focus) on an organism on what genetic changes will or will not occur and which will surive."
Environmental conditions have never been demonstrated as affecting what genetic changes will occur.
When the DNA rips apart, the mistake happens at random. The location is random, the occurrence is random and the number of nodes affected is random. Thousands of generations of Drysophila have positively demonstrated this.

That's totally incorrect.

For example certain linkages are weaker then others thus more likely to break, or be damaged and cause a mutation. This is why certain (uninherited) mutations seem to crop up over and over while others are exceedingly rare.

Environmental conditions also effect what changes will occur for example - damage by UV light, or certain chemicals that can effect particular parts of the DNA.

 

[r0beph]

robeph

A mutation is a replicating error. When the DNA molecule rips in half, a mistake may occur. It rarely does but somewhere around every 10,000 times a mistake happens. A proper division of the DNA molecule creates the division only at the base pair attachment location. Each base should detach from it's mating base but stay attached to it's strand. A mistake/mutation occurs when one of the bases detaches from the strand or one of the bases detaches entirely and is lost. Each strand should stay intact and have one base attached at each of the 3 billion locations after a normal (non mutated) division. This is a primarily a physical process, although it does involve breaking a chemical bond between the base pairs.

Ehhhh sort of. Mind you that your cells replicate oh...over a million times a day... That aside, micro mutations are not even relevant. We're not talking about the single cell division in a multicellular organism. mutations occurring during procreation are a whole nother loaf of meat. But as for divisional mutations, first of all, you're WAY WAY WAY WAY WAY WAY, and I cannot emphasize more, WAY off base on how that occurs. DNA dissociates partially from it's paired helix all the time, mRNA then is "programmed" via the fact that ONLY a-g and t-c will work, that's chemistry that does that by the way, but I'll go to that later. Mutations occur as follow...

I'm not sure about bases getting lost or becoming unattached, mutations typically occur during transcription.

Human DNA has 3 billion nodal sites on each strand of DNA. Each site contains one of four different amino acids: A, G, T or C. (There are very rare instances of a 5th amino acid but 4 is normal for the mass majority of DNA.) A always pairs with G and T pairs with C. So the possible combinations at each node are A-G, G-A, T-C or C-T.

way off base.. I've never heard base pairs referred to as "nodes", but whatever. This is WHY A-G / C-T do as they do....

​

This is chemistry PLAIN and SIMPLE (I'll point you back to these pictures in regard to your next claim as well), as for the 5th nucleic acid is uracil, it's simply unmethylated thymine, it's found in RNA and binds with adenine and then is replaced with thymine through methylation, there's reason behind this, it's a protective molecule for transcription.

The chances of the correct amino acid locating at the first node on the left strand are 1 in 4. The chances of the correct amino acid attaching to the first node on the right strand are also 1 in 4. There are 3 billion nodes on each strand and 6 billion nodal locations in total. The possible combinations of amino acids on the DNA molecule then are 4 raised to the 6 billionth power. ( 4 x 4 x 4 x each nodal location) This is a 9th grade probability calculation.

The "chances" that any given (node) half of a basepair lining up with it's chemical is pretty much 100%, sense you can't make a molecule bond where it's not gonna bond. A-T just aren't gonna do it.

Even if DNA started out with only 10 or 100 base pairs, Human DNA today contains 3 billion base pairs. Even if DNA started much smpler, the task (arranging 6 billion amino acids into the right sequence and location) remains the same. The possible combinations at each nodal location are the same, whether the DNA started simpler or not. My calculation of possible combinations at each nodal location is accurate and applies today regardless of how many base pairs DNA started with.

Call them nucleic acids please, your amino acids are the 20 standard amino acids and a some special code words (the TAA, TGA and TAG codons, they signify the end of a coding region) that are encoded in genetic translation via transfer RNA which carts the amino acids (you end up with three letter words called codons, there are 4^3 (64) possible codons (AAA,ATA,ACT,CCA, etc...) these are what become amino acids. As there are a total of 64 codon sequences so amino acids may have more than one possible codon. (meaning that 3 different codon sequences may all form the same amino acid)...

As a reference point to how simple DNA can be, EColi is one of our simpler organisms, a one celled bacteria. EColi has 4 million base pairs which equals 8 million nodal location. So the possible combinations of amino acids in EColi are 4 raised to the 8,000,000 power. Still an astronmically slim chance.

see above as to why, no, this is wrong, it's about a chance, it's about a chemical and how it likes other chemicals with attractive bonds.

"the reason they're in the order they are is because they, over time evolved as such. " So if I understand you right, all 6 billion got into the correct location because "they evolved as such". That is the reason? How in the hell did this happen, specifically?

well ok, you have a single small bacteria with ... lets say for fun, 3 basepairs. somehow an insertion mutation occurs (happens all the time, ie avian flus mixing with mammalian flus and becoming new flus), what it ate, had 5 basepairs, now you may have a total of 6 base pairs (arbitrary for the sake of this) .well this occurrence made this lil bacteria a bit bigger and kinda rude, cos now he can eat things that used to eat him, his old genetic code gets lost, lets say in this case because the new version ate all his older buddies in his colony... over millions of years, with things like this happening,

The odds against amino acids arranging themselves into the right sequence and location, even allowing 1-2 billion years, are astronomically slim. My calculator will only take an exponent up to 4 digits so I can't give you a specific number but 4 to the 6 billionth power is a number with several hundred (maybe thousand) pages of zeros. Effectively zero chance.

wrong...the odds of (nucleic acids) arranging themselves in the right order, is pretty much 100%, aside from deamination and methylization of the nucleic acids, they tend to do what they're sposed to, all through chemistry. and when they don't, it's easy to explain why.

You keep saying this is all chemical. So explain the chemistry to us. Tell all of us in this forum specifically the mechanism used by the random and unfocused forces of evolution to place 6 billion chemicals into the right sequence and location. Don't hide behind the word "chemistry". Tell us the specifc mechanism.

nothing is random and unfocused...chemistry is WHY it works like it does, the reason DNA is as DNA is is because that's how chemistry makes it easy, we are carbon based, so we use carbon based chemicals, (likely because it's pretty damn easy to do, unlike using say, a helium base) Evolution isn't "chemical" on its own, a lot of what occurred is DUE to chemistry, but the reason those bad changes in the dna didn't stick around is more due to the fact that the world is unforgiving and they tend to die out. The creation of the new specifications/strains/species etc is chemical at base, the evolution is environmental.

I've disclosed all my reasoning and calculations. Time for you to do the same. Put up or shut up. Tell us your specific mechanism. Take your dump or get off the pot. Call, raise or fold. My cards have been face up on the table since the first post.

and every last bit of what you purport, is WRONG WRONG WRONG.

And let me correct one point you raised, previously. The existence of transitional forms does not affect ID as a scientific theory. To me, the existence of transitional fossils doesn't matter one iota. But to you Darwinistas, they are critical. They are the ONLY physical "proof" you have of your hypothesis. And there are damned few of them and most of those are disputed.

You cannot debate anything "faith" based it's an effort in futility, I back up what I say with cold hard data. Transitional fossils are rare, fossils are rare. While you see these numbers in the millions of fossils, FOSSIL does not denote whole animal, I'm sure there is a plethora of semi-transitional fossils out there that simply cannot be substantiated because having the toe of a transitional reptile isn't going to be an example anyone will care to look at. Transitional fossils are not critical to darwinism, it's pretty easy to show it's plausibility in a lab environment and with bioinformatic computation. What proof of ID do you have save for pointing out what you think we must prove to you? We have plenty of realistic and plausible examples of how things work, why things likely worked out the way they did, and well thought out reasoning as to why. You on the other hand simply state "you don't have a frogfishdinocrab so YOU'RE WRONG!" It's not simply the lack of scientific data for an ethereal intelligence that makes me deny ID, it's also the amount of substance in opposition to it. Where YOUR opposition to Evolutionism, I don't want "Your lack of transitional fossils" as oppositional (lack of) evidence, I want something you can express positively as to WHY.

 

[Coyote]

rObeph...it's nice to see the actual science laid out...

 

[invest07]

Coyote
All forces are bound by natural law, whether those forces are focused or unfocused.
All forces are energy and behave according to various natural laws, primarily the laws of thermodynamics. Forces act in a manner to transfer energy from high states to lower states which are more stable.

As an example, I heat a frying pan to prepare an egg. As soon as I remove the heat source the pan begins to cool. The pan is transferring it’s heat (high energy state) to the air (lower energy state) so that the pan and air together may achieve the lowest possible energy state (which is the most stable state possible). An ice cube on the counter immediately begins to melt as the air, which is in a higher energy state due to higher temperature, transfers some of it’s energy to the ice cube. Eventually the ice will melt and the air and ice will achieve the same temperature, which is the lowest possible energy state and the most stable.

Wind blowing is unfocused energy. The eye of Hurricane Charley went directly over my little corner of this planet in 2004. The 120 mph winds (high energy state) blew on trees (low energy state) until many oaks uprooted. As soon as the tree toppled over, the high energy state caused by the wind was relieved and a measure of stability was attained. The trees went from a high level of organization that took 40 years developing to elements suitable only for firewood in 10 minutes.

Every weather pattern ever experienced on this planet is the result of higher energy states “seeking” to reach the stability of lower states. (Seeking is in quotes because unfocused energy is not alive and has no will).

A volcano is an example of unfocused energy. The volcano erupts solely to relieve internal pressure caused by heat. The eruption occurs to allow the heat (and accompanying pressure) to escape into the air or sea and together the hot lava, air and sea stabilize temperatures. The eruption does not occur to create an island. It occurs to achieve the most stable energy state possible at the time and under the given circumstances. Later on, birds may deposit droppings and occasionally seeds. Winds and tides may break down the lava rock into it’s elements. Over time, an island with life may develop, as a result of focused forces (birds, fish, etc) and unfocused forces.

Focused forces are a necessity of life. Geologic forces are always unfocused. A tree is exposed to unfocused energy from the sun and rain. The tree, as a living thing, focuses the sunlight by converting it into useful energy used by the tree. The roots convert the rainfall into a useful enzymes and moisture to sustain life. All life depends on focused energy. Without the ability to focus energy, life is not possible.

Life=focused energy.
Non-living parts of the natural world=unfocused energy.

The forces of non-living nature are unfocused and are incapable of having a goal. The forces of life are focused on the goal of preserving life. While radiation or malnutrition (unfocused forces) may create a condition in an organism conducive to a mutation/mistake, the forces are not acting out of intent to create a mutation. The mutation/mistake is a consequence of the action, and not the intent of the action, much the same way the island is a consequence of high and low energy states present below the sea.

One condition of the definition of life is “the ability to focus energy”. There is no force between focused and unfocused. Both are bound by natural law and both behave accordingly. You’re either pregnant or you ain’t. You are either alive or dead. No condition exists in between.

You need to be very careful pursuing this line of reasoning. If you truly believe that unfocused forces drive or steer mutation/mistakes, you are on a road that has a sign on it that says “Intelligence ahead”. No problemo to me but this sign is death for Darwinistas. The tendency of unfocused energy is to achieve the most stable energy state possible at the time. The tendency of unfocused energy is entropy. Unfocused forces are incapable of having a goal or intent. The unfocused forces of natural selection are incapable of steering or guiding mutations before they occur. They are demonstrably capable of steering mutations but only after the mutation/mistake occurs.

The reason MacroE violates the entropy law of thermodynamic is that life itself is a big net consumer of energy. No new energy is being created. Existing energy is being converted into useful work and in the process, some of that energy becomes degraded (less organized) and no longer available for work. Every time I fire up my truck or juice up my HP some of that energy I use is lost to the universe, forever. MacroE requires life to begin from the non-living and for the living to become increasingly complex and organized over time. Energy in our universe behaves exactly the opposite. Gradually energy is becoming less organized and thus, less is available for work.

The example I used of a pile of blocks sitting there illustrates entropy. A great deal of focused energy was expended at a concrete plant to create those blocks. Molds were filled, ovens were lit, temperatures and times were carefully monitored. Focused energy was expended to load, transport and unload those blocks. Left alone, exposed to only unfocused natural forces, the blocks will degrade. Rain and temperature changes and wind and the sun will work on the pile until the blocks are broken down and no longer useable as blocks. The blocks represent a high level of organization when they are offloaded at the site. In 500 or a 1,000 years they are a low level of organization, basically junk.

The natural tendency of energy in our universe is to seek the lowest state possible (the most stable). MacroE requires higher and higher levels of energy with increasing complexity. If you believe MacroE is true you have to believe that there must be some kind of exception to entropy for MacroE. Ask a physicist sometime if there are any exceptions to entropy. If someone does explain this exception in a satisfactory manner at some point in the future, I will acknowledge the MacroE exception.

From the standpoint of physics, life is work. Life requires energy and consumes more energy than it returns to the universe, by a whopping margin.

And by the way, since you have just invented a new force, somewhere between focused and unfocused, what are you going to name it?

 

[Coyote]

Coyote
Life=focused energy.
Non-living parts of the natural world=unfocused energy.

The forces of non-living nature are unfocused and are incapable of having a goal.

The biochemical processes of life - the biochemistry of proteins and enzymic interactions etc. are unfocused - they occur automatically within the bounds of natural law. They have no goal.

The forces of life are focused on the goal of preserving life. While radiation or malnutrition (unfocused forces) may create a condition in an organism conducive to a mutation/mistake, the forces are not acting out of intent to create a mutation. The mutation/mistake is a consequence of the action, and not the intent of the action, much the same way the island is a consequence of high and low energy states present below the sea.

One condition of the definition of life is “the ability to focus energy”. There is no force between focused and unfocused. Both are bound by natural law and both behave accordingly. You’re either pregnant or you ain’t. You are either alive or dead. No condition exists in between.

You need to be very careful pursuing this line of reasoning. If you truly believe that unfocused forces drive or steer mutation/mistakes, you are on a road that has a sign on it that says “Intelligence ahead”. No problemo to me but this sign is death for Darwinistas.

You are implying something that is illogical: that unfocused equals random. That is not true.

Unfocused forces create mutations but it's not entirely random due to:

• environmental pressures
• inate weakness' in the organism's genetic structures
• limits imposed by natural law

So, while it may not be "focused" ie - driven by a goal - neither is it random because it has constraints.

Environmental pressures drive mutations to the degree that they select for survival under particular conditions. That is not intelligence.

From the standpoint of physics, life is work. Life requires energy and consumes more energy than it returns to the universe, by a whopping margin.

I am not sure what you are talking about but think talkorigins.org answered this best:

"Evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics."

This shows more a misconception about thermodynamics than about evolution. The second law of thermodynamics says, "No process is possible in which the sole result is the transfer of energy from a cooler to a hotter body." [Atkins, 1984, The Second Law, pg. 25] Now you may be scratching your head wondering what this has to do with evolution. The confusion arises when the 2nd law is phrased in another equivalent way, "The entropy of a closed system cannot decrease." Entropy is an indication of unusable energy and often (but not always!) corresponds to intuitive notions of disorder or randomness. Creationists thus misinterpret the 2nd law to say that things invariably progress from order to disorder.

However, they neglect the fact that life is not a closed system. The sun provides more than enough energy to drive things. If a mature tomato plant can have more usable energy than the seed it grew from, why should anyone expect that the next generation of tomatoes can't have more usable energy still? Creationists sometimes try to get around this by claiming that the information carried by living things lets them create order. However, not only is life irrelevant to the 2nd law, but order from disorder is common in nonliving systems, too. Snowflakes, sand dunes, tornadoes, stalactites, graded river beds, and lightning are just a few examples of order coming from disorder in nature; none require an intelligent program to achieve that order. In any nontrivial system with lots of energy flowing through it, you are almost certain to find order arising somewhere in the system. If order from disorder is supposed to violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics, why is it ubiquitous in nature?

The thermodynamics argument against evolution displays a misconception about evolution as well as about thermodynamics, since a clear understanding of how evolution works should reveal major flaws in the argument. Evolution says that organisms reproduce with only small changes between generations (after their own kind, so to speak). For example, animals might have appendages which are longer or shorter, thicker or flatter, lighter or darker than their parents. Occasionally, a change might be on the order of having four or six fingers instead of five. Once the differences appear, the theory of evolution calls for differential reproductive success. For example, maybe the animals with longer appendages survive to have more offspring than short-appendaged ones. All of these processes can be observed today. They obviously don't violate any physical laws.

 

[Questerr]

...

You need to be very careful pursuing this line of reasoning. If you truly believe that unfocused forces drive or steer mutation/mistakes, you are on a road that has a sign on it that says “Intelligence ahead”. No problemo to me but this sign is death for Darwinistas. The tendency of unfocused energy is to achieve the most stable energy state possible at the time. The tendency of unfocused energy is entropy. Unfocused forces are incapable of having a goal or intent. The unfocused forces of natural selection are incapable of steering or guiding mutations before they occur. They are demonstrably capable of steering mutations but only after the mutation/mistake occurs.

Invest,

I've pointed out repeatedly that ID and evolution are not mutually exclusive. None of us can deny the possibility, albiet a small one, that an intelligence directed evolution. What we are denying is that evolution and/or life requires an intelligent designer. What we are saying is that even if there was an intelligent designer, we probably would never be able to tell.

I have a question about you assessment of evolution violating thermodynamics (if it really did, don't you think all physicists would reject evolution?) and life being asystem that is always in a state of declining energy: It what you say is the case, wouldn't the birth of new life violate thermodynamics? Wouldn't growth violate thermodynamics?

That is why I explained that your assessment of entropy is incorrect because entropy only is required to increase in a closed system. Life is not a closed system and there are many non-living systems in nature where entropy actually decreases, snowflakes and crystal formation for instance.

 

[r0beph]

The natural tendency of energy in our universe is to seek the lowest state possible (the most stable). MacroE requires higher and higher levels of energy with increasing complexity. If you believe MacroE is true you have to believe that there must be some kind of exception to entropy for MacroE. Ask a physicist sometime if there are any exceptions to entropy. If someone does explain this exception in a satisfactory manner at some point in the future, I will acknowledge the MacroE exception.

*sigh* what 1842 text book do you read from? That's not how entropy works...

There is NO natural tendancy for energy to seek the "lowest" state possible. There is a law, the second law of thermodynamics, that basically says entropy will increase in an isolated system that is not in equilibrium moving it TOWARDS equilibrium. The actual law is as follows, "The second law of thermodynamics is an expression of the universal law of increasing entropy, stating that the entropy of an isolated system which is not in equilibrium will tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value at equilibrium. What this means is that unlike your example of the frying pan trying to reach the coolest it can, it's actually the air increasing temperature AND the frying pan decreasing temperature UNTIL both variables in the system (the air/frying pan temperature differential) are equalized.

The funny thing about entropy is that high entropy systems tend to have a high occurrence of spontaneous change, what of this spontaneous change? Spontaneous changes tend to smooth out differences in temperature, pressure, density, and chemical potential that may exist in a system, and entropy is thus a measure of how far this smoothing-out process has progressed. In short Entropy is a function of a quantity of heat which shows the possibility of conversion of that heat into work. Entropy can be key in the creation of order, if order is achieved through this equilibrium. Regardless you're way off base with your "focused" and "unfocused" explanation. It's strange and not very...realistic.

I'm a human, I am alive. In my body I produce many chemicals, HCl acid, to digest my food, this acid, is not alive, yet it is a focus of chemical energy which interacts with my food which in turn is dissolved into its base chemicals, mainly carbohydrates, proteins, lipids, etc. The whole process, of nutrient absorbtion, while directed by living cells, is purely a chemical reaction, it's not "focused" energy, it's chemistry that is as it is, because its what worked during evolution. It doesn't require life to occur, however, life occurs because of this chemistry, not the inverse.

From the standpoint of physics, life is work. Life requires energy and consumes more energy than it returns to the universe, by a whopping margin.

And by the way, since you have just invented a new force, somewhere between focused and unfocused, what are you going to name it?

Uhhhh, life doesn't consume more energy than it returns lol you are really pushing patience with such patently stupid ideals. What energy is consumed that is NOT returned or held in a state of potential? Don't forget the heat we create (we stay at 98.6º by temperature radiation into a cooler environment, at around 98 degrees outside, you're body is going to begin to overheat, thus we sweat, which by evaporation cools us taking the heat with it (all entropy!); well actually, it's well below 98º when we begin to overheat, but I'm not really minded to look up the amount of heat we produce to thus figure out at what external temperature we begin to produce more than we can radiate over time, this is neither here nor there for the sake of this argument. A lot of our energy goes to heat to MAINTAIN our body temp in an environment (aside from nevada, arizona, or whatever hell hole) that is typically cooler than our temperature. More energy is placed into waste chemicals which retain bonds that are quite energetic, (this is why poop can be used a fertalizer for plants, it's ENERGY...ie Nutrients. ) we never use energy, we only convert it. The idea that energy is "used" is a silly one. We increase entropic states, making it harder for energy to perform work (strong chemical bonds that don't lend themselves to energy output is a good example of entropy) Hydrogen for example, is pretty well suited for releasing energy, along with oxygen you can see a recreation of the Hindenburg. What of this energy, gone you say? no, heat is released, the chemicals bind, becoming H2O, (water...mmm good stuff) the heat released has the ability to do work as long as it is disparate from the local temperature of the system its part of, once it stabalizes, its ability for work has become victim of entropy. We can use (and it requires the same amount of energy) electricity to split the H2O into H and O2, the amount of electricity required to return a same amount of H20 to H and O2 state will be equal to the amount of work/energy it released to bind them together. What comes out must go in, what goes in , must come out. I'm also confused, what new force is created?

-----

ALSO, entropy is not the DECREASE of energy (energy cannot be destroyed nor created) entropy is rather the reduction in energy's ability to work in a closed system.

and invest where is your response to my previous post (on page 22) , I spent a bit of time on it, and would like a response....sir.

 

[numinus]

Your statement says that they have a metaphysical basis; my reply was in regards to why they all seem similar in their manner. As for the metaphysical basis, the idea of a god itself requires a metaphysical belief, but it does not mean the actual BASIS is metaphysical, purely a semantic argument as to whether religion is a story or true and quibbling definitions, as if it is just a story, it is fiction and metaphysics plays no part.



Well hellenistic philosphies (there are quite a few, not just a single orientation.) Had lots of influence from persian and indian philosophies, this is well noted in history. Now I'm sure you'll agree both Indian and Persian philosophies are eastern. The Hellenistic period included a lot of Grecian movement through the east, there was a lot of cultural transfer between greece and the east during the hellenistic period. Andrew the Great for example, spent a lot of time in India and Persia. The term "Hellenistic Period" refers to the period where there was a great expansion in the areas in which greek (or in greek, hellênízein) was spoken and greek culture spread. One of the biggest cultural revolutions during this period, were in fact the meeting of the West and East cultures. Why you asked such a question, that in its own right, answers itself, I don't know. Hellenization itself refers to the spread of greek culture and language, in this process it is bound to pick up ideas from the cultures it spreads through, this answers you question.

Sigh

If one were to examine the similarity between western (from hellenistic to the ancient peoples of the american continent) and eastern (from the hindu to as far east as the buddhist traditions) philosophies, they can all be classified loosely under an idealist world view.

This world view may be traced all the way back to the beginings of human civilization (more than 5,000 years worth) and has been dominant up to the present (regardless of the emergence of a materialist world view which caught on only during the age of enlightenment).

Are you suggesting that the major cradles of human civilization have been in contact since the beginning?

And even if, for argument's sake, you can dig up some obscure archeological evidence to suggest this, such a universality in scope and duration could hardly be explained by mere contact through economic trade. Not to mention the fact that far eastern cultures from china and japan are almost impervious to any sort of cultural assimilation.

Religion itself could only flourish within a world view that permits it, don't you think? And it is this world view, an almost intuitive understanding of some fundamental metaphysical truth, that I am suggesting developed independently throughout the world.