Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 119 (8778 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 08-18-2017 12:30 PM
356 online now:
caffeine, Coyote, JonF, New Cat's Eye, ooh-child, PaulK, Phat (AdminPhat), ringo, Tangle, Taq (10 members, 346 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: BruceR.Fenton
Post Volume:
Total: 816,330 Year: 20,936/21,208 Month: 1,369/2,326 Week: 705/345 Day: 67/161 Hour: 8/10

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
8910
11
1213Next
Author Topic:   How is Natural selection a mechanism?
Taq
Member
Posts: 7029
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.7


(2)
Message 151 of 191 (816363)
08-03-2017 11:16 AM
Reply to: Message 147 by NoNukes
08-02-2017 10:24 PM


NoNukes writes:

How do they think babies develop from a small clump of cells?

Or, how do they think babies develop from a single cell? They claim that evolution of complex multicellular from single celled ancestors violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics, yet those very same people started out as a single cell and developed into a complex multicellular human in just 9 months. If it happens over the span of 9 months all of the freaking time, then they really can't say that it couldn't have occurred over the span of billions of years.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by NoNukes, posted 08-02-2017 10:24 PM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

  
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 1552
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


(1)
Message 152 of 191 (816365)
08-03-2017 11:44 AM
Reply to: Message 150 by 1.61803
08-03-2017 10:46 AM


Re: Inception
Your in the zone so to speak. Zen driving.

Focused attention on the important stuff.

I try to imagine what it is like for other organisms that are aware of their surroundings. Are their thoughts all images? My thoughts are a combination of imagery and speech.

Much of our other decisions are mediated through our subconscious, endocrine system and biome. We can of course override their decisions but for the most part they just convince us it was OUR decision in the first place.
Brain experiments have borne out that some decisions we think we are consciously making are already a second or so prior, generated and implemented in our subconscious. "Inception" anyone? The thinker behind the thought may just be a puppet. Frighting thought to be sure.
Oh I by pass any angst created by this thought by just saying its all a symbiotic relationship that make me, ME.

Don't forget bacterial biome that is also part of you. Do they have any control of our decisions? There are microbes that can infect insects and control their behavior to ensure maximum dispersal of their reproductive cells to infect more victims.

Rabies comes to mind as a microbe that controls its host to infect new hosts.

Natural selection in action.


What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python

One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie

If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy

The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq


This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by 1.61803, posted 08-03-2017 10:46 AM 1.61803 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 153 by 1.61803, posted 08-03-2017 12:38 PM Tanypteryx has acknowledged this reply

    
1.61803
Member
Posts: 2704
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004
Member Rating: 3.6


(1)
Message 153 of 191 (816373)
08-03-2017 12:38 PM
Reply to: Message 152 by Tanypteryx
08-03-2017 11:44 AM


Re: Inception
quote:
Do they have any control of our decisions?

Absolutely. https://www.ucsf.edu/...16526/do-gut-bacteria-rule-our-minds

And lets not forget about the Fungi that turns a species of ant into a zombie.


"You were not there for the beginning. You will not be there for the end. Your knowledge of what is going on can only be superficial and relative" William S. Burroughs

This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by Tanypteryx, posted 08-03-2017 11:44 AM Tanypteryx has acknowledged this reply

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18855
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.6


(1)
Message 154 of 191 (816379)
08-03-2017 2:44 PM
Reply to: Message 150 by 1.61803
08-03-2017 10:46 AM


Re: Inception
When I was learning to drive my school driving instructor told me that a when you are a good driver your passengers will not remember your commute. But if you suck as a driver you they will remember every close call, jamming their foot on a imaginary brake etc.. ha ha.

Friend: "when I die I want to go peacefully in my sleep, like my dad ...
... not yelling and screaming like his passengers ..."


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by 1.61803, posted 08-03-2017 10:46 AM 1.61803 has not yet responded

  
AndrewPD
Member
Posts: 133
From: Bristol
Joined: 07-23-2009


Message 155 of 191 (816391)
08-03-2017 9:27 PM
Reply to: Message 144 by Taq
08-02-2017 4:18 PM


Taq writes:

If energy is added to a system then you can have entropy reversal (i.e. negative entropy). This is why we are able to use things like refrigerators which produce negative entropy. If refrigerators don't violate the laws of physics, then neither does life.

A Refrigerator is intelligently designed. I don't see how the sun reduces entropy simply by giving off energy.
Does it reduce entropy on Mars?
There are complex processes like photosynthesis to utilise the suns energy.

Also entropy under one description relates to degrees of freedom. This is the example given in a gas.

So it is statistically unlikely that all the molecules in a gas will go into one corner of a jar because there are to many other possible arrangements. So entropy reflects the unlikelihood of certain formations or order when there is a huge range of other probabilistically available outcomes.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by Taq, posted 08-02-2017 4:18 PM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 156 by NoNukes, posted 08-03-2017 10:20 PM AndrewPD has not yet responded
 Message 158 by Pressie, posted 08-04-2017 4:32 AM AndrewPD has not yet responded
 Message 160 by JonF, posted 08-04-2017 9:56 AM AndrewPD has not yet responded
 Message 163 by Taq, posted 08-04-2017 10:28 AM AndrewPD has not yet responded

    
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 156 of 191 (816392)
08-03-2017 10:20 PM
Reply to: Message 155 by AndrewPD
08-03-2017 9:27 PM


A Refrigerator is intelligently designed. I don't see how the sun reduces entropy simply by giving off energy.

You don't see...

What you are saying is idiotic. Have you ever seen ice form outside of a refrigerator? Do you know where the energy comes from that drives the weather allowing the creation of snow flakes, sleet, hail and other forms of ice. How about the hot sun you think so little of?

If there is energy input into a system, then it is possible to sort things into low entropy arrangements at the expense of gains in entropy in other systems or in other parts of the system. That is the role that the sun plays.

More examples of systems in which entropy may decrease. The forming of crystals, the turning of digested food into living human cells. The development of embryos into human beings. The condensation of water vapor into dew or rain.

Get a thermodynamics textbook and find out what the second law of thermodynamics really says.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

I was thinking as long as I have my hands up … they’re not going to shoot me. This is what I’m thinking — they’re not going to shoot me. Wow, was I wrong. -- Charles Kinsey

I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. Thomas Jefferson

Worrying about the "browning of America" is not racism. -- Faith

I hate you all, you hate me -- Faith


This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by AndrewPD, posted 08-03-2017 9:27 PM AndrewPD has not yet responded

  
Riggamortis
Member
Posts: 167
From: Australia
Joined: 08-15-2016
Member Rating: 3.0


(1)
Message 157 of 191 (816393)
08-03-2017 11:00 PM


2nd Law
The sun adds energy to the earths open system. Since the second law only applies to closed systems, it does not apply to earth. Why is that so hard to understand?
Replies to this message:
 Message 159 by Pressie, posted 08-04-2017 4:43 AM Riggamortis has not yet responded
 Message 162 by JonF, posted 08-04-2017 10:05 AM Riggamortis has responded

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 1714
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010
Member Rating: 3.2


(1)
Message 158 of 191 (816407)
08-04-2017 4:32 AM
Reply to: Message 155 by AndrewPD
08-03-2017 9:27 PM


AndrewPD writes:

A Refrigerator is intelligently designed...

By naturally occurring phenomena. Humans. Not by Spooks.

Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by AndrewPD, posted 08-03-2017 9:27 PM AndrewPD has not yet responded

    
Pressie
Member
Posts: 1714
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010
Member Rating: 3.2


(6)
Message 159 of 191 (816408)
08-04-2017 4:43 AM
Reply to: Message 157 by Riggamortis
08-03-2017 11:00 PM


Re: 2nd Law
A Creationist discovers the sun...Almost

https://cafewitteveen.wordpress.com/...covers-the-sun-almost

quote:
“Evolution says that we started out simple, and over time became more complex. That just isn’t possible: Unless there is a giant outside source of energy supplying the Earth with huge amounts of energy. If there were such a source, scientists would certainly know about it.”

Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by Riggamortis, posted 08-03-2017 11:00 PM Riggamortis has not yet responded

    
JonF
Member
Posts: 3877
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 160 of 191 (816427)
08-04-2017 9:56 AM
Reply to: Message 155 by AndrewPD
08-03-2017 9:27 PM


A Refrigerator is intelligently designed. I don't see how the sun reduces entropy simply by giving off energy.

It doesn't. The energy given off by the sun has a temperature, that of the Sun, , and the Earth absorbs it. Since the average temperature of the Earth is not increasing (significantly) all that energy must be radiated back into space, but at a much lower temperature. That reduces entropy. on the Earth.

Does Life On Earth Violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics? is a pretty good resource.

Does it reduce entropy on Mars?

Yes.

Also entropy under one description relates to degrees of freedom. This is the example given in a gas. So it is statistically unlikely that all the molecules in a gas will go into one corner of a jar because there are to many other possible arrangements. So entropy reflects the unlikelihood of certain formations or order when there is a huge range of other probabilistically available outcomes.

The earth is not a gas, nor do the ideal gas laws cover this situation. The statistical view of entropy does cover this situation, but the Earth-Sun-Space system is so complicated we can't even think about beginning to try to apply it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by AndrewPD, posted 08-03-2017 9:27 PM AndrewPD has not yet responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 3877
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 161 of 191 (816428)
08-04-2017 10:04 AM


On the Earth's entropy
In the seventh message at Evidence, Gordon Davisson provides a good explanation:

quote:
Well, actually, don't do that math, because what I just said isn't entirely accurate. The "heat flows" involved aren't happening under sufficiently near-equilibrium conditions to have a well-defined temperature in the right sense for the equation I gave to apply. The radiation from the Sun is pretty close to a 6,000K blackbody spectrum, and blackbody radiation carries entropy S=4E/3T, so you can get a good idea of the entropy carried by sunlight from that. The entropy carried by radiation leaving Earth is much harder to analyse: there's some reflected sunlight (that no longer matches a blackbody spectrum), and a lot of thermal emission following a wide assortment of non-blackbody spectra. But I think I can get a pretty safe lower bound on it...

So, let's take a stab at doing the (right) math. The solar constant at Earth's orbit is 135.30 mW/cm^2 = 1353 W/m^2 (all data is from the _CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics_, 57th edition; this value is from page F-200). Earth's cross section is 1.27e14 m^2 (Pi*R^2, where R = 6371 km; page F-175). Earth's total insolation is then solar constant * cross seaction = 1.73e17 Watts. At 6000K, using S=4E/3T, that comes to 3.83e13 W/K (or if you prefer, 3.83e13 J/K per second) of entropy received by Earth from the Sun.

As for the outgoing entropy... since I'm going for a lower bound, I'll ignore the contribution from reflected sunlight, and just count the entropy of thermal radiation from Earth. Since Earth isn't a decent blackbody, I can't even calculate that properly, but I claim that the entropy must be at least E/300K (based on the idea that most of the radiation is produced spontaneously at temperatures below 300 Kelvin -- if that's not enough information for you to figure out my reasoning, I'll try to explain later). Earth's albedo is around .36, meaning around 36% of the sunlight reflects off and 64% (1.1e17 W) is absorbed; for present purposes I'll assume the same amount is emitted (although I understand it's actually a little higher). Divide that by 300K and we get at least 3.7e14 W/K (or 3.7e14 J/K per second) leaving Earth. That's almost 10 times the amount we receive from the Sun, and the actual figure is probably noticeably higher than what I calculated here.

If you want the net entropy flux for Earth, you should also count matter flows (meteorites and cosmic rays incoming, helium outgoing, neutrinos in then right back out, etc), but I suspect those are negligible compared to the flux due to light. If you'll go along with me on that, we can treat 3.7e14 W/K - 3.83e13 W/J = 3.3e14 W/K as a plausible lower bound on Earth's net entropy efflux.

Plugging that into the second law tells us that Earth's entropy could be decreasing by up to 3.3e14 J/K per second (or more! ). How fast (or even if) Earth's entropy is actually decreasing depends on how much entropy is produced by irreversible processes on (and in) Earth. If it's produced faster than it leaves, it'll build up and Earth's entropy will increase. If production lags behind exports, Earth's entropy will decrease. The second law won't tell you which if these is happening, all it'll tell you is that while entropy can be produced, it can never be destroyed.

I suspect that the Earth's total entropy is actually fairly constant, since the Earth (overall) maintains a fairly steady state. Its entropy may be increasing a little at present due to global warming, and it probably decreases a bit going into ice ages. The (direct) effect of evolution on Earth's entropy is negligible. Earth is mostly rock (in various phases) with a bit of water and a little air on top; living organisms make up only a tiny part of Earth, and their contribution to Earth's entropy will be similarly tiny.



  
JonF
Member
Posts: 3877
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 3.3


(1)
Message 162 of 191 (816429)
08-04-2017 10:05 AM
Reply to: Message 157 by Riggamortis
08-03-2017 11:00 PM


Re: 2nd Law
The second law applies to all systems. The dS >= Q/T formulation applies only to closed systems.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by Riggamortis, posted 08-03-2017 11:00 PM Riggamortis has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 164 by NoNukes, posted 08-04-2017 4:48 PM JonF has not yet responded
 Message 165 by Riggamortis, posted 08-04-2017 10:02 PM JonF has responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 7029
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.7


(2)
Message 163 of 191 (816431)
08-04-2017 10:28 AM
Reply to: Message 155 by AndrewPD
08-03-2017 9:27 PM


AndrewPD writes:

A Refrigerator is intelligently designed.

You can't intelligently design something to violate the laws of physics.

I don't see how the sun reduces entropy simply by giving off energy.

Have you not heard of photosynthesis? The production of sugars from water and carbon dioxide requires negative entropy, and that is driven by the energy coming from the Sun.

Does it reduce entropy on Mars?

Yes. The equator of Mars is warmer than the poles. Any time you have a continuous temperature gradient that is negative entropy, and in the case of the temperature distributions on Mars that negative entropy is driven by the Sun (as it is on Earth).

So it is statistically unlikely that all the molecules in a gas will go into one corner of a jar because there are to many other possible arrangements. So entropy reflects the unlikelihood of certain formations or order when there is a huge range of other probabilistically available outcomes.

Take a look at high and low pressure systems in Earth's atmosphere. Those are driven by the Sun.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by AndrewPD, posted 08-03-2017 9:27 PM AndrewPD has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 166 by Riggamortis, posted 08-04-2017 11:11 PM Taq has not yet responded

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 164 of 191 (816449)
08-04-2017 4:48 PM
Reply to: Message 162 by JonF
08-04-2017 10:05 AM


Re: 2nd Law
The second law applies to all systems. The dS >= Q/T formulation applies only to closed systems.

Bingo...

It is not just the scientifically untrained Creationists who bungle the 2nd law of thermodynamic. Here is something a PhD holding creationist had to say about the topic:

quote:

Rensberger is ignorant of the creationist responses to this argument. An energy source is not enough to produce the specified complexity of life. The energy must be directed in some way. The ice cubes of his example would not form if the electrical energy was just wired into liquid water! Instead, we would get lots of heat, and the water breaking up into simpler components, hydrogen and oxygen.

This is Dr. Safarti making pretty much the same mistake that AndewPD makes when he says that refrigerators are intelligently designed machines that violate the 2nd law. The easy counter argument is pointing at ice forming without a refrigerator or any one of the other easily citable examples already presented in this thread.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

I was thinking as long as I have my hands up … they’re not going to shoot me. This is what I’m thinking — they’re not going to shoot me. Wow, was I wrong. -- Charles Kinsey

I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. Thomas Jefferson

Worrying about the "browning of America" is not racism. -- Faith

I hate you all, you hate me -- Faith


This message is a reply to:
 Message 162 by JonF, posted 08-04-2017 10:05 AM JonF has not yet responded

  
Riggamortis
Member
Posts: 167
From: Australia
Joined: 08-15-2016
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 165 of 191 (816466)
08-04-2017 10:02 PM
Reply to: Message 162 by JonF
08-04-2017 10:05 AM


Re: 2nd Law
The second law applies to all systems. The dS >= Q/T formulation applies only to closed systems.

I admit ignorance of the equations behind the law, is that equation generally the one used to summarise the law? Taken from top google result, hyperphysics.edu;

Second Law of Thermodynamics: In any cyclic process the entropy will either increase or remain the same.

Entropy: a state variable whose change is defined for a reversible process at T where Q is the heat absorbed.

So where is my misunderstanding? I'm guessing 'cyclic' includes in/output systems and the major point of the second law is the conservation of energy regardless of the type of system?

How does a refridgerator relate to any of this? If someone doesn't mind giving me a creationist double-speak-free summation? (Of the creationist argument)

Edited by Riggamortis, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 162 by JonF, posted 08-04-2017 10:05 AM JonF has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 167 by JonF, posted 08-05-2017 8:46 AM Riggamortis has not yet responded

  
RewPrev1
...
8910
11
1213Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017