Irreducible complexity- the challenges have been rebutted (if not refuted)

quote:

---

If you want to hide behind your text books, that is your prerogative but please don't think that your untenable position is made more defendable by attacking my use of simple logic.

---

The thing is, you aren't using "simple logic".You are using the "Argument from Personal Incredulity."Oh, and "hiding behind textbooks" might also be restated as "being educated in the subject at hand."

Ah, thank you for that lesson in thermodynamics, Gemster! So, when I stand in the wind after sweating and let some water evaporate, the sweat still on my skin is utilizing a program (information) to direct growth in organized complexity, right? Hey, it's at a lower entropy state, so it must be!------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

(Gemster is also wrong. The sunshining on the earth, decreases entropy here.)This statement is only true because of complex biological systems on earth.Charles J. Smith recognized the challenge posed by the 2nd law of thermodynamics to the most significant unanswered how and why of evolutionary theory: The thermodynamicist immediately clarifies the latter question by pointing out that the Second Law classically refers to isolated systems which exchange neither energy nor matter with the environment; biological systems are open, and exchange both energy and matter. The explanation, however, is not completely satisfying, because it still leaves open the problem of how or why the ordering process has arisen (an apparent lowering of the entropy), and a number of scientists have wrestled with this issue. Bertalanffy (1968) called the relation between irreversible thermodynamics and information theory one of the most fundamental unsolved problems in biology. [C. J. Smith (evolutionist), Biosystems 1:259 (1975)]

quote:

---

This statement is only true because of complex biological systems on earth.

---

Gemster, I know this is really hard on you... but that is not true. Even creationists who teach physics acknowlege this. A person who has been vaporized by a laser has a higher degree of entropy than a normal person. If you were to freeze that gas from our vaporized person into ice, they would have a lower entropy state. It has nothing to do with human concepts of "order" and "disorder". It is simply the formula: S = k ln W. S is the degree of entropy, k is Boltzmann's constant, ln is the natural logarithm, and W is the quantity of "disorder".Picture a glass filled with a gas. Each particle has a velocity and a state. The "microstate" of the gas has two constraints: all of the particles lie within the container, and each particle's velocity determines its energy. The sum of the energies of the particles equals E, the total energy of the gas. 'W', in this context, is the number of microstates that can match the energy and volume constraints - this is colloquially referred to as "disorder", but is actually not represented by the same context that humans use the word.This number is not infinite, as it first might seem; Heisenberg's uncertainty principle puts a limit on it, but it still is a huge number. Now, as you'll realize, the gas is constantly changing which microstate it is in - particles bump into each other, fly off, etc. The higher W is, the more unlikely it is that, if observed at any split second, you will observe a specific microstate.The second law of thermodynamics, in short, says that W will only increase in a closed system.That's what the 2nd law of thermodynamics says. That's all it says. I'm sorry, Gemster. A volume of gaseous DNA is actually be more disordered than table salt.BTW, you should take more time to think about it before you post. If thermodynamics did prevent one region from becoming more ordered while others become more disordered as a consequence, nothing would ever freeze Among a whole host of other problems.P.S.: Check out your quote. You'll find that it is what is known in the world of logic as "proof by ghost reference".------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."[This message has been edited by Rei, 09-24-2003]

The second law of thermodynamics, in short, says that W will only increase in a closed system.what is your point?

I'm sorry your knowledge of the 2nd law of thermodynamics is flawed
Nice chemistry lesson though.
Read this excerpt from an article by Mark Isaac, it might bring you up to speed.No, we know that raw solar energy alone does not decrease entropy. In fact, by itself, it increases entropy, speeding up the natural processes that cause break-down, disorder, and disorganization on earth (consider, for example, your car’s paint job, a wooden fence, or a decomposing animal carcass, first with and then without the addition of solar radiation).
Speaking of the applicability of 2nd law to both closed (isolated) and open systems in general, Harvard scientist Dr. John Ross (not a creationist) affirms:
...there are no known violations of the second law of thermodynamics. Ordinarily the second law is stated for isolated systems, but the second law applies equally well to open systems ... there is somehow associated with the field of far-from equilibrium phenomena the notion that the second law of thermodynamics fails for such systems. It is important to make sure that this error does not perpetuate itself. [Dr. John Ross, Harvard scientist (evolutionist), Chemical and Engineering News, vol. 58, July 7, 1980, p. 40]

Sounds like Ross is saying that the tendancy of entropy to actually decrease in open systems does not violate the 2nd Law. So then why would you say that the evolution/abiogenesis of life on earth would violate the 2nd Law? Ross doesn't seem to think so, and apparently you take him as an authority.

Gemster, you're dodging the issue. "Order" and "disorder" in thermodynamics are not the way you're using them. Pick up a physics textbook some time. You are so far out in left field it's not even funny. Please, Gemster - pick up a physics book and look it up. As I stated, a large container of gaseous DNA is more "disordered" (higher entropy) than a pile of table salt of the same mass, by entropy. Do you understand this? If you're going to use references to thermodynamics, you have to understand this. Also, you need to understand that a bucket of ice is in a lower entropy state than the same bucket of water. If you are claiming that an open system cannot move to a lower entropy state, then water could never freeze. You need to realize how unintelligent you make yourself look when you refer to a fairly simple physics law in a patently incorrect way way. To anyone who has taken a college-level physics course, they're going to look at you like you're an idiot, just as you would me if I had tried to claim that Pythagorean Theorum means that the volume of all cubes are the same. You might actually create a reasonable debate if you talked about something like polonium haloes or rates of helium leakage from zircon. But here, you might as well just say that a talking frog told you so - you are misusing an common formula in obvious ways. Again, refer to the gaseous DNA example, and water freezing in a bucket example, and respond. And look at a physics book, for God's sake.P.S. - Before you keep putting more ghost reference and misquoted quotes on the forum, I suggest you take a look at the typical accuracy of your typical creationist quote. Here's two links:Quotations and Misquotations
Quote Mine Project: Examining 'Evolution Quotes' of CreationistsPlease don't degrade the conversation further. Unless you've seen the quote yourself, don't post it. The level of accuracy of typical creationist quotes ranks somewhere between dismal and nonexistant. Please don't this interpret this as implying that creationists are stupid, deceptive, or whatever; the fact remains that the majority of the quotes that we've gotten are minimally way out of context, and are almost always in contradiction of what the author was actually claiming; a good number also have been tweaked, and sometimes even flat-out made up.------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

Crash is exactly right. Ross isn't saying that entropy cannot locally decrease in an open system; he is saying that this does not violate the 2nd law. You've misread, but this isn't the first time I've seen this quote used by a creationist. Tell me, where did you find it? I'm betting you didn't read Chemical and Engineering News.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

I'm the first to admit that I am nowhere near being a scientist but your attempt to infer from that, that I am not worth debating is a bit arrogant don't you think. Why was thermodynamics even raised. For the simple reason of showing that the only reason that life can exist as an open system and not be destroyed by entropy is because of the two factor I have already mentioned. open system can exist in spite of this law is, as I have already statedany increase in organized complexity (i.e., decrease in entropy) invariably requires two additional factors besides an open system and an available energy supply. These are:
1. a program (information) to direct the growth in organized complexity
2. a mechanism for storing and converting the incoming energy. Timothy Wallace. All Rights Reserved. [Last Modified: 2 September 2002]Now again'I am not a scientist' and I anticipate your scoffing at my this statement and using it against me. I am not unaware of your tactics and it seems that you have never heard of the principle of charity in philosophical argument.
This quote is very easy for a layman like myself to understand, I need no formal training in the sciences to understand it, now why don't you try to defend your theory of evolution(increasing complexity) in the light of this undisputed fact in chemical biology.
How did the components of the first cell come together in violation of this basic principle of life. I would appreciate if you could address the question without being an intellectual smart-arse.

quote:

---

This quote is very easy for a layman like myself to understand, I need no formal training in the sciences to understand it

---

Yes, Gemster. And that is the problem. The quote is completely and utterly unrelated to physics. It is completely and utterly unrelated to the second law of thermodynamics. It is as connected to the second law of thermodynamics as is parmesian cheese.I strongly recommend that you do not post another post on thermodynamics until you've:A) read the relevant chapter of a physics book
B) addressed the issue of gaseous DNA being more "disordered" than table salt, and
C) addressed the issue of how water can freeze (become more ordered) if things supposedly cannot become more ordered at all in an open system.If you feel we're being condescending, I am sorry. But again, you need to understand that you appear to anyone who knows page one about thermodynamics *in a scientific context* as if someone who'se never seen a car before came up to you and told you that they need some parmesian cheese to put in their car's gas tank, and they're insistant that the only way to make a car run is to fill the gas tank with parmesian cheese. You are completely and utterly misusing a simple concept because you never once bothered to learn what the concept is actually about from the very people who discovered and who apply the concept.Again, until you can address the 3 things that I posted above, I would recommend that you not post on this subject again. Otherwise, you might as well just ask us for parmesian cheese to put in your gas tank; it'll have the same effect.------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

Your science lessons are getting really pathetic.
Have you ever heard of the generalized 2nd law of thermodynamics: informational entropy. If you had then you would know that my quote had everything to do with thermodynamics.
The same entropy principle that defines thermal entropy can be applied to information systems. the 2nd law is inviolate in an isolated system (i.e., a system in which neither energy nor matter enter nor leave the system. The entire universe is in an isolated system. However, there is an uninformed evolutionists' notion that we have an exception because we live in an open system. The sun provides more than enough energy to drive things,
As I have already said but it fell on deaf ears was that simply adding raw energy to a system doesn’t automatically cause reduced entropy (i.e., increased organized complexity, build-up rather than break-down). If you can't understand a simple scientific principle like this then perhaps you should consider giving up the science lessons.
Once again I will repeat the statement that is a scientific fact...........any increase in organized complexity (i.e., decrease in entropy) invariably requires two additional factors besides an open system and an available energy supply. These are:
1. a program (information) to direct the growth in organized complexity
2. a mechanism for storing and converting the incoming energy.The earth’s living systems have both of these essential elements. Each living organism’s DNA contains all the code (the program or information) needed to direct the process of building (or organizing) the organism up from seed or cell to a fully functional, mature specimen, complete with all the necessary instructions for maintaining and repairing each of its complex, organized, and integrated component systems.
Living systems also have the second essential componenttheir own built-in mechanisms for effectively converting and storing the incoming energy. Plants use photosynthesis to convert the sun’s energy into usable, storable forms (e.g., proteins), while animals use metabolism to further convert and use the stored, usable, energy from the organisms which compose their diets.
there are no known violations of the second law of thermodynamics. Yet evolutionary theory demands precisely such violations every step of the way, as the expansion of the big bang acquires information, organization, and complexity, forming itself into galaxies, stars, planets, then highly complex amino acids, proteins, DNAessentially generating greater and greater organization, complexity, and information all by itself, and all in complete contradiction of the best established natural law known to science.You people astound me, all puffed up with knowledge, but with no wisdom. Where I come from they call these people educated fool.
The M.O of this website for evolutionists is similar to that employed by packs of lions in africa. Look for an animal seperated from its' herd, too old or weak to keep up, and destroy it. Well I was hoping for a healthy debate and it was not to be found, so you can save your arrogant patronising insults for I respect myself too much too return.

Yawn indeed.There is no informational equivalent of the second law of thermodynamics.Creationist's opinions are not automatically scientific facts.And lose the hostile attitude. It's no substitute for *really* knowing what you are talking about.

quote:

---

As I have already said but it fell on deaf ears was that simply adding raw energy to a system doesn’t automatically cause reduced entropy (i.e., increased organized complexity, build-up rather than break-down).

---

Gemster, your parenthetical redefinition of reduced entropy is not valid. The addition of heat from the sun to the earth will "automatically" produce a temperature difference and therefore make energy available to do work (the winds for example). This is an reduction in entropy. You do NOT get to redefine exsiting physical terms and pretend that you are still using theromodynamics.Since you are introducing some new concepts, (organized complexity for example) it now behoves you to define the terms, show us how this new thing is to be measure and what the formula's are for calculting a difference in "organized complexity". Since I have read some of the material on this I am expecting you to have some significant difficulties in getting a useful defintion in place and getting the math right.Ah, I see. You can't stand the heat. Do you know how many times this ploy has been used? A lot!Why is it when the evolutionists are insulted they don't go off in a huff? I don't remember one playing this game. Does anyone else?

The only point in your posts that I have time to address here is the supposed quote. If the total article is read it is discussing, in part, reversible thermodynamics. Entropy within the overall system can increase and still have localized DECREASES in entropy within the system. If you want to read more about this please get a good Physical Chemistry book (I prefer Atkins myself) or a book on thermodynamics and look up the Clausius inequality. Essentially it says that while changes which occur in a system can not result in a negative overall entropy that does not mean that areas or suybsets within that system can not have a negative entropy as long as the overall system has a positive entropy. You really need to go back to initial references and not rely on creationist sites as many have been documented as lying.Sorry, that is all that I hae time for now.------------------
"Chance favors the prepared mind." L. Pasteur
and my family motto
Transfixus sed non mortis
Taz[This message has been edited by Dr_Tazimus_maximus, 09-26-2003]