Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 111 (8738 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-25-2017 12:27 PM
410 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Jayhawker Soule
Post Volume:
Total: 805,210 Year: 9,816/21,208 Month: 2,903/2,674 Week: 327/961 Day: 57/134 Hour: 7/19

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
456
7
89Next
Author Topic:   Thermodynamics, Abiogenesis and Evolution
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 2413 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 91 of 128 (369153)
12-11-2006 8:45 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by RAZD
12-11-2006 7:47 PM


Re: What I think Brad is saying...
Yeah that seems close enough to me, my own.

I think I understand and stood Georgi to indicate true, that he is not either accomodating "or" refuting creationism but dismissing it when it does not use thermodynamics in all its post Gibbsian glory and accepting it if it implies only change within his own "law".

The difficulty is in first imagining the added issues that the difference of artifical and natural selection plys for said "isolationism". Unfortunately Gould sought to differentiate his view of ontogeny FROM Mayr's (1963 dismissal of deep homology) thus making a clear opening for Dawkins' writing style rather than recognizing that there IS a strand of thought available to the student that need not admit a common view of just what phylogeny "clumps" morphogenetically (Gould brought this so far as to use the word "thoracic" for both snakes and beetles) rather than showing that his reversal from his mentor's adaptation need NOT be aptive"" for a later generation of students of the synthesis. I know these sentences do not make things much better yet. (PS- Great to hear about you and Bates. I liked his other book "The Nature of Natural History", Gould surely was familiar with that!!) To me Dakwins misjudged the dovetailpenpoint of Gould but making macrothermodynamics Darwinian seems imperative. I have not worked out the exact quotes necessary to cut this difference between Gould and Dawkins. I am fairly certain such lingo exists however (I do not know if notions of "perfection" need be brought up or if Gould simply misread THE CARTESIAN(mathmatical) slide of D'Arcy Thompson ACROSS phylogeny(difference of mathematical philosophy and philosophical mathematics (this depends on how the general population of biologists accepts Gould's contribution, a stat I am not familiar with)(Gould *used* the relation of geometric and information duplication to wend a way between the conceptual differences of convergence and parallelism but I think algebraic rings can gainsay where Dawkins doubted the existence of Gould's use of hold and blueprint of the "design")).

Edited by Brad McFall, : spelling

Edited by Brad McFall, : spelling


This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by RAZD, posted 12-11-2006 7:47 PM RAZD has not yet responded

    
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8752
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 92 of 128 (491836)
12-22-2008 12:04 AM


Gradients demand life
http://www.pastpeak.com/archives/2005/04/the_thermodynam.htm

The above is a very non-rigorous look at the relationship between life and thermodynamics.

quote:
Discussions of how life coexists with the Second Law usually stop there: the Second Law isn't violated because the system's not closed. True enough, but not terribly satisfying. While it does explain how life is possible in the presence of the Second Law, it hardly explains what we see everywhere we turn: life spontaneously, aggressively, irrepressibly expanding to fill every available niche in the environment, creating ever richer and more complex ecosystems comprising an ever-expanding variety of increasingly complex life forms. We don't see life just getting by in the face of the Second Law; far from it. I.e., life isn't just side-stepping the laws of thermodynamics; somehow, life is actually favored by them.

and the not-particularly-rigorous-answer?

quote:
Life feeds on gradients and, in the process, helps to reduce them. In so doing, life does Nature's work. The bottom line: thermodynamic principles do not oppose life, they practically command it into existence. Life is an integral part of the universe, completely consistent with the thermodynamic principles that unite both living and nonliving matter. Life belongs*.

*their italics


Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by cavediver, posted 12-22-2008 3:46 AM NosyNed has not yet responded

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 1024 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 93 of 128 (491838)
12-22-2008 3:46 AM
Reply to: Message 92 by NosyNed
12-22-2008 12:04 AM


Re: Gradients demand life
Life belongs

Ah, well that clears that up nicely. I had wondered :)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by NosyNed, posted 12-22-2008 12:04 AM NosyNed has not yet responded

  
traste
Member (Idle past 2523 days)
Posts: 173
Joined: 02-09-2009


Message 94 of 128 (506037)
04-21-2009 11:53 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by RAZD
04-12-2004 4:43 PM


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
with energy available there is no inherent problem for abiogenesis from the second law of thermodynamics.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your reasoning showed that you have a very little understanding in physics,read more.The second law stated that if things left unattended it will become a ruin.For example abandoned your haus and it will become a ruin.So if nobody cares about the universe,"Why it will not become a ruin"?Put this question in your coconut shell.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by RAZD, posted 04-12-2004 4:43 PM RAZD has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by NosyNed, posted 04-22-2009 12:10 AM traste has not yet responded

    
traste
Member (Idle past 2523 days)
Posts: 173
Joined: 02-09-2009


Message 95 of 128 (506038)
04-22-2009 12:09 AM
Reply to: Message 90 by RAZD
12-11-2006 7:47 PM


Re: What I think Brad is saying...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The difference is between a closed system and an open system, not necessarily between living systems and physics
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let me ask you is a living organism closed system or open?A system is closed
only if there is no energy that can crossed the boundary of that system.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by RAZD, posted 12-11-2006 7:47 PM RAZD has not yet responded

    
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8752
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 96 of 128 (506039)
04-22-2009 12:10 AM
Reply to: Message 94 by traste
04-21-2009 11:53 PM


Ruination
Your reasoning showed that you have a very little understanding in physics,read more.The second law stated that if things left unattended it will become a ruin.For example abandoned your haus and it will become a ruin.So if nobody cares about the universe,"Why it will not become a ruin"?Put this question in your coconut shell.

It is you that has very, very little understanding of physics.

That is not what the 2nd law says. It is a highly simplified example to give a flavor of what entropy is about.

It also does not imply: "So if nobody cares about the universe,"Why it will not become a ruin"

Thermodyamics does have bearing on any processes or mechanisms which affect your "haus" such as maintenance on it.

Since a "haus" is not an example that has anything at all to do with abiogenesis or evolution it is irrelevant here other than a demonstration that you don't know either subject at all.

If you wonder why it is a lousy analogy for evolution you should note that houses don't f**k. That is, in short, the difference.

If you wonder why it is a lousy analogy for abiogenesis you should note that 2x4s have no chemical affinity for each other.

When you understand those issues you will have begun to learn a little tiny bit about the subject at hand.

Edited by NosyNed, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by traste, posted 04-21-2009 11:53 PM traste has not yet responded

  
traste
Member (Idle past 2523 days)
Posts: 173
Joined: 02-09-2009


Message 97 of 128 (506042)
04-22-2009 12:21 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by JonF
04-13-2004 9:57 PM


Re; Fake LOGIC
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If abiogenesis is prohibited by the second law of thermodynamics, that's a problem that cannot be overcome
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What is the connection of this reasoning to exemplary logic?

Let see if you are really good in logic.Try this one.

Power tends to corrupt
Knowledge is power
Therefore knowledge tends to corrupt.

What is wrong with that argument?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by JonF, posted 04-13-2004 9:57 PM JonF has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by Theodoric, posted 04-22-2009 8:06 AM traste has not yet responded
 Message 102 by lyx2no, posted 04-22-2009 4:52 PM traste has not yet responded

    
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 5754
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 98 of 128 (506072)
04-22-2009 8:06 AM
Reply to: Message 97 by traste
04-22-2009 12:21 AM


Not logic
First of all you need to learn what logic is.

Your quaint aphorism,

Power tends to corrupt
Knowledge is power
Therefore knowledge tends to corrupt.

is not logic.

It is an aphorism or an adage.

I could give you definitions for these words, but will leave it to you. Maybe then you might learn something.


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by traste, posted 04-22-2009 12:21 AM traste has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by Wounded King, posted 04-22-2009 8:31 AM Theodoric has responded

    
Wounded King
Member (Idle past 1475 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Edinburgh, Scotland
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 99 of 128 (506075)
04-22-2009 8:31 AM
Reply to: Message 98 by Theodoric
04-22-2009 8:06 AM


Re: Not logic
Isn't it a syllogism? Albeit one comprised of bits of two separate adages/aphorisms.

A syllogism is a form of logical argument, it just isn't a compelling one unless we have good reason to accept the premises.

TTFN,

WK

Edited by Wounded King, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by Theodoric, posted 04-22-2009 8:06 AM Theodoric has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by Theodoric, posted 04-22-2009 10:15 AM Wounded King has not yet responded

    
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 5754
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 100 of 128 (506085)
04-22-2009 10:15 AM
Reply to: Message 99 by Wounded King
04-22-2009 8:31 AM


Re: Not logic
I would not say it is a syllogism because syllogisms make concrete statements

Major premise: All M are P.
Minor premise: All S are M.
Conclusion: All S are P.

If it is a syllogism it is a very poor one and not one that can be defended logically.

Then again there are much better logicians than me here so if I am wrong please correct me.

Basically my point was that he is using false logic.


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by Wounded King, posted 04-22-2009 8:31 AM Wounded King has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by PaulK, posted 04-22-2009 2:05 PM Theodoric has not yet responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 12563
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 101 of 128 (506097)
04-22-2009 2:05 PM
Reply to: Message 100 by Theodoric
04-22-2009 10:15 AM


Re: Not logic
It's not a very well written syllogism. The first premise would be better written "all power always corrupts", but if we are charitable and do not consider the meaning of the words it appears to be technically valid.

However, if we consider the intended meanings it seems likely that it includes an equivocation. For it to be truly valid the meaning of "power" must be exactly the same in both cases.

"Power corrupts" is a misquote. The original wording was "power tends to corrupt" (and note that this does not agree with the more rigourous wording I suggest above). And in context it referred to the political power of high office. Obviously the "power" that is knowledge is not identical to this power, so I would have to judge the syllogism invalid.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by Theodoric, posted 04-22-2009 10:15 AM Theodoric has not yet responded

    
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 2097 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 102 of 128 (506114)
04-22-2009 4:52 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by traste
04-22-2009 12:21 AM


Fail
Power tends to corrupt
Knowledge is power
Therefore knowledge tends to corrupt.
Your attempt to argue from the moral high ground ani't gonna' make it.

In Message 95 you asked

Let me ask you is a living organism closed system or open?
Maybe I missed its being answered but life is on open system. It includes the Sun. (or thermal vents or sulfide compounds…)

Over here you tried to make those nice, little, blue, quote boxes; therefore, your earlier argument that it wasn't your style was false. You just hadn't been able to figure it out. The reason you failed their was because you closed the quote with [q/s] rather then [/qs]. No big deal, but ,dang, it would be a lot easier to figure out what you mean if you'd use the nice, little, blue, quote boxes.

Edited by lyx2no, : Add "earlier" url


Genesis 2
17 But of the ponderosa pine, thou shalt not eat of it; for in the day that thou shinniest thereof thou shalt sorely learn of thy nakedness.
18 And we all live happily ever after.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by traste, posted 04-22-2009 12:21 AM traste has not yet responded

  
Creation Guy
Junior Member (Idle past 2712 days)
Posts: 16
From: NJ
Joined: 08-15-2009


Message 103 of 128 (519649)
08-15-2009 8:48 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by RAZD
04-12-2004 4:43 PM


The second LAW of thermodynamics is often a law that is tossed about by creationists. This is a good argument because the law is one of entropy - that everthing from stars to cars are falling apart and winding down.

This means there was an ordered creation OR special evolutionary magic that only occurs when unobserved. Both of these events creation and evolutionary magic are unobserved and therefore the belief in either is not science it is religion.
Off topic material hidden


Abiogenesis dictates that life can come from nonlife. Biologists might believe this to be true or they might want it to be true - but are unable to replicate much in a jar with all the right chemicals. Maybe one day they will along with the warp coil and deflector shield. Until such time abiogenesis is fantasy. Even when we do make it happen it only proves that you need intelligence to make life.

Evolution has broad meanings from stellar evolution to micro-evolution. I would submit that all but micro-evolution are theory. Stellar birth has not been ever seen to occur. Nova will tell you this if it asked directly. There are some dust clouds and some bright spots, but as fusion researchers know - a self sustaining fusion reaction is not easy - especially in the vast reaches of space where Boyles law dictates that gasses move to fill the container they are in evenly. the container being the galaxy - they would never choose to coaleces and even if they did would never tightly compact to form anything.

Boyles Law and the 2nd law are Laws because we can prove them. They trump theories hand down. If you have a theory which goes against, as evolution does, the laws we know - one is wrong.
Off topic material hidden


What has happened for a hundred or so years now is that the theory of evolution has been placed in a glass case and no law can influence it. No way. It is God in science. Laws do not effect it.

The moon has been impacted with meteors, sunshine, and comets for as long as we have. I see no order on the moon. the capture theory was disproved long ago as well. The only reason it hangs out, the theory not the moon, is that if it wasnt captured - it might have been created there.

The word create is the anti-thesis of modern science.

Edited by AdminNosy, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by RAZD, posted 04-12-2004 4:43 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by Coyote, posted 08-15-2009 10:26 PM Creation Guy has not yet responded
 Message 105 by cavediver, posted 08-16-2009 7:02 AM Creation Guy has responded
 Message 106 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 08-16-2009 2:20 PM Creation Guy has responded
 Message 117 by Theodoric, posted 08-16-2009 7:57 PM Creation Guy has not yet responded

    
Coyote
Member
Posts: 5650
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 104 of 128 (519661)
08-15-2009 10:26 PM
Reply to: Message 103 by Creation Guy
08-15-2009 8:48 PM


Re: Theories and laws
Boyles Law and the 2nd law are Laws because we can prove them. They trump theories hand down. If you have a theory which goes against, as evolution does, the laws we know - one is wrong.

What has happened for a hundred or so years now is that the theory of evolution has been placed in a glass case and no law can influence it. No way. It is God in science. Laws do not effect it.

Here is a good definition of "theory:"

Theory: a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses. Theories do not grow up to be laws. Theories explain laws.

Theory: A scientifically testable general principle or body of principles offered to explain observed phenomena. In scientific usage, a theory is distinct from a hypothesis (or conjecture) that is proposed to explain previously observed phenomena. For a hypothesis to rise to the level of theory, it must predict the existence of new phenomena that are subsequently observed. A theory can be overturned if new phenomena are observed that directly contradict the theory. (Source)

When a scientific theory has a long history of being supported by verifiable evidence, it is appropriate to speak about "acceptance" of (not "belief" in) the theory; or we can say that we have "confidence" (not "faith") in the theory. It is the dependence on verifiable data and the capability of testing that distinguish scientific theories from matters of faith.

And a definition of "law:"

Law: a generalization that describes recurring facts or events in nature; "the laws of thermodynamics."

Laws are often expressed as mathematical formulas, and are very limited in scope. And, as noted above, theories explain laws.
Off topic material hidden


The word create is the anti-thesis of modern science.

You are correct. Creationism is the antithesis of science. One relies on evidence and verification of that evidence, while the other relies on "divine" revelation, scripture, belief, myth, and a number of other non-empirical forms of "evidence."

Read up a bit on science, and leave those creationist websites alone for a while. Your posts will be a lot more accurate for it.

Edited by AdminNosy, : No reason given.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by Creation Guy, posted 08-15-2009 8:48 PM Creation Guy has not yet responded

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 1024 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 105 of 128 (519681)
08-16-2009 7:02 AM
Reply to: Message 103 by Creation Guy
08-15-2009 8:48 PM


in the vast reaches of space where Boyles law dictates that gasses move to fill the container they are in evenly. the container being the galaxy - they would never choose to coaleces and even if they did would never tightly compact to form anything.

Boyle's Law certainly does not dictate this. Do you actually know Boyle's Law? And this atmosphere of ours - what is it contained by? What could possibly make all the gases around us compact themselves against this planet? Why are these gases not expanding filling the galaxy?
Off topic material hidden


I would answer the rest of your post, but it is even more stupid than the above and I would rather gnaw off my own leg than waste time on it.

Edited by AdminNosy, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by Creation Guy, posted 08-15-2009 8:48 PM Creation Guy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by Creation Guy, posted 08-16-2009 2:28 PM cavediver has not yet responded

  
Prev1
...
456
7
89Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017