Intelligent Design in Universities

Your claim that the entropy must increase in the system under study must consider the system to have no inputs of energy.In fact, this is incorrect. An evolving population has inputs into it. One manifestation of this is the selection of genenomes. Selection can weed out what you refer to as deleterious mutations and this negates your application of thermodynamics to this situation. That is spearate from the fact that thermodynamics (and the 2nd law in particular) are not intended to be applicable to the situation here.

Well, actually you are further proving my point with more equivocation. That's exactly my point. The generalized Boltzmann equation, and the Shannon entropy equation, are of the same form. They represent two different quantities, however.You used S= k ln W for your computation. I said you were assuming , without evidence, the the microstates were equiprobable. Those little p's with the little subscript i's are the microstate probabilities. If you assume the microstates are equiprobable, you get the simplified equation.That is why your calculation was completely specious. You can't assume equiprobability. Your arguent is doomed by a fundamental error from the start. More equivocation. You asserted that the human genome was "best when designed, and degraded over many generations". Now you are moving the goalposts by asserting one generation.Your posts are the very definition of pseudoscience - crafted to resemble science to a layperson, but with fatal, fundamental flaws
that are obvious to someone with some training.I see your errors, and so do others in this forum. That you are uncorrectable is regrettable, but not surprising. After all you aren't about to let your postmodern agenda be derailed by the facts.

Ned:

quote:

---

Your claim that the entropy must increase in the system under study must consider the system to have no inputs of energy.

---

Not quite. I did not assert that the entropy must increase in that system. But the study showed that it did. Sorry. There's the science. Science says macroevolution didn't happen. Math shows entropy actually increased.

quote:

---

In fact, this is incorrect. An evolving population has inputs into it. One manifestation of this is the selection of genenomes. Selection can weed out what you refer to as deleterious mutations and this negates your application of thermodynamics to this situation. That is spearate from the fact that thermodynamics (and the 2nd law in particular) are not intended to be applicable to the situation here.

---

The second law is a universal law of nature that applies to EVERYTHING. Another thing you are missing is that the study considered the deleterious mutations that were weeded out in natural selection and concluded that only about 38% of them were. This is stated in the abstract. The 1.6 accumulation is considered after natural selection has done its magic.Prigogine showed that systems maintain a far from equilibrium state by the flow of energy, which I believe is what you are touching on here. Organisms eat food, water heaters use gas or electricity to correct the situation every time the second law tries to take them to equilibrium with their environment.But how is there a flow of energy in genomes to keep them from detrimentally mutating? There isn't. This is what you are going to have to show to further your argument, I'm afraid.

---

Design Dynamics

quote:

---

I see your errors, and so do others in this forum. That you are uncorrectable is regrettable, but not surprising. After all you aren't about to let your postmodern agenda be derailed by the facts.

---

You haven't presented any facts. I bring my argument to you using references, usually from the science departments of respected universities. You come back with nothing more than your opinion, and even that supported by no math or science at all that can be addressed or cross-referenced.On what do you base your rebuttal? On the fact that you do not like what I presented because of your particular religious views? Yep.That doesn't cut it. Either bring a rebuttal based on science and math using references as I did or just be honest and admit you cannot. Your peers will better respect you. There's nothing dishonorable about simply admitting you are wrong.

quote:

---

That's exactly my point. The generalized Boltzmann equation, and the Shannon entropy equation, are of the same form. They represent two different quantities, however.
You used S= k ln W for your computation. I said you were assuming , without evidence, the the microstates were equiprobable. Those little p's with the little subscript i's are the microstate probabilities. If you assume the microstates are equiprobable, you get the simplified equation.

​

That is why your calculation was completely specious. You can't assume equiprobability. Your arguent is doomed by a fundamental error from the start.

---

This could not be any further from the truth. Random mutations ARE equiprobable as any nucleotide can mutate at any time in the transcription process where mutations normally occur (or any other scenario I can think of). To suggests that transcription stochastically favors certain mutations over others is simply a misunderstanding of biology.

quote:

---

More equivocation. You asserted that the human genome was "best when designed, and degraded over many generations". Now you are moving the goalposts by asserting one generation.

---

So what? I did not calculate many generations. You can calculate several generations if you want to, it's not that difficult. It's just a matter of extrapolating the average decay in one generation to as many as you want. This is not exactly brain surgery.

quote:

---

Your posts are the very definition of pseudoscience - crafted to resemble science to a layperson, but with fatal, fundamental flaws that are obvious to someone with some training.

---

LOL...Well there ya go, people. Paisano's sole argument is that he has some "training" and even though he does not know me, I must not because he disagrees with me. He presents no science, no math and absolutely nothing backed up with references to show one of his point to be correct and generally accepted by others that study this subject.I'm sorry my friend, your argument isn't rational. If you don't start posting some references as the rest of us do, I'm afraid I'm going to have to conclude that you simply stand by yourself trying to mask your faith as science. There's your pseudo-science by anyone's standards.This message has been edited by Jerry Don Bauer, 05-06-2005 02:21 AM

---

Design Dynamics

quote:

---

I don't see how creationists could support ID...they differ on too many KEY issues...

---

Wrong. The ID movement accepts and recognises creationism - including the Young Earth variety as a valid form of ID. Paul Nelson is a prominent member of the ID movement and a Young Earth Creationist.Why do you think that the ID movement specifically refuses to discuss the age of the Earth if not to keep Young Earth Creationists on board ?

quote:

---

Why do you think that the ID movement specifically refuses to discuss the age of the Earth if not to keep Young Earth Creationists on board ?

---

According to this they seem willing to state their opinion:Did Edwards vs. Aguillard Spawn Intelligent Design? No | Evolution News

You mean that ONE person on the ID side expressed the view that he personally agreed with the scientiifc view of the age of the Earth.Others refuse to take a position: Philip Johnson
Page Not Found: Explore TouchstoneAnd others beleive that the Earth is young, like Paul NelsonSo how can you say that Seelke represents the official position when more signfiicant figures like Johnson and Nelson take no position or even disagree ?And if ID is science why does it refuse to officially endorse the best scientific estimates age of the Earth - not even provisionally ?

Now Paul, you either are blinded by religion or you have a reading comprehension problem. ONE did not express that opinion, read what the danged article says:"His main question for each person was on their opinion of the age of the earth. All said it was billions of years old, except for William Harris who quipped he thought it was "really old."

quote:

---

Yep, correct. I was calculating S considering only a single generation. But you can bring an argument that I also could calculate deltaS, or the change in entropy from generation to generation. The formula you threw out is a valid one I am very familiar with. Or it works as well with simple subtraction such as deltaS = Sf - Si, or change in entropy is represented by final entropy minus initial entropy. It doesn't matter as long as we all use the same math to compare when we are quantifying the same system.

---

I'm still having a little trouble seeing the analogy with the gas molecules. I understand that W is a quantity that can be calculated with regard to a variety of states of matter (i.e., not just gases), but can the formula W= (N1+N2)!/N1!N2! be used in this particular situation?For the gas molecules, they can be in two states using the parameters from the web page you linked to: either on the right or left side. In your case, the nucleotides can be in either one of two states: ancestral or deleteriously mutated (assuming ancestral aren't deleteriously mutated for simplification). Is this correct?So, according to that equation for W, W is highest in the gaseous example when both states are equal in number. Therefore, entropy is highest in that case.How does this apply to mutations in the genome. Following the analogy, W is highest when half are ancestral and half are deleterious? Is this what you are trying to say? There is a limit to the amount of deleterious mutations that can occur in the a genome? Do deleterious mutations only increase entropy in the genome to a point, and then decrease it as more deleterious mutations take place.What relation are you trying to convey between deleterious mutations and entropy?I'm honestly not sure.This message has been edited by JustinC, 05-06-2005 03:37 AM

I can't be blinded by my religion since I don't have one.I apologise for missing the statement. I suppose I must have been deceived by the article's claim that If all the speakers admitted to an age of the Earth in the billions of years then why would one preempting the question cause a "derailment" ?And finally, this is still irrelevant to the point that the ID movement includes Young Earth Creationism.

quote:

---

I can't be blinded by my religion since I don't have one.

---

Everyone with an IQ of 100 or better has thought metaphysics through and has a religion. Your's just pegs on the negative end of the scale.

quote:

---

And finally, this is still irrelevant to the point that the ID movement includes Young Earth Creationism.

---

It certainly does; and old earth creationists, Jews, Muslims, agnostics and atheists. We don't particularly care what your religious views are.

---

Design Dynamics

quote:

---

It certainly does; and old earth creationists, Jews, Muslims, agnostics and atheists. We don't particularly care what your religious views are.

---

Don't forget us Jedi The Force is indeed intelligent in its own way...and it is strong in you, Jerry!

No, I don't have a religion. I guess you must be blinded by your religion.But I am glad that you agree with me that Limbo was wrong.

This is patently not the case. These papers show that a variety of different sources of mutation from environmental factors, such as UV and mutagens, to transcription itself show preferences for specific genetic conversion based on base identity or the local sequence or a number of other factors.Please provide any evidence you have that all mutations are equiprobable.Or would you consider such mutations not to be random anymore and therefore outwith the context of your statement? If so then the assumptions for your working, no matter how valid it is in and of itself, seem to be somewhat divorced from the realities of molecular genetics.TTFN,WKThis message has been edited by Wounded King, 05-06-2005 04:44 AM

quote:

---

I'm still having a little trouble seeing the analogy with the gas molecules. I understand that W is a quantity that can be calculated with regard to a variety of states of matter (i.e., not just gases), but can the formula W= (N1+N2)!/N1!N2! be used in this particular situation?

---

Yes, and in fact this is relatively old hat in infodynamics. Here is Durham University using combinatorials to calculate the entropy and macrostates of flipped coins:Page not found | Durham University CommunityBut I think the chart I use to teach this is much clearer (with Boltzmann's constant omitted): This is really the same formula broken down to (total elements)! / (subset)!(subset)!This works in any system where we need to compare the statistical weight of a comparison of subsets against the whole as in:(whole)! / (subset)!(subset)!(subset)!(subset)!........(n-subsets)!.

quote:

---

For the gas molecules, they can be in two states using the parameters from the web page you linked to: either on the right or left side. In your case, the nucleotides can be in either one of two states: ancestral or deleteriously mutated (assuming ancestral aren't deleteriously mutated for simplification). Is this correct?

---

It was two states in that particular gas system as there were only two chambers. Obviously systems can be designed with as many chambers as we care to have in them.In the genome example, for the purpose of simplicity, I was considering only two states much like Shannon considered his relay circuits as either off or on--i.e., genes mutating each generation from healthy to non-healthy. Two states. And in this case I can do so because that study did not include other options per generation. Just how many mutated to the deleterious state after selection had acted to remove what it would.

quote:

---

So, according to that equation for W, W is highest in the gaseous example when both states are equal in number. Therefore, entropy is highest in that case.

---

Yep. You have studied thermodynamics in a formal setting. I can tell because you are asking quite intelligent questions. Entropy (in the gas or other far from equilibrium systems, like people) expresses the equilibrium of a system. Once total equilibrium is attained by a system, entropy is at maximum. You may or not have read my postings from Schrodinger about this:"Schrodinger posited that maximum entropy--perfect equilibrium in the organism-- is
achieved at death. [2] And this makes sense. How could there be anything more at
equilibrium with itself and its environment than a cold, dead organism that isn‘t
functioning at all? Furthermore, how could anything be more disorganized than this same
organism? Nothing is organized adequately enough for anything to work. Yet it is
ordered because there is no chaos."Thus if we have a two chambered gas system (or anything similar) containing 100 molecules, when these molecules have distributed as far as they can distribute, that system is perfectly ordered, but totally disorganized; and entropy is maximum.It might help you to read a paper I recently wrote on this terminology:http://designdynamics.org/order.pdf

quote:

---

How does this apply to mutations in the genome. Following the analogy, W is highest when half are ancestral and half are deleterious? Is this what you are trying to say? There is a limit to the amount of deleterious mutations that can occur in the a genome?

---

It could appear that way if the system were other than a far from equilibrium, living system. Just looking at the graph above we can see that maximum entropy with the 4 coins is two heads and two tails. So technically, you are correct again.But the reality is, the organism will not be alive long enough to allow a genome to reach anywhere near a state of (100%)! / (50% ancestral)!(50% deleterious)! because this would mean that 50% of the proteins in our body transcribed by genes, just would not work the way they were initially designed to work.The researchers (especially James Crow, an interpreter) toyed with this question: If we are carrying upwards of a thousand harmful mutations and they are accumulating slightly with each generation, why are we not in mutational meltdown and going into extinction?1000 mutations are not that many when you consider all of the protein coding regions that COULD mutate.

quote:

---

Do deleterious mutations only increase entropy in the genome to a point, and then decrease it as more deleterious mutations take place.

---

No, if deleterious mutations are to increase arithmetically each generation, they will increase until a population enters mutational meltdown, which old-schoolers like me might know as error catastrophe. At this point, the population enters a rapid descent off the graph into extinction. Here is the type of graph I am referring to: If that population is to be saved, it must receive a fresh source of genes into the gene-pool long before it reaches the critical meltdown stage.

---

Design Dynamics