Thermodynamics

Ther's a lot wrong with your post.Evolution is a scientific theory. It does not deal with the origin of life. It can be observed on a small scale in fast-breeding organisms (bacteria are good). It does not postulate a "law" of increasing organisation.To deal with thermo dynamics, one thign you have o understand is that the 2nd Law of thermodynamics does NOT propose that entropy is always increasing everywhere. Overall entropy is increasing. Local decreases in entropy are perfectly permissable (if they weren't then refrigerators would be impossible !). SO even if everythign else you say is right you can't say that evolution is against the 2nd Law of thermodynamics. To say that, you need to go into the details and actually show a real violation. Are you ready to do that ? Or even to try it ?

I think that the wikipedia description of a scientific theory is close to being right but a little too restrictive. A theory is a unifying explanation - as evolution provided a unifying explanation of the branching tree structure of taxonomy, the geographical distribution of life forms and the fossil record. Modern evolutionary theory also includes population genetics which certainly includes a significant amount of mathematics. Evolution is also capable of making predictions, even about what evidence of past events we will find, as in the case of the discovery of the Tiktaalik fossils recently.This page Parts is Parts includes a description of just on experiment in small-scale evolution on bacteria.

quote:

---

The refrigerator does remove heat energy from one area and releases it at another area. This would contradict the Second Law of Thermodynamics, however, everyone knows that a fridge has to be plugged into a power point to function as it was designed. This introduction of an outside power source negates your argument

---

That is absolutely wrong - it doesn't negate my argument at all. My point is that the fridge does NOT violate the 2LoT even though it produces a local decrease in entropy. Your argument doesn't negate my point - it confirms it. Local entroy decreases do not necessarily violate the 2LoT - AS YOU HAVE JUST CONFIRMED - therefore even if evolution produced a local entropy decrease you cannot use that fact alone to claim that evolution violates the 2LoT. So far from negating my argument, in fact you are agreeing with it !So are you prpeared to produce a more detailed examination which actually shows that evolution does violate the 2LoT ? Are you ready to even try to discuss the details ?

I see that you are making the usual creationist errors.Firstly information is not a single quantity. You cannot switch between measuring information by the variety in the gene pool to the content of an individual genome and get a valid answer. They are entirely separate things and need to be treated individually.Secondly you cannot simply equate increases in information or complexity to decreases in thermodynamic entropy. They are not the same thing. Where, for instance, in your example of a dog growing a horn would there be a decrease in thermodynamic entropy ?To illustrate my points, consider your claim that natural selection reduces information. Given a mixed population of horned and hornless dogs, if natural selection were to cause the hornless dogs to be replaced with horned dogs that would - according to you - be a decrease in information. But also accordign to you the horned dogs are more complex and contain more genetic information - so surely replacing a hornless dog with a horned dog is an increase in information.

No, I don't see any sign that anyone was misinterpeting Own3d's argument. Excpet perhaps for you. Own3D was quite clearly talking about thermodynamic entropy, not informational entropy.Your objection to my example simply misses the point. I am comparing information measured by gene diversity with information measured by genome contents (summing up the information content of individual genomes so that it can be applied to a population) and pointing out that a decrease in one can be an increase in the other. Information is NOT a single quantity. The measure you use DOES matter. YOu cannot validly switch from one measure to another. If you want to make a valid argument you have to choose a measure and stick to it.

quote:

---

A better example might be the existence of sheep and poll sheep (those that do not develop horns).

---

It wasn't my example.

quote:

---

The fact that they do not have horns does not represent biological evolution, it represents a loss of information from, not only the individual's genes, but also from the poll sheep group as a whole.

---

How do you know this ? Have you measured it ? Perhaps poll sheep have more genetic information than other breeds. And from what point do you measure the loss of information of the "group as a whole" ?
In fact if you are right about the poll sheep individuals having less information in their genes then the birth of the first hornless sheep would represent a loss of information from the perspective of the genome and a gain from the prespective of genetic diversity.Different measures of information work differently and you can't just swap between them to get the result you want - not honestly.

quote:

---

No. Because both breeds were there to begin with, now new information has been gained. In fact, information has been lost.

---

Who said anything about "new" information (whatever that means). And information has only been lost if you use genetic diversity as your measure. But you won't stick to that definiton, will you ? If you did then you'd have to admit that mutations create information - any mutation. The creationist information arguments are not only wrong - they are dishonest. You really need to think about the arguments carefully - creationism is all about deception. Don't let them fool you.But still this thread is supposed to be about thermodynamics. These information arguments aren't based on thermodynamics. They aren't even based on information theory. If you want to honestly discuss information arguments start a new thread - and choose as single measure of information and stick to it. Don't just change to a different measure just to get the result you want. That isn't honest - I know you're just copying common arguments but you really need to understand what you are saying rather than copying lies if you want a good discussion.