THE END OF EVOLUTION?

The very definition of a perpetial motion machine is that it never requires energy outside of itself to keep it in motion. Therefore a perpetual motion machine would be considered a closed system. However, there is no theoretical way of producing such a machine or any absolutely closed system and even if we could do so the 2 LoT would require this machine to eventually run down as a result of a net increase in entropy. In what way? You make a claim please clarify. We don't know absolutely if the universe is an absolute closed system but we treat it as such because we have no evidence to counter this assumption.Yes the LoT applies to open and closed systems but we can only observe the net effect in a closed system. Very similar to how Rhavin did. Also see my first paragraph about perpetual machines and entropy. This does nothing to further your argument. I asked for a scientific definition for your terms and you gave me vague, non sequitur examples.

---

For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
Dr. Carl Sagan

Wow, that's a scientific expression if I ever saw one!So there is no disorder in the universe? Entropy does not exist?All things are ordered? Which things? What do you mean by "things" and what do you mean by "ordered"?

---

For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
Dr. Carl Sagan

When I was young Coyote, I wanted to be an archeologist, and even till this day I wish I could be out digging up the past. The only American movies I can watch are Indi movies.I'm a scientist too, our disciplines are at odds, the way I see it. I don't think we can ever see eye to eye. We don't use the scientific method. Evidence plays no part in our science.

---

There no doubt exist natural laws, but once this fine reason of ours was corrupted, it corrupted everything. blz paskal

Wonderful!Tell me what the other possibility is, then.

---

For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack ObamaWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

If you do not follow the scientific method you have no right to call yourself a scientist.This is where creation "science" went wrong: creation "science" is a lie from the very beginning, as they are pretending they are scientists when they are not. They are trying to gain the respectability accorded to science when they are doing the exact opposite of science.Creation "science" is religious apologetics, and everyone buts its practitioners knows it.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Too much attitude; too little content. Don't waste posts.

quote:

---

Theoretical musings is what the theory of evolution is all about, isn't it?

---

Absolutely not. There is a huge amount of genuine research. The fact that you can only be bothered to read magazine and newspaper articles doesn't mean that is all that there is.Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

Again, I can't tell if this is nonsense or just a garbled restatement of something you read somewhere. Can you tell me where you're getting your information from? One less than you seem to think. 2LoT can be expressed in terms of work/energy, or in terms of entropy, or in informational terms (information theory includes a concept analogous to entropy and actually also called entropy). Just as measuring your house in metric instead of English units doesn't change its size, expressing 2LoT in informational terms doesn't change what is physically possible. You don't get one answer using an informational foundation and a different answer using a work/energy foundation.Your task is to explain why you think an information theoretic approach to thermodynamics would give you a different answer than the more traditional expressions of 2LoT. Again, it would be helpful if you could cite a source for your ideas.About something you wrote in another post: there's no such thing as a scientist who doesn't accept the scientific method, just as there's no such thing as a God-fearing atheist.--Percy

I can't give you a bibliography of the information in my brain. I don't watch tv and my work requires me to learn.The problem with extending entropy to infomation is this:
The 2nd law as it is observed relates to mass and energy.
Information is massless and therefore energyless. Mathematics allows us to move principals from one context to another. And test them.I have no doubt that information theory will kill the TOE. Percy, and Coyote, where have I ever disagreed with the use of the scientific method.The scientific method is good for quantitive analysis. My problem lies with what you guys teach the kids. You tell them that quantitive analysis is fact. Its not!

---

There no doubt exist natural laws, but once this fine reason of ours was corrupted, it corrupted everything. blz paskal

The Laws of Thermodynamics will remain the topic of this thread, please.

How do you delete messages? I didn't see the admin message when i typed that.Edited by Son, : No reason given.

You are doing it rite!(we don't delete messages at all here, we either hide content or edit and replace it with nothing. Deleting messes up the connections in the database.)

Are you saying that your position doesn't come from studying thermodynamics, and it doesn't come from someone else who's studied thermodynamics, it's just what you've cooked up in your own head? That's a nice common sense argument, but it's wrong. As I told you in my previous message, they're just different ways of looking at the same thing. An approach that focuses on the ability of a system to do work is one way, and an information theoretic approach that focuses on the number of states in a system is another. They'll both give you the same answer. The primary difference between the two is that in most real-world circumstances we don't know enough system details to take an information theoretic approach. In Message 108 you said, "I'm a scientist too...We don't use the scientific method. Evidence plays no part in our science."--Percy

Incorrect. You seem to not understand what information is. Information is data which is used to describe the "state" or "status" of something. Information in itself does not exist, without something to which it describes (and since this something exists, it is located within the spacetime of this universe).You cannot isolate information from the "something" to which it describes. Take this example: "The bird is blue". The "something" that exists is the bird. The information or data desribing this entity (the bird) is the color "blue". The color "blue" does not exist as a seperate entity unto itself. It is merely a description of how light reflects off of (and is absorbed by) objects.Therefore, this "something" (such as the bird) is some form of energy/matter in the universe, which itself is subject to the LoT. Therefore information is indirectly subject to the LoT the same with the physical energy/matter which it describes.Also, in the case of information transmission from one point of spacetime to another, the information is being carried using photons of electromagnetic energy which themselves are subject to the LoT. LOL, in what way? Broad, baseless claims with no evidence to support do not help your argument but just add to your discredit. The scientific method was developed over millenium as an accumulation of the best practices to learn about the world around us. This is an oversimplification of the scientific method. It also is comprised of qualitative analysis.So can you propose a better method for understanding the universe? Can your religious book send us to the moon, find cures for AIDS and other delibitating and life threatening diseases, eradicate plagues such a small pox which has killed hundreds of millions of people, discovere new methods of making food more safe, extend the lifespan of humans by over 200%, and increase knowledge of the universe by several thousand fold?BTW, I am not anti-religious (I have many friends and family that are Christians). In fact, I do believe that you can be a scientist and be a theist with no threat to science or technilogical advancement. However, extreme religious fundamentalism which attempts to undermine and water down the very foundations of science, as in the case of vehement creationists like yourself, is a danger to the survival of the whole human race. This just my opinion so take it for what it is worth.Again, I have yet to see any shred of hard evidence and data to support your anti-evolution rampage.Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : Fix spelling

---

For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
Dr. Carl Sagan

IOW, you are a one-way funnel for creationist propoganda. Just admit it

---

For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
Dr. Carl Sagan