Understanding through Discussion

QuickSearch

 EvC Forum active members: 50 (9182 total)
 5 online now: Newest Member: Wes Bailey Post Volume: Total: 918,350 Year: 5,607/9,624 Month: 13/619 Week: 2/47 Day: 1/1 Hour: 1/0

EvC Forum Science Forums Human Origins and Evolution

# THE END OF EVOLUTION?

Author Topic:   THE END OF EVOLUTION?
Member (Idle past 3231 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008

 Message 106 of 284 (504411) 03-27-2009 10:57 PM Reply to: Message 85 by LucyTheApe03-27-2009 8:06 PM

Re: Evolution is a fraud
Lucy writes:
Percy writes:
But not in the way you've been describing. Perpetual motion machines are impossible because of the 2LoT. Entropy MUST increase or remain the same. Performing work while losing no energy requires a net decrease in entropy - impossible in a clsoed system.
A closed system? Where?
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.
According to the 2nd law the universe should be soup.
In what way? You make a claim please clarify.
The laws of thermodynamics are universal laws. The only reason we talk about TD in closed systems is because they're mathematical principals, and in maths we need boundaries.
They apply even though we don't have any closed systems. Its just that we really can't say anything about them. Which actually is the case.
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.
Lucy writes:
Very similar to how Rhavin did. Also see my first paragraph about perpetual machines and entropy.
Lucy writes:
Myself writes:
#1 You need to define the terms "information" and "process".
#2 You need to provide clear cut evidence to back up this claim.
Can you please go to the corner store and get some milk.
Ok, I'm on my way.
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

 This message is a reply to: Message 85 by LucyTheApe, posted 03-27-2009 8:06 PM LucyTheApe has not replied

Member (Idle past 3231 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008

 Message 107 of 284 (504412) 03-27-2009 11:07 PM Reply to: Message 97 by LucyTheApe03-27-2009 9:43 PM

Re: Evolution is a fraud
The fact is that things are ordered.
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

 This message is a reply to: Message 97 by LucyTheApe, posted 03-27-2009 9:43 PM LucyTheApe has not replied

LucyTheApe
Inactive Member

 Message 108 of 284 (504413) 03-27-2009 11:33 PM Reply to: Message 105 by Coyote03-27-2009 10:54 PM

Re: Level of Discourse
Coyote writes:
I have learned enough to recognize that you are posting science based on religious belief, not science based on the scientific method.
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.

 This message is a reply to: Message 105 by Coyote, posted 03-27-2009 10:54 PM Coyote has replied

 Replies to this message: Message 110 by Coyote, posted 03-27-2009 11:58 PM LucyTheApe has not replied

subbie
Member (Idle past 1384 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006

 Message 109 of 284 (504414) 03-27-2009 11:56 PM Reply to: Message 94 by LucyTheApe03-27-2009 9:36 PM

Re: Evolution is a fraud
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 Obama
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

 This message is a reply to: Message 94 by LucyTheApe, posted 03-27-2009 9:36 PM LucyTheApe has not replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2236 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008

 Message 110 of 284 (504415) 03-27-2009 11:58 PM Reply to: Message 108 by LucyTheApe03-27-2009 11:33 PM

Re: Level of Discourse
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.
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.

 This message is a reply to: Message 108 by LucyTheApe, posted 03-27-2009 11:33 PM LucyTheApe has not replied

Posts: 4755
Joined: 11-11-2003

 Message 111 of 284 (504416) 03-28-2009 12:09 AM Reply to: Message 103 by LucyTheApe03-27-2009 10:36 PM

Not acceptable
First lose your apriori disposition. Then we'll talk. Next week.
Too much attitude; too little content. Don't waste posts.

 This message is a reply to: Message 103 by LucyTheApe, posted 03-27-2009 10:36 PM LucyTheApe has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17862
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.8

 Message 112 of 284 (504419) 03-28-2009 5:31 AM Reply to: Message 85 by LucyTheApe03-27-2009 8:06 PM

Re: Evolution is a fraud
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.

 This message is a reply to: Message 85 by LucyTheApe, posted 03-27-2009 8:06 PM LucyTheApe has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22721
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.9

 Message 113 of 284 (504422) 03-28-2009 6:17 AM Reply to: Message 97 by LucyTheApe03-27-2009 9:43 PM

Re: Evolution is a fraud
LucyTheApe writes:
The second law as it applies physically is not what I'm on about here.
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?
Everyone seems to have a good understanding of the 2nd law.
One less than you seem to think.
I just wanted to extend entropy to the transfer of information.
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

 This message is a reply to: Message 97 by LucyTheApe, posted 03-27-2009 9:43 PM LucyTheApe has replied

 Replies to this message: Message 114 by LucyTheApe, posted 03-28-2009 10:08 AM Percy has replied

LucyTheApe
Inactive Member

 Message 114 of 284 (504441) 03-28-2009 10:08 AM Reply to: Message 113 by Percy03-28-2009 6:17 AM

Re: Evolution is a fraud
Percy writes:
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.
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 writes:
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, 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.

 This message is a reply to: Message 113 by Percy, posted 03-28-2009 6:17 AM Percy has replied

 Replies to this message: Message 116 by Son, posted 03-28-2009 11:17 AM LucyTheApe has not replied Message 118 by Percy, posted 03-28-2009 7:46 PM LucyTheApe has not replied Message 119 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 03-29-2009 9:45 AM LucyTheApe has replied Message 120 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 03-29-2009 9:56 AM LucyTheApe has not replied Message 121 by bluescat48, posted 03-29-2009 3:28 PM LucyTheApe has not replied

Posts: 4755
Joined: 11-11-2003

 Message 115 of 284 (504442) 03-28-2009 11:12 AM

General Topic Reminder for All
The Laws of Thermodynamics will remain the topic of this thread, please.

Son
Member (Idle past 3959 days)
Posts: 346
From: France,Paris
Joined: 03-11-2009

 Message 116 of 284 (504443) 03-28-2009 11:17 AM Reply to: Message 114 by LucyTheApe03-28-2009 10:08 AM

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

 This message is a reply to: Message 114 by LucyTheApe, posted 03-28-2009 10:08 AM LucyTheApe has not replied

 Replies to this message: Message 117 by AdminNosy, posted 03-28-2009 11:26 AM Son has not replied

Posts: 4755
Joined: 11-11-2003

 Message 117 of 284 (504444) 03-28-2009 11:26 AM Reply to: Message 116 by Son03-28-2009 11:17 AM

Deleting messages
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.)

 This message is a reply to: Message 116 by Son, posted 03-28-2009 11:17 AM Son has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22721
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.9

 Message 118 of 284 (504461) 03-28-2009 7:46 PM Reply to: Message 114 by LucyTheApe03-28-2009 10:08 AM

Re: Evolution is a fraud
LucyTheApe writes:
Percy writes:
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
LucyTheApe writes:
Percy, and Coyote, where have I ever disagreed with the use of the scientific method.
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

 This message is a reply to: Message 114 by LucyTheApe, posted 03-28-2009 10:08 AM LucyTheApe has not replied

Member (Idle past 3231 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008

 Message 119 of 284 (504472) 03-29-2009 9:45 AM Reply to: Message 114 by LucyTheApe03-28-2009 10:08 AM

Re: Evolution is a fraud
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.
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.
I have no doubt that information theory will kill the TOE
The scientific method is good for quantitive analysis. My problem lies with what you guys teach the kids. !
The scientific method was developed over millenium as an accumulation of the best practices to learn about the world around us.
You tell them that quantitive analysis is fact. Its not!
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

 This message is a reply to: Message 114 by LucyTheApe, posted 03-28-2009 10:08 AM LucyTheApe has replied

 Replies to this message: Message 125 by LucyTheApe, posted 04-03-2009 8:18 AM DevilsAdvocate has replied

Member (Idle past 3231 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008

 Message 120 of 284 (504473) 03-29-2009 9:56 AM Reply to: Message 114 by LucyTheApe03-28-2009 10:08 AM

Re: Evolution is a fraud
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.
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

 This message is a reply to: Message 114 by LucyTheApe, posted 03-28-2009 10:08 AM LucyTheApe has not replied

 Date format: mm-dd-yyyy Timezone: ET (US)