Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Truth About Evolution and Religion
dkroemer
Member (Idle past 5054 days)
Posts: 125
From: Brooklyn, New York
Joined: 05-15-2010


Message 331 of 419 (561888)
05-24-2010 7:23 AM
Reply to: Message 328 by fizz57102
05-24-2010 6:34 AM


Re: Evolution and the Second Law of Thermodynamics
Dear PhD in Physics:
What is wrong with my argument? Do you agree that there is no explanation for the big bang, the origen of life, and common descent? Isn't true that the problem with explaining the evolution of life from random mutations comes from of the second law of thermodynamics? Doesn't the second law state that it is impossible to get four perfect bridge hands in 13 billion years?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 328 by fizz57102, posted 05-24-2010 6:34 AM fizz57102 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 333 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-24-2010 8:10 AM dkroemer has not replied
 Message 334 by subbie, posted 05-24-2010 8:23 AM dkroemer has not replied
 Message 335 by fizz57102, posted 05-24-2010 8:46 AM dkroemer has not replied
 Message 338 by AZPaul3, posted 05-24-2010 10:28 AM dkroemer has not replied
 Message 339 by Modulous, posted 05-24-2010 10:50 AM dkroemer has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 332 of 419 (561890)
05-24-2010 7:39 AM
Reply to: Message 326 by dkroemer
05-24-2010 4:55 AM


More amusing blather?
Hi dkroemer, you're just repeating yourself ...
... even after being shown to be wrong. Again.
With this in mind, the probability of getting a protein from a soup of amino acids is the reciprical of 20600.
Except that it isn't, and you should know this now, as it has been demonstrated that your calculation does not calculate the probability properly\correctly. See Message 305
quote:
The probability of the first bond forming is not (1/20), because any one of the 51 bonds can form first.
To calculate this mathematical probability properly, first we calculate the probability that not one of the bonds forms, and the mathematical probability of this bonding {not} occurring is:
p{NOT}51 = {1-(1/20}51 = 0.07310 or 1 in 13.7

And this means that the probability of the first bond forming is actually:
p51 = 1-p{NOT}51 = 1-{1-(1/20}51 = 0.92690 or 1 in 1.079

Almost a sure thing eh?
and Message 312 again.
quote:
The longer the overall molecule chain is, the more likely it is that any bond between ANY two amino acids will replicate one of the bonds in the overall molecule chain, so the longer the molecule is, the more the probability of this first bond approaches 1.
When it is done for a 600 molecule chain with 599 bonds between amino acids, the probability of the first bond NOT forming is:
p{NOT}599 = {1-(1/20}599 =4.5336e-14
Then you subtract this from 1 to find the probability than ONE of the 599 bonds in the overall molecule chain will form:
p599 = 1-p{NOT}599 = 1-{1-(1/20}599 =0.999999999999955
or 1 in 1.000000000000045
Or almost certain to form, as predicted above.
Why do you only do a calculation for a protein with only 50 amino acid?
Because the purpose is to show that the (1/20)x method of calculation is wrong. In the case of 52 molecules it is off by 54 ORDERS OF MAGNETUDE -- a pretty large error eh?
And even this does not model all the ways that such a molecule can be formed by natural processes.
Nor does it model the chemical limitations on which bonds can form and which cannot. If A never bonds with C due to chemical limitations, then including AC in any other set of combinations to calculate the total possible variations means these calculations are false\wrong\incorrect\bogus.
These are simple concepts to understand.
Understanding them means that you won't repeat the nonsense that the probability is in any way calculated by 20600.
Because it is silly to keep repeating false information.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 326 by dkroemer, posted 05-24-2010 4:55 AM dkroemer has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 333 of 419 (561892)
05-24-2010 8:10 AM
Reply to: Message 331 by dkroemer
05-24-2010 7:23 AM


Re: Evolution and the Second Law of Thermodynamics
Dear PhD in Physics:
What is wrong with my argument? Do you agree that there is no explanation for the big bang, the origen of life, and common descent? Isn't true that the problem with explaining the evolution of life from random mutations comes from of the second law of thermodynamics? Doesn't the second law state that it is impossible to get four perfect bridge hands in 13 billion years?
The word "no" comes to mind.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 331 by dkroemer, posted 05-24-2010 7:23 AM dkroemer has not replied

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 1254 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 334 of 419 (561894)
05-24-2010 8:23 AM
Reply to: Message 331 by dkroemer
05-24-2010 7:23 AM


Re: Evolution and the Second Law of Thermodynamics
I estimate that the odds of a Ph.D. in physics having such a gross misunderstanding of the 2LoT are 1 in 10^7. I further estimate that the odds of a Ph.D. not being able to spell the word origin are 1 in 10^5. Thus, I estimate the odds that you are actually the holder of a Ph.D. are roughly 1 in 10^12.
What is wrong with my argument?
All available evidence demonstrates that you are unable to understand the answer to this question, given the multiple times that it has been explained to you in this thread by multiple participants. The only real question now is why anyone should continue the attempt, other than their own mental masturbation.

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus. -- Thomas Jefferson
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
It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate

This message is a reply to:
 Message 331 by dkroemer, posted 05-24-2010 7:23 AM dkroemer has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 340 by Peepul, posted 05-24-2010 11:45 AM subbie has seen this message but not replied

  
fizz57102
Junior Member (Idle past 4006 days)
Posts: 17
Joined: 05-24-2010


(1)
Message 335 of 419 (561897)
05-24-2010 8:46 AM
Reply to: Message 331 by dkroemer
05-24-2010 7:23 AM


Re: Evolution and the Second Law of Thermodynamics
dk,
In my post I am not addressing your overall argument, just two statements you made in your post no. 324. These statements presumably have something to do with your overall argument (otherwise, why did you make them?), so it makes sense to examine them in some detail before proceeding to the argument in its entirety.
I can summarise the conclusions of my post in the following two statements:
- the 2nd law of thermodynamics is not inconsistent with a local decrease of entropy, given an interaction with an external system;
and:
- the 2nd law of thermodynamics is not inconsistent with a local evolution (in the physical sense) from a probabilistically more likely situation to a less likely one, again given an interaction with an external system;
If you disagree, please post your rebuttal of my post no.328; if you agree, please say so and we will go on from there.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 331 by dkroemer, posted 05-24-2010 7:23 AM dkroemer has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 353 by lyx2no, posted 05-24-2010 5:02 PM fizz57102 has not replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 336 of 419 (561901)
05-24-2010 9:41 AM
Reply to: Message 326 by dkroemer
05-24-2010 4:55 AM


Re: Evolution and the Second Law of Thermodynamics
dkroemer writes:
The Earth and sun taken together is a closed system, so the second law applies.
Shall we take you as claiming that no starlight gets in, and no energy from the sun ever leaves?
Granted, starlight is relatively small. But this is mostly beside the point. Nobody is denying that the sun will eventually "burn out", and when it does then the conditions for life and evolution on earth will no longer exist. That does not support what you have been claiming.
dkroemer writes:
With this in mind, the probability of getting a protein from a soup of amino acids is the reciprical of 20600.
That may be the probabilty of getting a specific protein. However, it is not the probability of getting a protein, and it does not have the significance that you seem to think it has.
Edited by nwr, : spelling

This message is a reply to:
 Message 326 by dkroemer, posted 05-24-2010 4:55 AM dkroemer has not replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 337 of 419 (561903)
05-24-2010 9:44 AM
Reply to: Message 327 by dkroemer
05-24-2010 5:04 AM


Re: Amazingly, evolution STILL explains the diversity of life including complexity
dkroemer writes:
I explain why Darwinism is inconsistent with the second law of thermodyamics in post # 326.
What you have posted in Message 326 only shows that Darwinism will stop working in 5 billion years time, or so. It has no relevance to what is currently happening.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 327 by dkroemer, posted 05-24-2010 5:04 AM dkroemer has not replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 338 of 419 (561909)
05-24-2010 10:28 AM
Reply to: Message 331 by dkroemer
05-24-2010 7:23 AM


Re: Evolution and the Second Law of Thermodynamics
Isn't true that the problem with explaining the evolution of life from random mutations comes from of the second law of thermodynamics? Doesn't the second law state that it is impossible to get four perfect bridge hands in 13 billion years?
Of all the stupid ...
wait ...
Buzzsaw, is that you?
Edited by AZPaul3, : spelin

This message is a reply to:
 Message 331 by dkroemer, posted 05-24-2010 7:23 AM dkroemer has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 339 of 419 (561915)
05-24-2010 10:50 AM
Reply to: Message 331 by dkroemer
05-24-2010 7:23 AM


Re: Evolution and the Second Law of Thermodynamics
Isn't true that the problem with explaining the evolution of life from random mutations comes from of the second law of thermodynamics?
I have no doubt you'll ignore me, but just in case there is some part of you that is still possesses the capacity for understanding I'll say it anyway.
Could you tell me how much work life does?
The second law tells us that we cannot take the workable energy from the sun, perform 100% efficient work with it to evolve a population, recapture the energy with 100% success and use it to perform work with which to evolve a population.
Evolution does not claim to be an efficient process.
So what's the problem here?
I'll put it simply: Is it impossible for 2 x 1023 Joules of energy to be applied to generate complexity? That's how much energy life has (conservatively) to work with...per year.
Doesn't the second law state that it is impossible to get four perfect bridge hands in 13 billion years?
No. It states that things will tend towards thermal equilibrium. It doesn't mention Bridge. Nor is Bridge a system that does work.
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 331 by dkroemer, posted 05-24-2010 7:23 AM dkroemer has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 344 by dkroemer, posted 05-24-2010 1:04 PM Modulous has replied

  
Peepul
Member (Idle past 5018 days)
Posts: 206
Joined: 03-13-2009


Message 340 of 419 (561919)
05-24-2010 11:45 AM
Reply to: Message 334 by subbie
05-24-2010 8:23 AM


Re: Evolution and the Second Law of Thermodynamics
quote:
I estimate that the odds of a Ph.D. in physics having such a gross misunderstanding of the 2LoT are 1 in 10^7. I further estimate that the odds of a Ph.D. not being able to spell the word origin are 1 in 10^5. Thus, I estimate the odds that you are actually the holder of a Ph.D. are roughly 1 in 10^12.
I think you are overrating the spelling ability of physics Ph.D's!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 334 by subbie, posted 05-24-2010 8:23 AM subbie has seen this message but not replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 341 of 419 (561922)
05-24-2010 12:50 PM
Reply to: Message 326 by dkroemer
05-24-2010 4:55 AM


Re: Evolution and the Second Law of Thermodynamics
The Earth and sun taken together is a closed system, so the second law applies.
Let's assume this is correct, which it isn't as has been pointed out, but we'll take this as axiom.
The laws of thermodynamics then require that the amount of energy available for useful work within this system decrease over time.
There are two sources of thermal energy for this planet.
The sun is by far the largest. It produces an enormous amount of energy that flows out into the system becoming ever thinner (inverse square rule) until a local equilibrium is reached in the outer reaches of the system; no thermodynamic excess for useful work. The sun is a mega-entropy producer.
On this planet, however, the amount of the sun's energy we receive is well beyond the point of local equilibrium.
The other source of thermal energy is our spinning planetary core. This also produces an enormous amount of thermodynamic excess.
Between these two sources we exist within an enormously huge thermodynamic excess.
Now please pay attention since you have missed this in your one-sided treatment of thermodynamics.
The laws of thermodynamics not just allow but require that in areas of thermodynamic excess, useful work, structure and order, a decrease in entropy has to occur.
This is why we have plate tectonics, clouds, Hagen-Dazs Ice Cream and life.
So you can consider the sun-Earth system as thermodynamically closed yet still have the local thermodynamic excess required for life to form, evolve and play bridge.
BTW, no matter the order of the deck, just the existence of the deck of cards is a decrease in entropy. The thermodynamic excess we enjoy allowed their manufacture, which, when viewed in total is balanced by the increase in entropy (use of work) caused by the manufacturing process.
Your view of thermodynamics is errant. It has nothing to do with the mathematical probabilities of card order or molecules bumping into one another but everything to do with the flow of energy, excess, useful work to make decks of cards and put and keep the molecules together.
Edited by AZPaul3, : i wanted to
Edited by AZPaul3, : again

This message is a reply to:
 Message 326 by dkroemer, posted 05-24-2010 4:55 AM dkroemer has not replied

  
dkroemer
Member (Idle past 5054 days)
Posts: 125
From: Brooklyn, New York
Joined: 05-15-2010


Message 342 of 419 (561924)
05-24-2010 12:55 PM
Reply to: Message 328 by fizz57102
05-24-2010 6:34 AM


Re: Evolution and the Second Law of Thermodynamics
If the molecules of a gas in a container move to one side, that side may or may not heat up. What if all the low kinetic energy molecules move to one side of the container? I don't know about the temperature. There is no interaction with an outside system in this thought experiment. Such a movement of gas molecules violates the second law of thermodynamics.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 328 by fizz57102, posted 05-24-2010 6:34 AM fizz57102 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 343 by Coyote, posted 05-24-2010 1:03 PM dkroemer has not replied
 Message 348 by fizz57102, posted 05-24-2010 2:53 PM dkroemer has replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 343 of 419 (561926)
05-24-2010 1:03 PM
Reply to: Message 342 by dkroemer
05-24-2010 12:55 PM


Re: Evolution and the Second Law of Thermodynamics
Such a movement of gas molecules violates the second law of thermodynamics.
What is it with creationists and the 2nd law?
Can't you see the massive evidence that shows there was no violation of the 2nd law?
Things like genetics, the fossil record, etc.?
Or are you going to claim that those are flawed also?

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 342 by dkroemer, posted 05-24-2010 12:55 PM dkroemer has not replied

  
dkroemer
Member (Idle past 5054 days)
Posts: 125
From: Brooklyn, New York
Joined: 05-15-2010


Message 344 of 419 (561927)
05-24-2010 1:04 PM
Reply to: Message 339 by Modulous
05-24-2010 10:50 AM


Re: Evolution and the Second Law of Thermodynamics
The chance of getting four perfect bridge hands is 52 factorial. If everyone on Earth played bridge for 3.5 billion years, the chance of getting a perfect bridge hand is less than 0.0000000001 percent. This is the kind of calculation you have to understand in order to do statistical mechanics and thermodynamics. This is the basis of the second law of thermodynamics.
Darwinists--not trained biologists-- say evolution comes about because of chemicals jumping around chemically. Just like a deck of cards.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 339 by Modulous, posted 05-24-2010 10:50 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 345 by Straggler, posted 05-24-2010 1:13 PM dkroemer has replied
 Message 346 by nwr, posted 05-24-2010 1:43 PM dkroemer has not replied
 Message 347 by Modulous, posted 05-24-2010 1:48 PM dkroemer has replied
 Message 356 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-24-2010 5:35 PM dkroemer has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 345 of 419 (561928)
05-24-2010 1:13 PM
Reply to: Message 344 by dkroemer
05-24-2010 1:04 PM


Re: Evolution and the Second Law of Thermodynamics
The chance of getting four perfect bridge hands is 52 factorial. If everyone on Earth played bridge for 3.5 billion years, the chance of getting a perfect bridge hand is less than 0.0000000001 percent. This is the kind of calculation you have to understand in order to do statistical mechanics and thermodynamics. This is the basis of the second law of thermodynamics.
I have a deck of cards. I have just arranged them into suits and number order.
Have I increased the order of the deck of cards? Have I violated the 2nd law of thermodynamics?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 344 by dkroemer, posted 05-24-2010 1:04 PM dkroemer has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 349 by dkroemer, posted 05-24-2010 3:14 PM Straggler has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024