|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 59 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,927 Year: 4,184/9,624 Month: 1,055/974 Week: 14/368 Day: 14/11 Hour: 2/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 5085 days) Posts: 125 From: Brooklyn, New York Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Truth About Evolution and Religion | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
dkroemer writes:
Actually, it isn't. In fact, probabilities are at most 1, so you are way off.The chance of getting four perfect bridge hands is 52 factorial. If we assume that you really meant 1/52!, then you are still wrong as Straggler shows in Message 345. And if we assume that you intended an additional condition, that the hands were dealt completely randomly, then you are still wrong. In that case it should be
You don't much help your credibility when you make such obvious mistakes.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined:
|
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. Unless work is done to sort them. You agree that work can be done to sort them, right? So given life receives as much energy as I indicated before, how is it impossible for work to be done in creating complex life forms? by the way: as you successfully demonstrated the second law of thermodynamics does not state that a perfect bridge game is impossible. You demonstrated that with an insufficient number of trials it is improbable. Likewise with sufficient trials it is highly probable.
Darwinists--not trained biologists-- say evolution comes about because of chemicals jumping around chemically. Just like a deck of cards. Whatever you mean by 'Darwinist' let us agree that should such an entity exist - they are wrong, as everybody has been agreeing over and over again in this thread all along. Trained biologists know that thermodynamics is not an impediment to biological evolution.
This guy, for instance:
quote: the abstract from the paper, On the logical relationship between natural selection and self-organization. Or as he said in an interview:
quote: Source.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
fizz57102 Junior Member (Idle past 4037 days) Posts: 17 Joined:
|
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. 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. Fail. You didn't even understand the question. What would happen to the gas in the container if one end is kept hotter than the other (an external system is obviously required to do this). dk, you seem to be unable to answer the simple yes/no questions I put in my previous posts, questions covered in any elementary course in thermodynamics. You obviously think you know enough physics to challenge Dawkins' application of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. So what's keeping you?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dkroemer Member (Idle past 5085 days) Posts: 125 From: Brooklyn, New York Joined: |
Yes, you increased the knowledge of the location of the cards. When you shuffle the deck, there will be less knowledge, less order or more entropy. If you claim that upon shuffling the deck for a few years many thousands of times a second by a computer that you got back the original order you started with, you would be violating the second law of thermodynamics.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dkroemer Member (Idle past 5085 days) Posts: 125 From: Brooklyn, New York Joined: |
Dawkins said:
"When creationists say, as they frequently do, that the theory of evolution contradicts the Second Law of Thermodynamics, they are telling us no more than that they don’t understand the Second Law (we already knew that they don’t understand evolution). There is no contraction, because of the sun!energy from the sun powers life, to coax and stretch the laws of physics and chemistry to evolve prodigious feats of complexity, diversity , beauty, and an uncanny illusion of statistical improbability and deliberate designNatural selection is an improbability pump: a process that generates the statistically improbable. It systematically seizes the minority of random changes that have what it takes to survive, and accumulates them, step by tiny step over unimaginable timescales, until evolution eventually climbs mountains of improbability and diversity, peaks whose height and range seem to know no limit, the metaphorical mountain that I have called ‘Mount Improbable’Life evolves greater complexity only because natural selection drives it locally away from the statistically probable towards the improbable. (p. 415 of the Greatest Show on Earth) Notice that he says the energy of the sun generated "improbability." Anyone who understands the second law knows that it was the decrease in entropy of the sun that caused the entropy of living organisms to increase.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dkroemer Member (Idle past 5085 days) Posts: 125 From: Brooklyn, New York Joined: |
Your quotes prove what I am saying. The author is discussing the causes or mechanisms of evolution. At no time does he say, "We have explained common descent, not just the adaptation of species to their environment."
If you read my review of Dawkins book and the Gerhart-Kirschner book, you will see that serious biologists always mention "adaptation" and do not mention the complexity of life. Dawkins, as my review shows, talks out of both sides of his mouth.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2508 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
dkroemer writes: Anyone who understands the second law knows that it was the decrease in entropy of the sun that caused the entropy of living organisms to increase. Try:
Anyone who understands the second law knows that it is the increase in entropy of the sun that causes the entropy of the biosphere to decrease. Edited by bluegenes, : typo
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
lyx2no Member (Idle past 4747 days) Posts: 1277 From: A vast, undifferentiated plane. Joined: |
Welcome to EvC, fizz.
I think someone jumped the gun and whacked your first posting with a one. It wasn't a one. Maybe that whacker will see this message and go fix it. "Mom! Ban Ki-moon made a non-binding resolution at me." Mohmoud Ahmadinejad
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Yes, you increased the knowledge of the location of the cards. When you shuffle the deck, there will be less knowledge, less order or more entropy. If you claim that upon shuffling the deck for a few years many thousands of times a second by a computer that you got back the original order you started with, you would be violating the second law of thermodynamics. Of course you would eventually restore the order of the cards. So, either (a) your thought experiment with the computer disproves the second law of thermodynamics. (b) you don't understand the second law of thermodynamics. The second is (of course) the case. For two reasons. First, because (of course) every arrangement of the cards has the same entropy, and second because (of course) the computer and the shuffling mechanism would need a power source, and so would convert electricity into waste heat, increasing the net entropy of the universe.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined:
|
Straggler writes: 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? dkroemer writes: Yes, you increased the knowledge of the location of the cards. So as far as you are concerned I violated the 2nd law of thermodynamics by simply sorting cards into an ordered pile. Can you explain how I was able to defy this fundamental law of nature so simply and easily? Am I special or can anyone defy the 2nd law of thermodynamics if they so choose?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
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. No.
Darwinists--not trained biologists-- If by "Darwinists" you mean people who understand the theory of evolution, then this is a distinction without a difference.
say evolution comes about because of chemicals jumping around chemically. Of course all biologists know that biology is chemistry viewed at a higher level.
Just like a deck of cards. Of course no biologist thinks that chemistry is like a deck of cards, because they're not mad.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
Your quotes prove what I am saying. So you agree that complexity and diversity is a certainty borne out of the same principles at play in thermodynamics and that therefore a spontaneous increase in complexity does not pose a problem for thermodynamics at all. I'm glad we're on the same page. So why are you bringing complexity and thermodynamics up?
The author is discussing the causes or mechanisms of evolution. As far as I can tell, when he talks about 'organisation' he is talking about a concept akin to your 'complexity' which seems to imply some kind of specific arrangement of parts. Darwinism is 'descent with modification', not 'randomly juggled amino acids'. You can not find a single quote from a serious biologist that describes Darwinism as "The idea that evolution comes about because of chemicals jumping around chemically. Just like a deck of cards." You won't find any biologists that hold this strange view who aren't IDists, creationists or crazy in some fashion or another. (In the spirit that you meant it). Clearly, pure classic Darwinism is not a position that anybody I've ever come across who has spent a few hours reading about what Darwinism actually is and what neo-Darwinism is and whatever we want to call the present synthesis, 'The theory of evolution'. IF you are trying to show problems with Darwinism there are much better ways than trying to make some silly thermodynamic argument. But this topic is about evolution, surely? Am I right that you think that the increase in complexity is a normal and expected outcome for life? That an increase in complexity would constitute 'evolution'? You're only concern is that we can't explain that complexity merely referring to 'Darwinism', by which you mean 'randomly shuffling amino acids around'. But you are content that there are some biological/physics explanations for complexity out there, yes? I am hesitant to adopt the stance of attempting to seek agreement since you seem to respond more readily to hostility, but in for a penny, in for a pound.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dkroemer Member (Idle past 5085 days) Posts: 125 From: Brooklyn, New York Joined: |
The following is a quote from a biology textbook used by 65% of biology majors in the U. S. Notice that Campbell treats a protein just like a deck of cards. Nowhere in his book does he suggest Darwinism explains the existence of proteins.
"Each of the four identical polypeptide chains that together make up transthyretin is composed of 127 amino acidsThe primary structure is like the order of letters in a very long word. If left to chance, there would be 20127 different ways of making a polypeptide chain 127 amino acids long." (page 82, Biology by Campbell and Reece)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 765 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
If left to chance...... I think Mrs Cornwell called that a "conditional phrase" back in High School English class. What do Campbell and Reece say in the next few sentences? Or do I have to go look up for myself what that "if" anticipates? "The wretched world lies now under the tyranny of foolishness; things are believed by Christians of such absurdity as no one ever could aforetime induce the heathen to believe." - Agobard of Lyons, ca. 830 AD
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2508 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
Coragyps writes: I think Mrs Cornwell called that a "conditional phrase" back in High School English class. What do Campbell and Reece say in the next few sentences? Or do I have to go look up for myself what that "if" anticipates? You don't have to, and it's predictable. Next sentence:
"However, the precise primary structure of a protein is determined not by the random linking of amino acids, but by inherited genetic information." Much later, after a brief explanation of DNA and how mutations can change proteins, they say this:
quote:
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024