I've been away from the computer for a while, and sadly the topic where Jerry and I were discussing his calculation was closed. The conversation was getting a bit messy anyway, so I would just like to comment on your calculation one more time and get a response. The original conversation started with this message:
http://
EvC Forum: Intelligent Design in Universities -->
EvC Forum: Intelligent Design in Universities
The calculation was
quote:
I then introduced the mathematics to show this deterioration of the human genome in order to quantify it: I began by throwing out a formula from The University of New South Wales, physics department:
This states that W will equal a factorial relationship of the differences of what we are considering (accumulating deleteriously mutated genes as opposed to the rest of the genome) or W = (41469.4 + 1.6)! / (41469.4)!(1.6)! ~ (So let's just calculate our weight and then we can go to Boltzmann's math to calculate entropy.
W = (41469.4 + 1.6)! / (41469.4)!(1.6)! --- 3.66 x 10^173494 / 2.14 x 10^173487
W = 1.71 x 10^7
Now we can do Boltzmann's math:
S = K log W, S = (1.38 x 10^-23) log(1.71 x 10^7)
S = 9.98 x 10^-23
There is more than one way to skin a cat, of course. I can stick joules and degrees Kelvin in Boltzmann's formula for the math purest, but most no longer do this.
This math shows the macroevolution inherent in Darwinism standing refuted both scientifically (the study) and mathematically because our final calculation shows increasing entropy in the human genome and therefore disorganization in that genome for the last 6 million years. There is no evidence it has been any different in the annals of human history.
Jerry is putting nucleotides into two categories for this calculation, ancestral and deleteriously mutated. After this, he uses the equation (N1+N2)!/(N1!N2!) to calculate the supposed gain in entropy of the genome after one generation of deleterious mutations using the Eyre-Walker results of 1.6 per generation.
So here's my counter, using a Reductio Ad Adsurdum type argument. It's very simple.
Jerry supposes the entropy will go up from some ideal ancestral state, and this will be correlated with an information loss. He uses the calculation above.
N1 will represent ancestral nucleotides, N2 will represent deleteriously mutated nucleotides. The original entropy, before the mutations, is:
(N1+0)!/(N1!0!)=1
After one round of mutations:
(N1+N2)!(N1!N2)!> 1
Eventually, we'll reach a point where we have more deleterious mutations than we have ancestral nucleotides. After this, entropy will begin to decrease.
So, the more deleterious mutations that accumlate after that point, the more the entropy will decrease until it reaches 1 again.
This goes against the original statement that "an increase in entropy is correlated with a loss of information", since now a decrease in entropy will be correlated with a loss of information.
It also goes against the notion that entropy is measure of disorder, since as disorder goes up (in the sense that information is being lost) entropy decreases. This seems absurd.
I would like to remind Jerry that entropy is a state function, and doesn't depend on the path taken to get that particular state. So replying that an organism will be extinct by the time the mutations reach that level is not a counterargument. It's also way off target since we are not talking about an
organism but the entropy associated with the
genome. The fate of the organism after the change in the genome isn't relevant.
So to summarize, if I have understood the calculation, it seems that a decrease in information can result in a decrease in entropy (not an increase).
Anyone is welcome to comment, especially if they see an error in my reasoning.
This message has been edited by JustinC, 05-12-2005 06:53 PM
™ Version 4.2