Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 50 (9179 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Post Volume: Total: 918,204 Year: 5,461/9,624 Month: 486/323 Week: 126/204 Day: 0/26 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   THE END OF EVOLUTION?
Peepul
Member (Idle past 5130 days)
Posts: 206
Joined: 03-13-2009


Message 29 of 284 (502770)
03-13-2009 9:02 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by LucyTheApe
03-13-2009 7:09 AM


Re: Evolution ended? Not!
quote:
The second law of thermodynamics holds right?
Yes, but strictly only to systems that are already in equilibrium. Extending it to non-equilibrium systems is an approximation.
Page not found – Darwiniana
quote:
The fact that classical thermodynamics is limited to equilibrium situations may come as a surprise. In introductory physics classes, students apply thermodynamics to dynamic systems such as car engines to calculate quantities such as efficiency. But these applications make an implicit assumption: that we can approximate a dynamic process as an idealized succession of equilibrium states. That is, we imagine that the system is always in equilibrium, even if the equilibrium shifts from moment to moment. Consequently, the efficiency we calculate is only an upper limit. The value that engines reach in practice is somewhat lower because they operate under nonequilibrium conditions.
The second law describes how a succession of equilibrium states can be irreversible, so that the system cannot return to its original state without exacting a price from its surroundings.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by LucyTheApe, posted 03-13-2009 7:09 AM LucyTheApe has not replied

  
Peepul
Member (Idle past 5130 days)
Posts: 206
Joined: 03-13-2009


Message 213 of 284 (506532)
04-27-2009 9:31 AM
Reply to: Message 211 by pcver
04-27-2009 8:35 AM


Re: Evolution; information theory; 2nd LOT
quote:
Let's say someone who is ignorant about computer micro-chip is coming to a belief that it may just be possible for a micro-chip to be accidentally formed in beach sand by random chance, through unknown processes of the sea, waves and salt chemicals.
If a micro-chip expert is to advise that such a possibility does not exist as that would be in violation of the 2nd LOT, would anyone disagree with the expert?
This would not be a violation of 2LOT if it did happen. It's just extremely unlikely. Also this is a very poor analogue of evolutionary processes. Microchips have no heredity or reproduction - essential for the step wise changes that evolution describes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 211 by pcver, posted 04-27-2009 8:35 AM pcver has not replied

  
Peepul
Member (Idle past 5130 days)
Posts: 206
Joined: 03-13-2009


Message 231 of 284 (506649)
04-28-2009 7:55 AM
Reply to: Message 230 by pcver
04-28-2009 7:27 AM


Re: Evolution; information theory; 2nd LOT
This would not be a violation of 2LOT if it did happen.
You've said the smartest thing all day.
Guess what, I do agree if a micro-chip were found to have formed by random chance, then that would evidently be a non-violation of 2nd LOT.
Very good - what I really meant was that the 2LOT does not apply in these circumstances. It only applies to closed systems and strictly it only applies to systems in equilibrium also. It is applied in practice to closed systems outside equilibrium, but this is an approximation.
Are you also aware that 2LOT is also a statistical law rather than an absolute one? ie it is only the case that increase / no change in entropy is overwhelmingly more likely than decrease in entropy.
Edited by Peepul, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 230 by pcver, posted 04-28-2009 7:27 AM pcver has not replied

  
Peepul
Member (Idle past 5130 days)
Posts: 206
Joined: 03-13-2009


Message 232 of 284 (506651)
04-28-2009 8:04 AM
Reply to: Message 230 by pcver
04-28-2009 7:27 AM


Re: Evolution; information theory; 2nd LOT
Nevermind... here's my answers: The 'function' is "to metabolise". The 'data' bit is "citrate".
So it seems E.Coli have finally learned to eat something new that they probably would rather not eat -- yucky citrate.
Are you a software engineer by any chance? It would be natural to take this view if you were - but metabolism isn't like that - there is no single function called 'metabolise' that can work on different inputs. Each pathway is different (up to the point where it feeds into the main metabolic processes that are always running). Plus I believe changes to allow transport of citrate into the cell are also part of the picture, but I could be wrong here.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 230 by pcver, posted 04-28-2009 7:27 AM pcver has not replied

  
Peepul
Member (Idle past 5130 days)
Posts: 206
Joined: 03-13-2009


Message 234 of 284 (506653)
04-28-2009 8:09 AM
Reply to: Message 230 by pcver
04-28-2009 7:27 AM


Re: Evolution; information theory; 2nd LOT
The 2nd LOT is not a problem for the ToE per se. The actual problem is that evolution requires a viable mechanism that drives it, but such a mechanism does not exist.
Yes it does - it is called natural selection. There's plenty of evidence of this occurring in nature, ie alteration of allele frequencies in non-random ways.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 230 by pcver, posted 04-28-2009 7:27 AM pcver has not replied

  
Peepul
Member (Idle past 5130 days)
Posts: 206
Joined: 03-13-2009


Message 272 of 284 (507840)
05-08-2009 12:21 PM
Reply to: Message 257 by Percy
05-03-2009 9:30 AM


Re: Quantum Gap
I'm a software engineer, and during my entire professional career I've had to live with the apparent reality that a fair number of engineers and programmers, my friends and fellow co-workers, are fertile ground for pseudoscientific claptrap. As near as I can make out, it's not uncommon for them to be savants of a sort who possess amazing intuitions that along with their training enable them to solve complex problems. But somehow missing from their makeup is any sense that even outside of their professional life ideas must still be anchored in reality to have any validity. This enables them to believe all sorts of nonsense while still able to be not just competent but even amazing engineers and programmers.
I have been one in an oil company, and still work in the same field as an IT architect - and I haven't found many like that. Maybe it's just not something we've got into discussing at work, maybe it's a cultural difference between the UK and US. Maybe it's the kind of software being written. Some of them have been into 'detox' and all that mumbo jumbo but that's as far as it goes!
I agree with Granny that a software engineering background does lead people to wrong conclusions about how biological systems work.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 257 by Percy, posted 05-03-2009 9:30 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 273 by Percy, posted 05-08-2009 12:31 PM Peepul has replied

  
Peepul
Member (Idle past 5130 days)
Posts: 206
Joined: 03-13-2009


Message 274 of 284 (507842)
05-08-2009 12:34 PM
Reply to: Message 273 by Percy
05-08-2009 12:31 PM


Re: Quantum Gap
I don't really know - I haven't seen much evidence of it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 273 by Percy, posted 05-08-2009 12:31 PM Percy has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024