Intelligent Design in Universities

quote:

---

do believe, part of appreciating the power of ID theory is witnessing the weakness of competing theories. That's why I delight when the IDEA members who are bio majors take evolutionary biology classes only to come back and tell me that ID makes far more reasonable claims from a scientific standpoint. For example, one ID member said she asked her professor about the theoretical transitional between a prokaryotic to a eukaryotic cell, the professor said, "I don't know". This line of questioning went on for several other transitionals with the same result. She now knows we weren't lying to her when we told her the empirical support is lacking where it is really needed

---

I assume then that ID actually has empirically supported explanations for all these areas ? Because I don't know how else you could write the above with a straight face.

quote:

---

And there is reason to lead one to believe the slightly deleterious mutations estimated in that
study can lead to mutational meltdown. Here is an interview with Eyre-Walker, one of the researchers of that study:

​

Notice - OpenLearn - Open University

---

And in that interview Eyre-Walker states: Eyre-Walker does not agree with your assessment of his study.

quote:

---

I don't see how creationists could support ID...they differ on too many KEY issues...

---

Wrong. The ID movement accepts and recognises creationism - including the Young Earth variety as a valid form of ID. Paul Nelson is a prominent member of the ID movement and a Young Earth Creationist.Why do you think that the ID movement specifically refuses to discuss the age of the Earth if not to keep Young Earth Creationists on board ?

You mean that ONE person on the ID side expressed the view that he personally agreed with the scientiifc view of the age of the Earth.Others refuse to take a position: Philip Johnson
Page Not Found: Explore TouchstoneAnd others beleive that the Earth is young, like Paul NelsonSo how can you say that Seelke represents the official position when more signfiicant figures like Johnson and Nelson take no position or even disagree ?And if ID is science why does it refuse to officially endorse the best scientific estimates age of the Earth - not even provisionally ?

I can't be blinded by my religion since I don't have one.I apologise for missing the statement. I suppose I must have been deceived by the article's claim that If all the speakers admitted to an age of the Earth in the billions of years then why would one preempting the question cause a "derailment" ?And finally, this is still irrelevant to the point that the ID movement includes Young Earth Creationism.

No, I don't have a religion. I guess you must be blinded by your religion.But I am glad that you agree with me that Limbo was wrong.

Let us suppose that we mutate a sequence of coin tosses by randomly selecting a coin and tossing it again. If the original sequence has two heads and two tails, there is no chance of the entropy increasing and a 50% chance of the entropy decreasing. How then does the second law of thermodynamics apply to such a case ?

My point is that you can't assume that configurational entropy operates in the same way as thermodynamic entropy under the rules you've defined. In the situation described there is NO tendency for the measure of configurational entropy to increase. It can only decrease.So back to your original claim: So let us take a more general look at the coins since like your example they use a binary classification.Let us say that we have m + n coins with m heads and n tails.
The probability of a mutation producing no change is:
0.5 * m/(m + n) + 0.5 * n/(m + n) = 0.5In any case but the minimum entropy case there is a non-zero probability of a decrease in entropy, so the general tendency is for S2 <= S1 in all but that case.And worse still for your case it is not argued in evolutionary circles that the general tendency is for mutations to be beneficial rather than detrimental.

quote:

---

One thing that is abundantly clear is that right or wrong Jerry is using science to argue ID...just has his opponents use science to argue against him.

​

The scientific community at large needs to stop writing it off as nothing more than creationism.

---

Since the same could be said for creationists like Robert Gentry and Russell Humphreys this is hardly a point which distinguishes ID from creationism. Indeed the argument that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics contradicts evolution is an old favourite of creationists.

Oh dear, I think this conversation is taking a turn for the worse.1) Since in the situation I described the configurational entropy can decrease (and has a probability of 0.5 of doing so) and cannot increase then it follows that there cannot be a law which states that the configurational entropy will tend to increase in that situation.
That being the case your version of the 2LotD does not apply.2) I am sorry for assuming that you actually understood basic probability theory. Or indeed the table you presented.There is no need to calculate any logarithms because all we need to do is observe that the entropy increases the closer the number of heads and the number of tails are to each other. Thus any change which makes the numbers closer will increase entropy and any change which makes them further apart will decrease it.So, I am generalising my previous example to cover all sequences - taking m as the number of heads and n as the number of tails. Thus if we randomly choose a coin the probability of it being a a head is m/(m + n) (m heads and m + n coins). The probability of it being a tail is n(m + n) (n tails and m + n coins).
When the coin is flipped again the probability of it not changing state is 0.5 in each case.
The probability that the entropy remains unchanged is the probability of choosing a head and getting a head on the flip or of choosing a tail and getting a tail on the flip.
This is therefore 0.5 * m/(m + n) + 0.5 n/(m + n) = 0.5To get a decrease in the entropy we need to pick a coin in the less common state and for the flip to change it.
The probability of that is 0.5 * min(m, n)/(m + n) which will be non-zero for all m,n where m > 0 and n > 0Thus for all cases where both m and n are greater than zero "mutating" the sequence by choosing a coin and flipping it again will not tend to increase the entropy. The probability of an increase in entropy is always less than 0.5.3) I'm sorry also that you are unfamiliar with basic evolutionary theory. Since a simple reference is in order try this:
Are Mutations Harmful? Now why don't you back up YOUR assertion that the opposite is true ?

quote:

---

I don't have a version of 2LOT, I use the same one everybody else does. So you really think that 2LOT does not apply to matter based on the logic that when I flip a quarter it is equiprobable to get heads or tails?

​

Gee Paul, I kind of admire you because since 2LOT doesn't apply to your car, you never have to buy a new one. I do. Paint never gets old on your house so that is nice. And you will never grow old and die. Through this logic, you have found immortality!

---

Sorry Jerry, perhaps in your mind recognising that an impossible event is indeed impossible is the secret of immortality. Sadly you are wrong. I don't beleive any of that.The simple point is that in the example you quoted 2 heads and 2 tails is the maximum entropy possible. Any change in the entropy MUST be a decrease.

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:There is no need to calculate any logarithms because all we need to do is observe that the entropy increases the closer the number of heads and the number of tails are to each other. Thus any change which makes the numbers closer will increase entropy and any change which makes them further apart will decrease it.

---

​

I see. So the physics of Richard Feynman when he taught us that logical entropy is the way matter is arranged and: "The logarithm of that number of ways is the entropy." Are just not correct, in your opinion?

---

I'm sorry that you are unable to think like a mathematician. My simple point is that to know the DIRECTION of the change on entropy it is unnecessary to calculate the MAGNITUDE of the change. It is the direction - increase or decrease - that concerns us, the magnitude is not relevant to the point under consideration. By the nature of the calculation the closer the number of heads is to the number of tails the greater the entropy. Therefore there is no need to calculate logarithms.

quote:

---

quote:

---

So, I am generalising my previous example to cover all sequences - taking m as the number of heads and n as the number of tails. Thus if we randomly choose a coin the probability of it being a a head is m/(m + n) (m heads and m + n coins). The probability of it being a tail is n(m + n) (n tails and m + n coins).

---

​

Nope. The probability of that one coin being a head is calculated via the formula:

​

P(A) = f/n

​

Where the probability (P) of an event (A) equals the number of actual events, (f) divided by all possible outcomes, (n).

​

That works out to 1/2 = .5. That's where you're trying to go, you're just not quite sure how to get there.

---

Well you are misusing the formula since we have no actual events.However if we have four coins, three of which show heads and one of which shows tails and we randomly select one of those coins (with equal probability) the chance that we will select a head is 3/4.
Using my formula with m = 3 and n = 1 we get a probability of:
3/(3 + 1) = 3/4.In your world apparently even if all 4 coins show tails there is a 0.5 probability that if we select one of them it will show a head. How does that work ?

quote:

---

See, this is what happens when one chooses to get their science from a religionist atheist apologist site. They don't do science over there, they do secular humanist religion and CALL it science.

---

This is what happens when people find out you're wrong. You start hurling false accusations.

quote:

---

I did. Just read the study and you will know exactly what happens:

​

http://homepages.ed.ac.uk/eang33/

---

Which study ? There are none on that page and a whole list on the "Publications" page.

Are you finally admitting that there is no equivalent of the second law of thermodynamics for configurational entropy ?And you are right that I haven't calculated the entropy. Because - as I have already explained - my argument does not require that calculation.Finally the study does not appear to anywhere assert that evolutionary theory expects beneficial mutatiosn to occur more frequently than detrimental ones. If you beleive that it does then I suggest that you quote the relevant section.

If you are not admitting that there is no equivalen to the 2LoT for configurational entropy what does the following means:

quote:

---

Configurational entropy is just the way matter is arranged.This don't have squat to do with how 2LOT works in nature. That's why I razzed you a little bit by asking you if your car gets newer over time rather than older. That is logical entropy, totally a different critter.

---

(from Message 202).
"Logical entropy" is a "totally differnet critter" ? "this don't have squat to do witth how 2LoT works in nature" ? Sure looks like you're saying that there is no 2LoT-equivalent for configurational entropy.And of coursesaying that there is no 2LoT for configurational entropy is not saying that the concept has no use at all.

quote:

---

Just don't call it entropy and your argument might walk.

---

Sadly for you Jerry, there is no numerical value called entropy in my argument. For the benefit of anyone who has missed previous posts all I identify is whether the configurational entropy changes and in which direction (increase or decrease) - which requires no logarithms.Sorry Jerry but it's just obvious that you can't even hande the simple argument I presented.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Finally the study does not appear to anywhere assert that evolutionary theory expects beneficial mutatiosn to occur more frequently than detrimental ones. If you believe that it does then I suggest that you quote the relevant section.

---

​

Sorry. Totally lost me. There were no beneficial mutations in that study at all, so I have no idea what you are referring to.

---

I don't see why you should be lost. I pointed out it was tiem for you to support your claim that evolutionary theory expected beneficial mutatiosn to occur more frequently than detrimental mutationsSo in Message 167 you claimed that a study supported that claim and offered the wrong link.In Message 205 You give what you say is the right link.And in Message 244 you're confused because the study doesn't support your claim at all.Perhaps you would like to try again ?

Jerry's argument isn't based on thermodynamic entropy, so your questions anre't that relevant.But to offer reasonable answers to your questions (don't ask me to do the calculations !)1) Food is a usable energy source so eating amounts to a decrease in entropy (in that the body has more energy avialable to do work).2) If we scale to allow for the difference in mass, and allow for differing circumstances I would expect the entropy to be about the same - maybe a bit less for the two-year old.

He assumes that the 2LoT can justify his arguments based configurational entropy (which is not thermodynamic entropy, and depends on how the configuration is measured). Aside from the fact that he has yet to justify the claim that the 2LoT applies to configurational entropy there are more problems with his argument that he appears not to have thought of.