|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 5055 days) Posts: 125 From: Brooklyn, New York Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Truth About Evolution and Religion | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 285 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Complexity is a measure of the amount of knowledge there is about the particles making up a system. Obviously this is untrue. A thing could be very complex without anyone knowing anything about it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 285 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Intelligent design is pseudo-science. Any quote that criticizes intelligent design and considers it an alternative to science is irrational. I'm sure your references, unless they are crackpots like Dawkins, do not say natural selection explains the complexity of life. Dawkins has, of course, never said any such thing, which is why you cannot quote him saying so. His ideas on this subject are completely mainstream.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dkroemer Member (Idle past 5055 days) Posts: 125 From: Brooklyn, New York Joined: |
We are talking about the complexity of a system made up of particles. If a poker is put in a fire place, one end is hot and the other end is cold. Heat flows from the hot end to the cold until the temperature is constant. The system of particles became less complex. There was less knowledge about the kinetic energy of the molecules in the poker after the temperature became uniform.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi dkroemer,
I can't understand the relevance of the probability of a bond forming? You were the one who said:
Message 309: I could not follow your calculations. I'm glad my explanation made it clear to you, and that you no longer think that (1/20)x is a valid calculation for a molecule with x bonds.
If you have two amino acids A and B, there are two possible combinations AB and BA. The probability of getting AB is 50%. Actually there are four, as A and B each have two ends, so you could get A1:B1, A2:B1, A1:B2, and A2:B2. The probability of each of these is 25%. B1:A1 is the same molecule as A1:B1 Assuming that the probability of A combining with B is 1. Of course this ignores the chemistry involved, and the chemistry may only allow one combination of A and B to form, in which case the probability of that one form occurring is 1 and the probability for the other forms is 0. This, of course, is another reason why these probability calculations do not model natural formation of proteins and thus are pointless to make and silly to depend on in any argument. 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) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi Dr Adequate,
A thing could be very complex without anyone knowing anything about it. Unless of course dkroemer is using "knowledge" to mean something else, like "information", or the knowledge that would be needed to describe\duplicate it. Given the attitude towards ID, I'd say he wants to say information without saying information ... Just like he tries to use natural selection for mutation. Which of course is one of his main problems: confusing terminology results in a confused argument that is not understood and relatively meaningless. It's all part of the side show 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) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dkroemer Member (Idle past 5055 days) Posts: 125 From: Brooklyn, New York Joined: |
I quote Dawkins saying this in my review of his latest book. My review was published in Orthodoxy.Today.com and Catholic Truth. A link to it is http://www.dkroemer.com/page81/page81.html
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2106 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
Tell us what you say, don't send us out to some silly link.
(Against forum rules to argue with bare links anyway, eh?) Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dkroemer Member (Idle past 5055 days) Posts: 125 From: Brooklyn, New York Joined: |
The quesiton is not what I am saying, it is what Richard Dawkins is saying. He says natural selection + mutation + genetic drift + facilitate variation explains the complexity of living organisms. He says that, not always, but when he is interested in misleading non-biologists, that the second law of thermodynamics is not inconsistent with Darwinism. He says the argument from the second law is used only by creationists and is not part of the science of evolution.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1255 days) Posts: 3509 Joined:
|
He says that, not always, but when he is interested in misleading non-biologists, that the second law of thermodynamics is not inconsistent with Darwinism. He says the argument from the second law is used only by creationists and is not part of the science of evolution. And he's entirely correct when he says that. If you were to provide an accurate statement of the 2LoT, you'd understand why it's no impediment. There are at least three distinct reasons. First, the 2LoT only applies to thermodynamically closed systems. The Eart is not thermodynamically closed. Second, the 2LoT only speaks to overall entropy in a system. Nothing prevents isolated local decreases in entropy so long as the total entropy in a system increases. Third, and most importantly, entropy as used in the 2LoT and "complexity," whatever you mean by that, are not the same thing. 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6408 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
dkroemer writes:
The question is what you are intending to say. What you are actually saying does not make a lot of sense.
The quesiton is not what I am saying, ... dkroemer writes:
Indeed, 2LoT is not inconsistent with Darwinism.
He says that, not always, but when he is interested in misleading non-biologists, that the second law of thermodynamics is not inconsistent with Darwinism.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dkroemer Member (Idle past 5055 days) Posts: 125 From: Brooklyn, New York Joined: |
The Earth and sun taken together is a closed system, so the second law applies.
Also, any local increases in entropy are subject to the laws of probability. It is possible, for example, for the gas molecules in a container to move to one side of the container, turning the other side into a vacuum. But this is highly improbable. The word "complexity" isn't really relevant. What is relevant is the calculations of probability. The different ways of arranging N objects is N factorial. The probability of getting a particular arrangement is 1/N!. The bell-shaped curve, which describes the velocities of molecules in a gas, is derived from Stirling's approximaiont: Log N! = N log N. With this in mind, the probability of getting a protein from a soup of amino acids is the reciprical of 20600. As I have said in other posts and as has been explained on my YouTube video with quotes from mainstream biologists and biology textbooks, this calculation is crude. It does not take into consideration natural selection and facilitated variation. There are ways to take these biological mechanisms into consideration, but no biologist/mathematician has done this. The reason is that this number relates only to the primary structure of proteins. Evolution involves more than this. It involves the secondary, tertiary, and quadernary structure of proteins, molecular machinery made out of dozens of proteins, and developmental biology.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dkroemer Member (Idle past 5055 days) Posts: 125 From: Brooklyn, New York Joined: |
I explain why Darwinism is inconsistent with the second law of thermodyamics in post # 326.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
fizz57102 Junior Member (Idle past 4007 days) Posts: 17 Joined:
|
Couldn't resist leaving lurkerdom for this...
The Earth and sun taken together is a closed system,.... Untrue. Does all of the sun's energy reach the Earth?
...so the second law applies. Let's assume that this is so, or at least that the 2nd Law can be applied here (which it can, with caveats). In this case, the 2nd Law says: entropy change of sun + entropy change of earth >= 0 Given that the first term is large and positive, why cannot the second term be small and negative?
Also, any local increases in entropy are subject to the laws of probability. It is possible, for example, for the gas molecules in a container to move to one side of the container, turning the other side into a vacuum. But this is highly improbable. Is it still "highly improbable" when a large temperature difference is maintained across the container? On the website you reference in message 321, you say you have a BS and a PhD in Physics. For the record, so do I. But given the way you're making a pig's dinner out of first year thermo, I can only confirm that you have a lot of BS in your physics.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 285 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
The quesiton is not what I am saying, it is what Richard Dawkins is saying. He says natural selection + mutation + genetic drift + facilitate variation explains the complexity of living organisms. So, by your own admission, he does not say that "natural selection explains the complexity of life". He says that the theory of evolution explains the complexity of life, just like all the other biologists do. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 285 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
I explain why Darwinism is inconsistent with the second law of thermodyamics in post # 326. No. But if you could, then since we can observe "Darwinism" in operation, you would have disproved the second law of thermodynamics. Good luck with that. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024