‹ First  < 10 11 12 13 14 >  Last ›
 
   
 

Interesting

 
TwoSeven1
 
Avatar
 
 
TwoSeven1
Total Posts:  296
Joined  18-12-2018
 
 
 
14 March 2019 08:27
 
mapadofu - 13 March 2019 06:29 PM

Level of effort like post 160?

You know what I claimed but not why I claimed it?  That shows that you missed a whole section of the discussion.  I am not going to repeat what I’ve already said just because you think I should.  It’s all there.  Click back a few pages and you’ll see it.

 
Jan_CAN
 
Avatar
 
 
Jan_CAN
Total Posts:  3069
Joined  21-10-2016
 
 
 
14 March 2019 08:58
 
TwoSeven1 - 14 March 2019 08:27 AM

You know what I claimed but not why I claimed it?  That shows that you missed a whole section of the discussion.  I am not going to repeat what I’ve already said just because you think I should.  It’s all there.  Click back a few pages and you’ll see it.

It’s not all there.  Your purposes are implied, but you have not been upfront or honest enough to state your personal views.  The most obvious reason for this is that you believe in some form of creationism and know that this would leave you open to valid criticisms.  It’s time to put your cards on the table or fold.

 

 
 
burt
 
Avatar
 
 
burt
Total Posts:  15677
Joined  17-12-2006
 
 
 
14 March 2019 09:08
 
Jan_CAN - 14 March 2019 08:58 AM
TwoSeven1 - 14 March 2019 08:27 AM

You know what I claimed but not why I claimed it?  That shows that you missed a whole section of the discussion.  I am not going to repeat what I’ve already said just because you think I should.  It’s all there.  Click back a few pages and you’ll see it.

It’s not all there.  Your purposes are implied, but you have not been upfront or honest enough to state your personal views.  The most obvious reason for this is that you believe in some form of creationism and know that this would leave you open to valid criticisms.  It’s time to put your cards on the table or fold.

He’s not going to do either, he’s just jerking peoples chains. It’s time to put him on ignore.

 
Jefe
 
Avatar
 
 
Jefe
Total Posts:  6875
Joined  15-02-2007
 
 
 
14 March 2019 09:08
 
TwoSeven1 - 13 March 2019 04:04 PM
Jefe - 13 March 2019 03:06 PM
TwoSeven1 - 13 March 2019 12:47 PM
Jefe - 13 March 2019 10:50 AM
TwoSeven1 - 13 March 2019 09:52 AM

  I made a case against Evolution.

You most certainly did not. 

As previously mentioned, you simply rehashed a bunch of previously debunked and tired DI/Creationst talking points, while misunderstanding or misrepresenting sciency-talk from those sites.

And, you did so while ignoring the valid rebuttals to those talking points.

A colossal waste of time for those responding to your posts, I might add, given the ongoing research and science ongoing right now that is supported by the greater theory of evolution.

It is ironic, in a way, that opponents of evolution set so much stock in discussing these same repeated talking points in obscure discussion forums like this one, while the actuality of the science progresses onward with its testing of hypotheses, predictions, modelling research, and evidence gathering.

I mean its not like changing any of the 15-20 minds here is going to have any noticible or lasting effect on the people who are figuratively elbows-deep in the actuality of the science.

“As previously mentioned, you simply rehashed a bunch of previously debunked and tired DI/Creationst talking points…”  Does a case need to be novel in order for it to be a case?  My points have not been debunked.

“And, you did so while ignoring the valid rebuttals to those talking points.”  Which rebuttals did I ignore?

“It is ironic, in a way, that opponents of evolution set so much stock in discussing these same repeated talking points in obscure discussion forums like this one, while the actuality of the science progresses onward with its testing of hypotheses, predictions, modelling research, and evidence gathering.”  What stock have I set in this discussion?  If it’s ironic that I’m discussing things on this forum with you, then the same irony applies to you.

“I mean its not like changing any of the 15-20 minds here is going to have any noticible or lasting effect on the people who are figuratively elbows-deep in the actuality of the science.”  If not to discuss interesting things with people, then why do you participate in the discussions on this forum?

This thread is not interesting.
Your other questions have been adequately addressed in previous posts.

“This thread is not interesting.”  You’re free to disengage.

“Your other questions have been adequately addressed in previous posts.”  If you think so, then feel free to disengage.

Here is a succinct and accurate response to your misrepresentation/misunderstanding of the Second Law of Thermodynamics:

Claim CF001:
The second law of thermodynamics says that everything tends toward disorder, making evolutionary development impossible.
Source:
Morris, Henry M., 1974. Scientific Creationism, Green Forest, AR: Master Books, pp. 38-46.
Response:
The second law of thermodynamics says no such thing. It says that heat will not spontaneously flow from a colder body to a warmer one or, equivalently, that total entropy (a measure of useful energy) in a closed system will not decrease. This does not prevent increasing order because

the earth is not a closed system; sunlight (with low entropy) shines on it and heat (with higher entropy) radiates off. This flow of energy, and the change in entropy that accompanies it, can and will power local decreases in entropy on earth.
entropy is not the same as disorder. Sometimes the two correspond, but sometimes order increases as entropy increases. (Aranda-Espinoza et al. 1999; Kestenbaum 1998) Entropy can even be used to produce order, such as in the sorting of molecules by size (Han and Craighead 2000).
even in a closed system, pockets of lower entropy can form if they are offset by increased entropy elsewhere in the system.
In short, order from disorder happens on earth all the time.

The only processes necessary for evolution to occur are reproduction, heritable variation, and selection. All of these are seen to happen all the time, so, obviously, no physical laws are preventing them. In fact, connections between evolution and entropy have been studied in depth, and never to the detriment of evolution (Demetrius 2000).

Several scientists have proposed that evolution and the origin of life is driven by entropy (McShea 1998). Some see the information content of organisms subject to diversification according to the second law (Brooks and Wiley 1988), so organisms diversify to fill empty niches much as a gas expands to fill an empty container. Others propose that highly ordered complex systems emerge and evolve to dissipate energy (and increase overall entropy) more efficiently (Schneider and Kay 1994).

Creationists themselves admit that increasing order is possible. They introduce fictional exceptions to the law to account for it.

Creationists themselves make claims that directly contradict their claims about the second law of thermodynamics, such as hydrological sorting of fossils during the Flood.
References:
Aranda-Espinoza, H., Y. Chen, N. Dan, T. C. Lubensky, P. Nelson, L. Ramos and D. A. Weitz, 1999. Electrostatic repulsion of positively charged vesicles and negatively charged objects. Science 285: 394-397.
Brooks, D. R. and E. O. Wiley, 1988. Evolution As Entropy, University of Chicago Press.
Kestenbaum, David, 1998. Gentle force of entropy bridges disciplines. Science 279: 1849.
Han, J. and H. G. Craighead, 2000. Separation of long DNA molecules in a microfabricated entropic trap array. Science 288: 1026-1029.
Demetrius, Lloyd, 2000. Theromodynamics and evolution. Journal of Theoretical Biology 206(1): 1-16. http://www.idealibrary.com/links/doi/10.1006/jtbi.2000.2106
McShea, Daniel W., 1998. Possible largest-scale trends in organismal evolution: eight live hypotheses. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 29: 293-318.
Schneider, Eric D. and James J. Kay, 1994. Life as a manifestation of the second law of thermodynamics. Mathematical and Computer Modelling 19(6-8): 25-48. http://www.fes.uwaterloo.ca/u/jjkay/pubs/Life_as/lifeas.pdf
Further Reading:
Atkins, P. W. 1984. The Second Law. New York: Scientific American Books.

Kauffman, Stuart A. 1993. The Origins of Order. New York: Oxford. (technical)

Lambert, Frank L. 1999. The second law of thermodynamics. http://www.secondlaw.com

It’s amazing what a little focused reading can do for one’s education.
*Posted for the edification of spectators.*

[ Edited: 14 March 2019 09:12 by Jefe]
 
 
Jefe
 
Avatar
 
 
Jefe
Total Posts:  6875
Joined  15-02-2007
 
 
 
14 March 2019 09:12
 
burt - 14 March 2019 09:08 AM
Jan_CAN - 14 March 2019 08:58 AM
TwoSeven1 - 14 March 2019 08:27 AM

You know what I claimed but not why I claimed it?  That shows that you missed a whole section of the discussion.  I am not going to repeat what I’ve already said just because you think I should.  It’s all there.  Click back a few pages and you’ll see it.

It’s not all there.  Your purposes are implied, but you have not been upfront or honest enough to state your personal views.  The most obvious reason for this is that you believe in some form of creationism and know that this would leave you open to valid criticisms.  It’s time to put your cards on the table or fold.

He’s not going to do either, he’s just jerking peoples chains. It’s time to put him on ignore.

...and to move this thread to Holy Grails, where it belongs.

 
 
TwoSeven1
 
Avatar
 
 
TwoSeven1
Total Posts:  296
Joined  18-12-2018
 
 
 
14 March 2019 09:51
 
Jan_CAN - 14 March 2019 08:58 AM
TwoSeven1 - 14 March 2019 08:27 AM

You know what I claimed but not why I claimed it?  That shows that you missed a whole section of the discussion.  I am not going to repeat what I’ve already said just because you think I should.  It’s all there.  Click back a few pages and you’ll see it.

It’s not all there.  Your purposes are implied, but you have not been upfront or honest enough to state your personal views.  The most obvious reason for this is that you believe in some form of creationism and know that this would leave you open to valid criticisms.  It’s time to put your cards on the table or fold.

“It’s not all there.  Your purposes are implied, but you have not been upfront or honest enough to state your personal views.”  What do my personal views have to do with anything we’ve been discussing?  I stated how the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics prevents entropy from being nearly zero.

“It’s time to put your cards on the table or fold.”  I don’t need to express personal views in order for my argument against Evolution to be valid.

Edit:  Corrected a word.

[ Edited: 14 March 2019 10:25 by TwoSeven1]
 
TwoSeven1
 
Avatar
 
 
TwoSeven1
Total Posts:  296
Joined  18-12-2018
 
 
 
14 March 2019 09:52
 
Jefe - 14 March 2019 09:08 AM
TwoSeven1 - 13 March 2019 04:04 PM
Jefe - 13 March 2019 03:06 PM
TwoSeven1 - 13 March 2019 12:47 PM
Jefe - 13 March 2019 10:50 AM
TwoSeven1 - 13 March 2019 09:52 AM

  I made a case against Evolution.

You most certainly did not. 

As previously mentioned, you simply rehashed a bunch of previously debunked and tired DI/Creationst talking points, while misunderstanding or misrepresenting sciency-talk from those sites.

And, you did so while ignoring the valid rebuttals to those talking points.

A colossal waste of time for those responding to your posts, I might add, given the ongoing research and science ongoing right now that is supported by the greater theory of evolution.

It is ironic, in a way, that opponents of evolution set so much stock in discussing these same repeated talking points in obscure discussion forums like this one, while the actuality of the science progresses onward with its testing of hypotheses, predictions, modelling research, and evidence gathering.

I mean its not like changing any of the 15-20 minds here is going to have any noticible or lasting effect on the people who are figuratively elbows-deep in the actuality of the science.

“As previously mentioned, you simply rehashed a bunch of previously debunked and tired DI/Creationst talking points…”  Does a case need to be novel in order for it to be a case?  My points have not been debunked.

“And, you did so while ignoring the valid rebuttals to those talking points.”  Which rebuttals did I ignore?

“It is ironic, in a way, that opponents of evolution set so much stock in discussing these same repeated talking points in obscure discussion forums like this one, while the actuality of the science progresses onward with its testing of hypotheses, predictions, modelling research, and evidence gathering.”  What stock have I set in this discussion?  If it’s ironic that I’m discussing things on this forum with you, then the same irony applies to you.

“I mean its not like changing any of the 15-20 minds here is going to have any noticible or lasting effect on the people who are figuratively elbows-deep in the actuality of the science.”  If not to discuss interesting things with people, then why do you participate in the discussions on this forum?

This thread is not interesting.
Your other questions have been adequately addressed in previous posts.

“This thread is not interesting.”  You’re free to disengage.

“Your other questions have been adequately addressed in previous posts.”  If you think so, then feel free to disengage.

Here is a succinct and accurate response to your misrepresentation/misunderstanding of the Second Law of Thermodynamics:

Claim CF001:
The second law of thermodynamics says that everything tends toward disorder, making evolutionary development impossible.
Source:
Morris, Henry M., 1974. Scientific Creationism, Green Forest, AR: Master Books, pp. 38-46.
Response:
The second law of thermodynamics says no such thing. It says that heat will not spontaneously flow from a colder body to a warmer one or, equivalently, that total entropy (a measure of useful energy) in a closed system will not decrease. This does not prevent increasing order because

the earth is not a closed system; sunlight (with low entropy) shines on it and heat (with higher entropy) radiates off. This flow of energy, and the change in entropy that accompanies it, can and will power local decreases in entropy on earth.
entropy is not the same as disorder. Sometimes the two correspond, but sometimes order increases as entropy increases. (Aranda-Espinoza et al. 1999; Kestenbaum 1998) Entropy can even be used to produce order, such as in the sorting of molecules by size (Han and Craighead 2000).
even in a closed system, pockets of lower entropy can form if they are offset by increased entropy elsewhere in the system.
In short, order from disorder happens on earth all the time.

The only processes necessary for evolution to occur are reproduction, heritable variation, and selection. All of these are seen to happen all the time, so, obviously, no physical laws are preventing them. In fact, connections between evolution and entropy have been studied in depth, and never to the detriment of evolution (Demetrius 2000).

Several scientists have proposed that evolution and the origin of life is driven by entropy (McShea 1998). Some see the information content of organisms subject to diversification according to the second law (Brooks and Wiley 1988), so organisms diversify to fill empty niches much as a gas expands to fill an empty container. Others propose that highly ordered complex systems emerge and evolve to dissipate energy (and increase overall entropy) more efficiently (Schneider and Kay 1994).

Creationists themselves admit that increasing order is possible. They introduce fictional exceptions to the law to account for it.

Creationists themselves make claims that directly contradict their claims about the second law of thermodynamics, such as hydrological sorting of fossils during the Flood.
References:
Aranda-Espinoza, H., Y. Chen, N. Dan, T. C. Lubensky, P. Nelson, L. Ramos and D. A. Weitz, 1999. Electrostatic repulsion of positively charged vesicles and negatively charged objects. Science 285: 394-397.
Brooks, D. R. and E. O. Wiley, 1988. Evolution As Entropy, University of Chicago Press.
Kestenbaum, David, 1998. Gentle force of entropy bridges disciplines. Science 279: 1849.
Han, J. and H. G. Craighead, 2000. Separation of long DNA molecules in a microfabricated entropic trap array. Science 288: 1026-1029.
Demetrius, Lloyd, 2000. Theromodynamics and evolution. Journal of Theoretical Biology 206(1): 1-16. http://www.idealibrary.com/links/doi/10.1006/jtbi.2000.2106
McShea, Daniel W., 1998. Possible largest-scale trends in organismal evolution: eight live hypotheses. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 29: 293-318.
Schneider, Eric D. and James J. Kay, 1994. Life as a manifestation of the second law of thermodynamics. Mathematical and Computer Modelling 19(6-8): 25-48. http://www.fes.uwaterloo.ca/u/jjkay/pubs/Life_as/lifeas.pdf
Further Reading:
Atkins, P. W. 1984. The Second Law. New York: Scientific American Books.

Kauffman, Stuart A. 1993. The Origins of Order. New York: Oxford. (technical)

Lambert, Frank L. 1999. The second law of thermodynamics. http://www.secondlaw.com

It’s amazing what a little focused reading can do for one’s education.
*Posted for the edification of spectators.*

“The second law of thermodynamics says that everything tends toward disorder, making evolutionary development impossible.”  Aside from the fact that your reference doesn’t address my argument, I will note a few other problems with it -

“...the earth is not a closed system; sunlight (with low entropy) shines on it and heat (with higher entropy) radiates off.”  Exchange of energy doesn’t exclude the Earth from being a closed system.  Another problem:  Your reference states that heat is radiated from the Earth.  Where is it radiated to?

“...entropy is not the same as disorder.”  Strange that some people say it is equivalent, and some say it isn’t.

“The only processes necessary for evolution to occur are reproduction, heritable variation, and selection [and a natural starting point].”

“Creationists themselves make claims that directly contradict their claims about the second law of thermodynamics, such as hydrological sorting of fossils during the Flood.”  Water moving things around doesn’t seem to me to be an irreversible process in itself.  Would you say that it is?

Edit:  Added a point. Sentence structure correction.

[ Edited: 14 March 2019 10:24 by TwoSeven1]
 
mapadofu
 
Avatar
 
 
mapadofu
Total Posts:  626
Joined  20-07-2017
 
 
 
14 March 2019 11:29
 

Two seven, apparently you’re not aware of the fact that some people use the term “closed system” to refer to a system that does not exchange energy or matter with it’s environment; If you don’t fixate on terminology you’d see that we all agree that the 2nd law, by itself, imposes no constraints on what processes can occur in a system that exchanges energy with its environment.  The quoted article clearly explains how this is the case. 

The Earth radiates energy out into space;  are you familiar with the concept of thermal (black body) radiation?

Can you explain how or why the 2nd law has any relevance to a system that exchanges energy with its environment so that it would be a relevant consideration when considering abiogenesis?

[ Edited: 14 March 2019 12:35 by mapadofu]
 
TwoSeven1
 
Avatar
 
 
TwoSeven1
Total Posts:  296
Joined  18-12-2018
 
 
 
14 March 2019 13:37
 
mapadofu - 14 March 2019 11:29 AM

Two seven, apparently you’re not aware of the fact that some people use the term “closed system” to refer to a system that does not exchange energy or matter with it’s environment; If you don’t fixate on terminology you’d see that we all agree that the 2nd law, by itself, imposes no constraints on what processes can occur in a system that exchanges energy with its environment.  The quoted article clearly explains how this is the case. 

The Earth radiates energy out into space;  are you familiar with the concept of thermal (black body) radiation?

Can you explain how or why the 2nd law has any relevance to a system that exchanges energy with its environment so that it would be a relevant consideration when considering abiogenesis?

“... apparently you’re not aware of the fact that some people use the term ‘closed system’ to refer to a system that does not exchange energy or matter with it’s environment; ...”  If they are using it that way, they are using it incorrectly.

“If you don’t fixate on terminology…”  To begin with, your line of reasoning here makes no sense.  The terminology is what shows what the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics does and doesn’t do.  If you aren’t going to be reasonable, then how can you expect me to reason with you?

“... you’d see that we all agree that the 2nd law, by itself, imposes no constraints on what processes can occur in a system that exchanges energy with its environment.  The quoted article clearly explains how this is the case.”  No, it doesn’t.  It explains the exact opposite.

“The Earth radiates energy out into space; ...”  I agree that the Earth radiates energy out into space.

“Can you explain how or why the 2nd law has any relevance to a system that exchanges energy with its environment so that it would be a relevant consideration when considering abiogenesis?”  I have explained my points multiple times.

Edit:  Added response to one of your points.

[ Edited: 14 March 2019 13:40 by TwoSeven1]
 
mapadofu
 
Avatar
 
 
mapadofu
Total Posts:  626
Joined  20-07-2017
 
 
 
14 March 2019 17:59
 

Doesn’t observation show us what the 2nd law does and doesn’t do?

 
TwoSeven1
 
Avatar
 
 
TwoSeven1
Total Posts:  296
Joined  18-12-2018
 
 
 
15 March 2019 08:43
 
mapadofu - 14 March 2019 05:59 PM

Doesn’t observation show us what the 2nd law does and doesn’t do?

“Doesn’t observation show us what the 2nd law does and doesn’t do?”  If we have no explanation of a law then how could we call it a law?  The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is called a law because of observation.

 
mapadofu
 
Avatar
 
 
mapadofu
Total Posts:  626
Joined  20-07-2017
 
 
 
15 March 2019 09:25
 

So when we observe entropy decreases in closed (but not isolated) systems, how does that relate to the 2nd law of thermodynamics?

 
TwoSeven1
 
Avatar
 
 
TwoSeven1
Total Posts:  296
Joined  18-12-2018
 
 
 
15 March 2019 10:02
 
mapadofu - 15 March 2019 09:25 AM

So when we observe entropy decreases in closed (but not isolated) systems, how does that relate to the 2nd law of thermodynamics?

Assuming that life didn’t already exist, and that the needed materials were available, a more relevant question would be:  Is a sufficient decrease in entropy possible in the closed system of the Earth so that the formation of DNA can happen by strictly natural processes?

 
mapadofu
 
Avatar
 
 
mapadofu
Total Posts:  626
Joined  20-07-2017
 
 
 
15 March 2019 13:20
 

Right, that is exactly the question you need to answer (in the negative) in order to justify your claim that abiogenesis is impossible due to the second law.

[ Edited: 15 March 2019 14:14 by mapadofu]
 
TwoSeven1
 
Avatar
 
 
TwoSeven1
Total Posts:  296
Joined  18-12-2018
 
 
 
15 March 2019 16:19
 
mapadofu - 15 March 2019 01:20 PM

Right, that is exactly the question you need to answer (in the negative) in order to justify your claim that abiogenesis is impossible due to the second law.

“Right, that is exactly the question you need to answer (in the negative) in order to justify your claim that abiogenesis is impossible due to the second law.”  The answer to the question is, no.  It is not possible for DNA or proteins to support life without each other.  Life can’t be produced without life.

The DNA paradox leads some people to seek answers in the RNA line of thinking, which has its own problems.

 
‹ First  < 10 11 12 13 14 >  Last ›