Moderator: Alyrium Denryle
Here is the entropy rate balance for a control volume:
dScv/dt = Sum(Qj/Tj) + Sum(mi*si) - Sum(me*se) + sigma_cv
This equation applies to open systems! So evolutionists are dishonest when they say the Second Law of Thermodynamics does not apply to open systems!
Yes, we know that creationists are proficient with copy&paste.Here is the entropy rate balance for a control volume:
dScv/dt = Sum(Qj/Tj) + Sum(mi*si) - Sum(me*se) + sigma_cv
This equation applies to open systems! So evolutionists are dishonest when they say the Second Law of Thermodynamics does not apply to open systems!
Abstract
It is shown that biological-natural-selection-like behavior can occur, as a general type of time evolution, in a statistical system where detailed balance is violated owing to the presence of metastable energy states. A model of a non-equilibrium phase transition corresponding to the spontaneous origin of self-reproduction in the system is suggested. After a phase transition, the system passes from one quasistationary distribution of self-reproducing subsystems to another, with an increase in the total organization, as long as the growth of the energy flow through the system or a reduction of energy dissipation in the system is possible. The entropy production is calculated for this process in terms of ldquoselective valuesrdquo of Eigen's theory for self-organization in autocatalytic systems. Correspondence of the extremal principle of Eigen's theory with the criterion of evolution in Prigogine's thermodynamics is established.
"is bullshit too right?Creationists recognize that energy alone does not allow systems to decrease in entropy while at the same time moving away from local equilibrium.
Oh but I already tried to explain that by giving the growth of an embryo as example. But he then simply handwavedWyrm wrote: because imagine if it were true that the second law applies to open systems — nothing could grow complex. Nothing could grow. Life itself would be impossible.
There are no problems for an embryo to grow into a full grown baby because there exists all the templates, instructions, information, mechanisms, nanomachines etc which utilize energy that enables the embryo to grow into a baby.
For example, microevolution is evidence of design.
Yes. First, don't let him get away with just claiming it; force him to back it up from a thermodynamics textbook. Second, a heat engine is something that does just that (if I understand correctly).wautd wrote:I havn't replied him yet but this:is bullshit too right?Creationists recognize that energy alone does not allow systems to decrease in entropy while at the same time moving away from local equilibrium.
... nanomachines? There are nanomachines in babies?!Oh but I already tried to explain that by giving the growth of an embryo as example. But he then simply handwavedWyrm wrote:because imagine if it were true that the second law applies to open systems — nothing could grow complex. Nothing could grow. Life itself would be impossible.There are no problems for an embryo to grow into a full grown baby because there exists all the templates, instructions, information, mechanisms, nanomachines etc which utilize energy that enables the embryo to grow into a baby.
Even with the information, templates, instruction, etc., he still has an open system decreasing in entropy. This handwaving is nothing but bar-raising.My favorite however is that after he said that evolution doesn't happen is this gem:
For example, microevolution is evidence of design.
I'll be he doesn't even know what microevolution is.Am I now? How is posting a (correct) entropy balance equation which indeed applies to an open system makes you jump to conclusion that it applies to the second law, which is about the rate of entropy production due to irreversible transformations in the control volume (sigma_cv) only?“You are the one that stated that the Second Law of Thermodynamics does not apply to open systems! I showed you the equation where it does apply! And you talk about opening physics books when you don't even understand the physics. “
Why would they? If you knew what you were talking about you would know evolution doesn’t make any claim about the origin of life. About the creation of life itself I'm agnostic in the way that the first life on earth could either have happened trough abiogenesis (what you seem to confuse with evolution) or by an intelligence (it doesn’t seem that science is that far off in doing that themselves anyway). However, life has evolved since has started. That's as much as a fact as the fact that gravity will make things fall down.“Evolutionists have failed to explain the origin and development of life.”
Appeal to ignorance. The theory of evolution did provide such predictions. Two examples are:“They have failed to show how new biologic systems are able to develop through mutation and selection.”
Oh but I agree. In fact, you can explain the origin of life by using any of the hundreds creation myths that are in existence. However, it’s something else to prove a specific creation myth.“but I think that much of the evidence can be explained by the Creationists model.”
First you deny evolution happening and now you say that evolution is evidence of design. Do you even know what microevolution is?“For example, microevolution is evidence of design”
Apart from the fact that there isn’t enough water, nor any geological evidence, or that the kinetic energy alone would turned the earth in molten rock, that the world population couldn’t possibly recover that fast, that all plants and fish would have died out, that the ancient Egyptians failed to notice such flood, etc…“We can use science to show that the world wide flood occurred”
Well, the old-earth creationists anyway“We can use science to examine the age of the earth“
Thank you for showing that creationists use natural laws that are different to that of what is used by the science. Second, a heat engine is something that does just that.“For example, Creationists recognize that energy alone does not allow systems to decrease in entropy while at the same time moving away from local equilibrium.”
Since God can’t be seen or observed, nor tested or measured in any way, it’s unnecessary to include God in science. Science relies on empirical evidence. God is not a factor when you’re making calculations in say, building a bridge.“The logic of some in science is not reasonable: "God is outside of our physical world; scientifically we cannot prove God; therefore, discussions of God are unscientific".
Indeed“What we can say about God is that we scientifically don't know whether he exists.”
Sure. God may or not may exist. But that doesn’t change the fact that evolution occurs.“So to be consistent scientifically, we should conduct science as an agnostic”
Commander of the MFS Darwinian Selection Method (sexual)
It's called the Sun.Hardly, you don't get the decrease in entropy that is relevant to the origin of life or the development of new biologic systems without a mechanism that constrains the processes enabling them to occur.
Sure, lets constrain our boundary to include an area of space that include the sun.For example, a rock on a mountain will naturally tend to slide down the hill over time. In order to utilize the entropy rate equation to realize a entropy decreasing process (moving the rock up hill), you need constrained boundary conditions that utilize energy flow, which constitutes the thermodynamic mechanism.
What kind of an engineer would mistake spontaneous chemical reactions with self assembly of mechanical parts? Oh wait, they don't because engineers from accredited universities are educated enough to know better. Here's an idea, go and pick up a copy of any university level chemistry book ( The one by Brown, Lemay, and Burston is pretty good) before you go on ignorantly assuming mechanical parts like diodes, gears, and etc. can be thrown together to react like chemicals can.In our rock example, a truck powered by an engine can be used to carry the rock up the hill. Applying the entropy rate equation to the system, we would realized that the net effect on the environment would be an entropy increase although the effect on the rock would be a decrease in entropy. But the ability to decrease entropy is limited by the functionality of the thermodynamic mechanism. For example, an engine by itself would not be able to move the rock up the hill. You would need power trains, gears, wheels, etc to enable the machine to work -- including an intelligent operator. Engineers are in the business of often developing entropy decreasing mechanisms. It takes work; it takes thought and intelligence; it takes other machines to develop these thermodynamic mechanisms. There is nothing natural about it!
Wrong. Evolution teaches that random mutations that produces certain traits that favor an organisms survival in its native environment, will be passed onto later generations where it will result in these later generations to become the predominate organism. While you're at it, pick up a biology book.Evolution teaches that a multitude of highly improbable states occur on the genome, consecutively leading to decreases in entropy which is in violation of the Second Law.
Precise mutations are required for precise physical features. Since we are talking about an arbitrary system, the number of mutations that can occur to develop new biological systems over billions of years is almost infinite. Life is billions of times more complex then our simple machines as you stated earlier, than there are obviously macrostates in a system that has the same multiplicity that is required for life. So yes the 2nd law does hold true since there are are billions of macrostates that are probable to support life.The multitude of very precise mutations are required to enable the development of new systems, which are too improbable to be explained naturally: the Second Law of Thermodynamics holds true because the most probable states occur rather than the highly improbable states, which is required of evolution.
Not any mutations, but many. You see, that's where the billions of years of Earths existence comes in. And again you wrongly assume that the "design" of an eye must be very precise in order for it to function. Here's a little heads up for you: There A LOT of different kinds of eyes out there of varying complexities.To save space I will not go into all the details but I will ask this one simple question. Where on the genome is all the information allowing this structure to form? Is it one location or is it spread out over a multitude of locations over the genome, which stretches from the earth to the moon? There are the tear ducts, veins, special cells (rods and cones), and brain that has to process the information. And we need to remember that the genome must record the precise shapes of the parts. It is safe to say that there are over 100 parts plus all the information that specifies the shape and location of the parts. The point is that the information is large and at very specific locations. Not any mutations will bring about this system.
Invent stories? Ha! This is coming from a person who supports an assertion that some arbitrary magical sky pixie came about and created life on this planet and wants it to be taught as a science.Now in the crap shoot game of evolution, how does it all come together? Evolutionists only speculate on this and invent stories to explain it.
