I am going to tell you something unbelievable. It will sound like hyperbole or a parable contrived to make a point. It isn’t—it is true. You have heard of the many crazy things people believe but, believe it or not, there is a group that is certain that there is a way for the four fundamental forces of nature (gravity, electromagnetism, the weak nuclear force and the strong nuclear force) to rearrange fundamental particles to form spaceships, nuclear power plants and computers. I am indebted to Granville Sewell for this information, and why it is important.This group does not merely assert that the four fundamental forces can rearrange fundamental particles to have the form of spaceships, nuclear power plants and computers, they actually believe that the four fundamental forces can rearrange matter to have the function of spaceships, nuclear power plants and computers. That is, the four fundamental forces create actual spaceships, nuclear power plants and computers.
Sometimes the more extreme and absurd a belief, the more firmly it is held. This seems to hold true in this case as Sewell was unsuccessful in trying to talk some sense into these people. He explained to them that their belief is highly unlikely given the second law of thermodynamics which states that things tend toward disorder, not order.
It may seem silly to use a scientific argument for such an obviously surreal belief. But the group tends to be scientifically oriented, so Sewell thought the second law would help them to see their colossal blunder.
No such luck. Their response, amazingly, was that sunlight makes all the difference. That’s right, they believe that the four fundamental forces, with the addition of solar radiation, can create spaceships, nuclear power plants and computers.
If you are interested in learning more about this group go here to see the writings of one its leaders.
You're getting your information from Granville Sewell? All is explained! :)
ReplyDeleteGranville Sewell isn't the only one who could identify a group with these bizarre beliefs.
ReplyDeleteNatural fission reactor.
ReplyDeleteNatural fusion reactor.
"He explained to them that their belief is highly unlikely given the second law of thermodynamics which states that things tend toward disorder, not order."
ReplyDelete- Well, I always thought that the second law of thermodynamics only applies to closed systems, but then again I never studied Creationist Physics.
Interesting that you won't name this group or supply a link to the work. Instead you choose to take a backhanded swipe at Dr. Michael Zimmerman, founder of the Clergy Letter Project and strong critic of ID
ReplyDeleteIntelligent Design: Scientifically and Religiously Bankrupt
Interesting but not at all surprising.
Unless I am mistaking your target in the article you linked to and you are actually taking a backhanded swipe at Dr. Jerry Coyne.
ReplyDeleteWhy won't you just name this group instead of tossing around the silly innuendos?
"Well, I always thought that the second law of thermodynamics only applies to closed systems, ..."
ReplyDeleteSee! The scientistes and worshippers of 'Science!' are even here.
LOL! I found the source of this nonsense! It's not from any specific group pushing a new way to use nuclear power. It's from a 2005 article in American Spectator by Granville Sewell himself railing about 'EVOLUTIONISTS' in general think the four fundamental forces alone could produce those things without intelligent guidance.
ReplyDeleteSewell "The discovery that life on Earth developed through evolutionary "steps," coupled with the observation that mutations and natural selection -- like other natural forces -- can cause (minor) change, is widely accepted in the scientific world as proof that natural selection -- alone among all natural forces -- can create order out of disorder, and even design human brains with human consciousness. Only the layman seems to see the problem with this logic. In a recent Mathematical Intelligencer article ("A Mathematician's View of Evolution," 22, number 4, 5-7, 2000), after outlining the specific reasons why it is not reasonable to attribute the major steps in the development of life to natural selection, I asserted that the idea that the four fundamental forces of physics alone could rearrange the fundamental particles of nature into spaceships, nuclear power plants, and computers, connected to laser printers, CRTs, keyboards and the Internet, appears to violate the second law of thermodynamics in a spectacular way."
Evolution's Thermodynamic Failure: Granville Sewell
No wonder you were too embarrassed to provide the actual source of this intellectual swill.
Shame on you again Dr. Hunter, shame!
Ho-ho-ho, Ha-ha-ha.
ReplyDeleteOf course and in fact, the source of the nonsense is in the minds (pardon the expression!) of Dawinisists!
I like Dr. Tim Berra's "refutation" of the creationist claim that evolution violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
ReplyDeleteFrom Evolution and the Myth of Creationism:
These statements conveniently ignore the fact that you can get order out of disorder if you add energy. For example, an unassembled bicycle that arrives at your house in a shopping carton is in a state of disorder. You supply the energy of your muscles (which you get from food that came ultimately from sunlight) to assemble the bike. You have got order from disorder by supplying energy. The Sun is the source of energy input to the Earth's living systems and allows them to evolve.
Cornelius,
ReplyDeleteAs a physicist, I can tell you that Sewell's argument is laughingly, embarrassingly bad. Let me explain why this line of reasoning does not work.
Sewell first tried to reason that laser printers, CRTs, and encyclopedias could not arise spontaneously on Earth because that would amount to an increase of information, and hence a decrease of entropy, in an isolated system. Some kind soul pointed out to him that the Earth is not a closed system. It receives heat from the sun and gives off heat into space. The associated flow of entropy exceeds by many orders of magnitude the decrease of entropy associated with building information content in living organisms. Estimates are readily available. See D. F. Styer, “Entropy and evolution,” Am. J. Phys. 76, 1031 (2008). doi:10.1119/1.2973046.
Once he realized that the 2nd law does not help him, Sewell simply said: yes, the Earth is an open system, but nothing interesting can happen in an open system anyway. So all this sciency stuff was just for show.
Sewell wasn't the first to misuse the 2nd law of thermodynamics. YECs did the same well before him and even they realized that it should no longer be used. So stop beating the dead horse.
Andreas: "Well, I always thought that the second law of thermodynamics only applies to closed systems"
ReplyDeleteThat would be the "solar radiation" part.
Since you appear to believe that solar radiation makes all the difference, perhaps you can explain how solar radiation can form spaceships, nuclear power plants and computers?
Oh, and by the way, the third law won't help you here. Just because it's not forbidden by the third law doesn't mean that doesn't mean that its otherwise possible via the four fundamental forces.
Endoplasmic Messenger: But that reduces the question again to the standard ones about origins and (chemical) evolution. The 2nd law has nothing to do with it.
ReplyDeletePut it another way: Does the 2nd law prohibit the existence of (chemical) replicators on earth?
Endo,
ReplyDelete"Since you appear to believe that solar radiation makes all the difference, perhaps you can explain how solar radiation can form spaceships, nuclear power plants and computers?
"
That would be photosynthesis, mostly. And sunlight creating the energy gradients necessary for OOL.
oleg:
ReplyDelete====
As a physicist, I can tell you that Sewell's argument is laughingly, embarrassingly bad. Let me explain why this line of reasoning does not work.
Sewell first tried to reason that laser printers, CRTs, and encyclopedias could not arise spontaneously ...
====
I'd like see more, but already you are employing the usual evolutionary canard. Sewell does not make such an absolute claim (evolutionists do that and then project). Sewell says it is improbable.
Do you believe nuclear power plants, or something like them, are likely to spontaneously arise in a solar system?
Do you have any support for this claim other than "It is not physically impossible ..."?
When you add enrgy to a system,yo actually increase entropy. Unless the energy is added in a very cotrolled way. This is what machines do. They control the flow of energy through a system. A car burns gasoline in a very controlled way to provide controlled motion. But if yuo poor gasoline on the car and light it, you will get a charred piece of metal with very high entropy. Organisms also use very careful, precise controls to control the flow of energy. But without the systems, entropy in the organisms would increase.
ReplyDeleteCornelius,
ReplyDeleteI am not using anything evolutionary. I'm simply telling you that Sewell initially tried to rely on the 2nd law of thermodynamics to argue against evolution. That argument does not apply because the Earth is not a closed system. He then said: fine, it isn't, but I still can't see how evolution can happen. He ditched the 2nd law and resorted to an argument from personal incredulity.
As to your argument against naive reductionism (the four fundamental interactions do not explain evolution), it's silly. Particle physics doesn't explain rigidity of solids or propagation of sound in air, either. It's not in that business. There are other branches of physics that deal with that: solid state physics and fluid mechanics. Likewise, the four fundamental interactions do not elucidate chemical reactions, chemistry deals with that.
I strongly recommend reading Phil Anderson's essay More Is Different. You will learn that "psychology is not applied biology, nor is biology applied chemistry." That should clear up the confusion.
To the best of my knowledge, the rigidity of solids or the propogation of sound in air can be explained by the known properties of individual particles. The properties of individual particles explains how they act when there are a lot of them. Things like the polarity of individual molecules determine things like rigidity, crystal shape electroconductivity, solubility, etc.
ReplyDeleteNo, natschuster, you are wrong about this. Knowing the properties of one particle and even a full characterization of interactions between particles does not explain rigidity. Collections of atoms can form gases, liquids, and solids. Only the latter exhibit rigidity. Understanding how rigidity arises requires knowledge beyond the laws of particle physics.
ReplyDeleteIt turns out that rigidity is associated with a spontaneous breaking of symmetry. Crystalline solids are less symmetric than the laws that govern the interactions of their constituent particles. Rigidity (resistance to a change in shape) can be directly traced to that loss of symmetry. Liquids and gases, in contrast, are fully symmetric and do not possess rigidity. This is clearly not something that particle physics deals with.
Alan Fox said...
ReplyDelete"You're getting your information from Granville Sewell? All is explained! :) "
Great point. The source of information determines its truth. God luck on that nonsense.
As for your inane case for Kitzmiller on your blog, "I will agree with your remark when Kitzmiller is appealed and reversed..."
That's not such a bad answer in one sense -though it wrongly presumes that courts can determine science.
Now let me see how this logic would apply to the case against Galileo way back when...
Um gee, you'd clearly lose.
He lost back then due to inane "thinkers" like you who think forcing a religiously held current consensus view is the way to do science.
But he ended up the winner and we all mock the idiot scientists who pushed the case against him.
But you and your blind and deaf ilk ought to get ready for the mockery to begin as the evidence for ID keeps rising and squashing Darwinian inanities as each year passes.
That you are too blinded by your materialist crutch to admit it is irrelevant.
Rira bien qui rira le dernier.
Thorton is as wrong as always.
ReplyDelete'nuff said.
What a waste to believe the salient lies the way you materialist, blind followers of the blind, do.
Gary: "Thorton is as wrong as always.
ReplyDelete'nuff said.
What a waste to believe the salient lies the way you materialist, blind followers of the blind, do."
I notice all you can do is bluster about everyone else being wrong but can never show why they are wrong. Doesn't do much for your credibility.
I'm under the impression that the symmetry breaking in solids is due to the fact that the molecules have volume and form a lattice, so that each point in the lattice is not the same as every other point.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis story makes me think of "Boltzmann brain" hypothesis:
ReplyDeletehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boltzmann_brain
Maybe the evolutionists should use the following argument against the nuclear power plants etc., that was actually brought against the Boltzmann brain hypothesis.
ReplyDelete"The rationale behind this being paradoxical is that, out of chaos, it is more likely for one instance of a complex structure to arise than for many instances of that thing to arise."
Let me use an example why this objection does not hold:
Applying this rationale to the cosmic background radiation that incidentally signifies the "seeding fluctuations" that ultimately lead to our consciousness - evolutionary speaking that is... there should actually have been only one region different from the rest. We know empirically that chaos does not end in one instance of a more complex structure. The reason why statistics does not work with chaos is simply because there is no measure for the possible statistical outcomes.
A further complication for the impossibility of these things just popping into existence is the fact that naturalistically speaking there is an actual infinite causal regress extending back before the Big Bang (Multi-verse bla bla ad infinitum). You have to admit... if that is the case all bets are off and anything becomes not just possible, but a necessity. With an infinite time in the past for things to happen all possible things must have happened.
But if anyone here would like to disallow an actual causal regress, that is fine with me, because it is very stupid. However, it will leave any naturalist with some serious problems regarding the big question..."Why is there something instead of nothing?"
I fail to see how Sewell's argument, that in open systems complexity is unlikely to arise spontaneously is different from Holye's junkjard tornado. Unless Sewell takes into account natural selection there is nothing really new.
ReplyDeleteOleg:
ReplyDelete=======
As to your argument against naive reductionism (the four fundamental interactions do not explain evolution), it's silly. Particle physics doesn't explain rigidity of solids or propagation of sound in air, either. It's not in that business. There are other branches of physics that deal with that: solid state physics and fluid mechanics. Likewise, the four fundamental interactions do not elucidate chemical reactions, chemistry deals with that.
I strongly recommend reading Phil Anderson's essay More Is Different. You will learn that "psychology is not applied biology, nor is biology applied chemistry." That should clear up the confusion.
=======
No, it does not clear up the problem. The spontaneous arising of nuclear power plants or computers is not explained by the fact of higher level phenomena. Regardless of the nature of higher level phenomena, the question remains:
Do you believe nuclear power plants, or something like them, are likely to arise spontaneously in a solar system like ours? An argument that such is not physically impossible is not an argument that it is likely.
RobertC:
ReplyDelete"No evolutionist is asking a spaceship, or a complete human being, or a single modern protein to pop out of nothingness."
Strawman.
"So evolution has produced complex features, and even intelligent beings that themselves produce complex things. So what?"
Classic evolutionary science at work.
"I guess this argument would pack some punch if ID could prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that selection can't produce novel features."
Another example of how evolution is not vulnerable, and must be true.
Cornelius,
ReplyDeleteA nuclear power plant did arise spontaneously in our solar system. It's called the sun. It's a fusion reactor.
RobertC "I guess this argument would pack some punch if ID could prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that selection can't produce novel features."
ReplyDeleteC.Hunter "Another example of how evolution is not vulnerable, and must be true."
Also known as "question-begging." Or, as I call it DarLogic ™ ... DarwinDefenders seem always to come factory-equiped with a DarLogic Module ™
RC: "No evolutionist is asking a spaceship, or a complete human being, or a single modern protein to pop out of nothingness."
ReplyDeleteCH: Strawman.
Why, yes, your argument is. It seems like a rehash of the 'tornado in a junkyard.' Above, you even restate this as: "The spontaneous arising of nuclear power plants or computers is not explained by the fact of higher level phenomena." Spontaneous? Who has claimed to observe that? You are portraying the opposition as believing inanimate known-to be designed objects appear naturally, without the intervening step of evolution. Straw-man built on a false analogy.
+++++
RC: "So evolution has produced complex features, and even intelligent beings that themselves produce complex things. So what?"
CH: Classic evolutionary science at work
RC: Why, yes, it is. Science collects empirical data. And the observed fact that selection from random variation creates new function disproves this entire thread of logic. Any single observation of evolution, and evo-devo experiment swapping genes that differ by a mutation, any directed evolution experiment, any genetic algorithm will serve this purpose.
+++++
RC" "I guess this argument would pack some punch if ID could prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that selection can't produce novel features."
CH: Another example of how evolution is not vulnerable, and must be true.
RC: I'll admit the wording here is poor, but if we've already observed that selection produces novel functions, over and over, you'd better be packing some nice, detailed evidence to prove me wrong. Hand-waving based on the second law of thermodynamics that has been extensively debunked elsewhere is less than convincing.
Aren't we supposed to rely on empirical data, instead of starting with a premise, and weakly defending it? Is Sewell a practicer of your so called moderate empiricism? How so?
+++
Ilion: you are not nearly as cute or clever as you believe yourself to be. Bring something to the discussion, or STFU.
Robert C "Last time I checked, power plants and spaceships were inanimate objects unable to reproduce, and contained no heritable information. "
ReplyDeleteYou are absolutely right, those things cannot reproduce, spontaneously or gradually change their nature or use their internal parts to create life. Much like this inanimate planet used to be 4.5 billion years ago.
RobertC:
ReplyDelete"Spontaneous? Who has claimed to observe that?"
Ah, that would be you.
"You are portraying the opposition as believing inanimate known-to be designed objects appear naturally, without the intervening step of evolution."
No, spontaneous does not mean there are no intervening steps. It's funny how defensively evolutionists respond in the face of their own ideas. Face it Robert, you are promoting the absurd idea that spaceships, nuclear power plants and computers arose spontaneously in our solar system. Furthermore, you are saying this is an undeniable *fact*. You have made a mockery of science.
More importantly (for 'science' is a petty little thing), 'modern evolutionary theorists' make a mockery of reason.
ReplyDeleteHere is a PDF of a good article on the subject of entropy and evolution. Its title is… entropy and evolution. (Non-PDF form, with a longer address.)
ReplyDeleteRelevant quote from it:
"A creationist confronted with the estimates in this article might respond by saying “an open system and an adequate outside source of energy are necessary but not sufficient conditions for the complexity, structure, and organization of a system to increase.” How would you reply?
(First possible answer: The second law of thermodynamics permits but does not require evolution. For example, the second law of thermodynamics holds on the Moon, yet biological evolution doesn’t occur there. Second possible answer: This article establishes that evolution is consistent with the second law of thermodynamics. Whether or not biological evolution actually happens is a different question, which has been investigated thoroughly. In exactly the same way it is consistent with the second law of thermodynamics for my salary toexceed $1000 annually, and for it to exceed $1,000,000 annually. Whether or not either salary actually happens is a different question.)
To put all that another way… I could argue that Devon couldn't have dunked a basketball because of the rule that legs without knees cannot jump. Let's say you point out that Devon's legs do in fact have knees.
I could reply "Just because someone has knees doesn't mean they can dunk the ball! Bent knees don't cause ball-dunking all by themselves. When was the last time you saw a toddler, or a horse — both of which have knees! — dunk a ball?" This reply would be irrelevant, for the same reasons that "but the sun doesn't cause things to self-organize" is irrelevant.
Cornelius Hunter: "No, spontaneous does not mean there are no intervening steps. It's funny how defensively evolutionists respond in the face of their own ideas. Face it Robert, you are promoting the absurd idea that spaceships, nuclear power plants and computers arose spontaneously in our solar system. Furthermore, you are saying this is an undeniable *fact*. You have made a mockery of science.
ReplyDeleteSpontaneous also doesn't mean with over 3.3 billion years between the first and last steps.
It's sad that the best evidence you can muster for ID is this sort of childish semantic game and going "neener neener neener!" That's really going to give your ideas credibility in the professional science world.
Thorton:
ReplyDelete"Spontaneous also doesn't mean with over 3.3 billion years between the first and last steps."
Why is that true?
"Spontaneous also doesn't mean with over 3.3 billion years between the first and last steps."
ReplyDeleteWhy is that true?
Because your usage of it in this particular case does not fit any standard accepted definition of the word.
Again, what do you hope to gain with these childish semantic games? If it's to make ID look even more lame and vacuous than before then you're succeeding admirably.
The assertion isn't true, of course. It’s just more baseless blather from a DarwinDefender's DarLogic Module ™.
ReplyDeleteThere is not time limit on 'spontaneous,' for spontaneity isn’t about time.
Spontaneous can mean two rather different things: "Of one's own will", and the meaning which I think is becoming much more predominant in modern English, "instantaneously". In fact, I personally wasn't aware of the former meaning until I looked it up.
ReplyDeleteThe confusion of the two meanings is a nice way for naturalism to seem extra-absurd; if those materialists think things happened without supernatural/"outside" input, then a certain word can be used to imply that they also think these things happened instantaneously.
The really funny thing is that evolution, not creationism and related movements, holds much more to gradualism than to silly "spontaneity" in the second sense.
If you find somebody who believes the first horse formed instantaneously, is this person likely to believe in evolution?
It appears that like myself, Thorton was only aware of the "instantaneous" definition, while C. Hunter and Ilíon were only aware of the "self-sufficient" one. I hope my post on it clears things up a little. :)
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIt appears that like myself, Thorton was only aware of the "instantaneous" definition, while C. Hunter and Ilíon were only aware of the "self-sufficient" one. I hope my post on it clears things up a little.
ReplyDeleteI was well aware of both definitions. The usage in this particular case, describing the development of an object over countless billions of steps and 3.3 billion years of time, fits neither. The OP was a rather pathetic attempt to score a few cheap rhetorical points, nothing more. Given that all ID has is cheap empty rhetoric though, it's not the least bit surprising.
Lenoxus:
ReplyDelete====
Here is a PDF of a good article on the subject of entropy and evolution. Its title is… entropy and evolution. (Non-PDF form, with a longer address.)
====
Thanks for the link. I appreciate Styer's attempt and hoping it improves pedagogy. But it's strange it was published. It doesn't start off well ("Does the 2nd law *prohibit* evolution?"), and from there it gets worse. Styer compares individuals separated by 100 years and uses a generous factor of 1000 times reduction in microstates. This nicely turns out to solve the problem, end of story.
Interestingly Styer says his selection of a reduction factor of 1000 is "very generous." One can hardly argue with that. Am I 1000 times less likely than my great grandfather?
But why not go further to strengthen the case. Styer could increase the factor to 100000 or 10^6, or 10^12, or 10^50, or 10^99, or 10^999, or ..., without harming the case.
Every individual, in every species, for all history could be 10^99 more improbable than an individual from a century earlier, and you're nowhere close to a problem. Amazing what a little sunlight does.
Cornelius, I really enjoy how you take one line from my post and play semantic twister with it. You also keep putting words like "undeniable fact" in my mouth. But, considering its what you do to every scientist, I'm not so hurt.
ReplyDeleteTo be polite, however, I'll continue to reply to your posts in their entirety. For clarity, and cohesiveness, I'll restate the context of my points whenever possible.
1) CH: "No, spontaneous does not mean there are no intervening steps. It's funny how defensively evolutionists respond in the face of their own ideas. Face it Robert, you are promoting the absurd idea that spaceships, nuclear power plants and computers arose spontaneously in our solar system."
I had asked earlier what evolutionist has ever claimed nukes and spaceships arise spontaneously. My exact line was: "You are portraying the opposition as believing inanimate known-to be designed objects appear naturally, without the intervening step of evolution." Again, who made this claim?
For the record, here are all definitions of spontaneous from 1 source (www.merriam-webster.com/):
1 : proceeding from natural feeling or native tendency without external constraint
2 : arising from a momentary impulse
3 : controlled and directed internally : self-acting
4 : produced without being planted or without human labor : indigenous
5 : developing or occurring without apparent external influence, force, cause, or treatment
6 : not apparently contrived or manipulated
Nukes and shuttles fail because they are known to be produced non-spontaneously, without their own control, by human design and fabrication (failing all definitions). Who has ever claimed anything to the contrary? Reference?
Unless, that is, the executed designs of humans are 'spontaneous' to you? Now, if 'spontaneous' can mean encompassing billions of years, including abiogenesis, all evolution, and the arrival of a sentient species that can execute designs, than sure, I guess I'm arguing for exactly that. But that is some definition of spontaneous--one that is internally contradictory by including both 'man-made' and 'not involving human fabrication' as part of the definition.
Secondly, you've never included those intervening steps in the straw-man portrait of the argument. Error of omission? Convenience?
2) I was thinking in chemical terms, where a spontaneous reaction occurs without outside influence, and a non-spontaneous reaction requires input. Hence my objection to leaving the human factor out of the creation of known designed objects. Do humans not have input in making the shuttle? Do we not use energy to make it?
For example, lets turn to the example you mock: the production of carbohydrates is highly non-spontaneous. Add sunlight, and the reaction proceeds. Now, if we define the solar system as the 'system,' are plants violating the laws of thermodynamics by making complex carbohydrates? At some point, the whole notion of applying the laws of thermodynamics loses any meaning, if you play games like this.
It gets even sillier if in the non-spontaneous reaction matter-->space shuttle, we throw away all intervening sub-reactions, humans, and energy input.
3) "Furthermore, you are saying this is an undeniable *fact*. You have made a mockery of science."
ReplyDeleteNope. Dead wrong. The one and ONLY thing I said was a fact is the observation that novel functions can be created from selection acting on random variation. This is an empirical observation from multiple sources I listed above. That this fact has been observed falsifies your premise.
Again, is hypothetical hand-waving based on a pre-arrived conclusion in the face of empirical evidence your definition of moderate empiricism?
You have a pre-falsified, hyper-debunked hypothesis, I have a working hypothesis as follows:
If each intervening step in our hyper-expanded definition of spontaneity can produce enhanced complexity, there is no reason to conclude, on face, that nukes and shuttles did not arrive by natural processes encompassing abiogenesis, evolution of sentience, and design and fabrication by humans.
Lenoxus:
ReplyDelete===
Spontaneous can mean two rather different things: "Of one's own will", and the meaning which I think is becoming much more predominant in modern English, "instantaneously". In fact, I personally wasn't aware of the former meaning until I looked it up.
===
The context here is science (thermodynamics, chemistry and biology ...), not colloquial usage. Spontaneous change of a system is change that occurs without external influence.
RobertC:
ReplyDelete"Cornelius, I really enjoy how you take one line from my post and play semantic twister with it. You also keep putting words like "undeniable fact" in my mouth."
Oh, sorry about that. So how do you characterize the certainty (or uncertainty) of evolution?
RC: "Cornelius, I really enjoy how you take one line from my post and play semantic twister with it. You also keep putting words like "undeniable fact" in my mouth."
ReplyDeleteCH: "Oh, sorry about that. So how do you characterize the certainty (or uncertainty) of evolution?"
Changing the subject...
Evolution has been directly observed. The increase of functionality by natural selection acting on random input has been observed.
Genomic sequencing, along with sophisticated algorithms find nested hierarchies, and conclude the hypothesis life evolved from a universal common ancestor is best compared to all tested hypotheses.
Evolution, therefore, best explains this data, and many other lines of evidence, and has not yet been falsified.
I would not reject it based on what you present here, for the reasons I outline above.
CH: "The context here is science (thermodynamics, chemistry and biology ...), not colloquial usage. Spontaneous change of a system is change that occurs without external influence."
Exactly. This is my point 2 above. You remove humans and energy input into making a shuttle, and it sounds pretty silly. The reaction matter->shuttle is preposterous without outside input. So you lump humans and energy spent into the system. But, including humans in the system is the same error as including the Sun and plants in a system and concluding plants cannot make complex carbohydrates.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIlíon: “There is no time limit on 'spontaneous,' for spontaneity isn’t about time. ”
ReplyDeleteLenoxus: “Spontaneous can mean two rather different things: "Of one's own will", and the meaning which I think is becoming much more predominant in modern English, "instantaneously".”
Lenoxus: “It appears that like myself, Thorton was only aware of the "instantaneous" definition, while C. Hunter and Ilíon were only aware of the "self-sufficient" one.”
Well, no; what’s apparent is that you appear to lack a firm grasp on the English language. That “arising from a momentary impulse” sense of the word is not about time, it’s about the “naturalness” and “freedom” and “lack of external constraint” of the “impulse” and the consequence which “arises” from it.
CH:
ReplyDelete====
It doesn't start off well ("Does the 2nd law *prohibit* evolution?"), and from there it gets worse.
===
But that question is precisely the one raised by anti-evolutionists! The original anti-evolutionary claim is that 2LoT in some sense makes evolution either impossible or unlikely enough to be considered impossible. The normal response to this claim is that 2LoT doesn't apply, because the presence of the sun means the Earth is not a closed system. There are two common counter-responses:
(1) Just because the Earth is an open system does not make evolution especially likely to occur; the sun cannot cause increases in ordered complexity.
(2) 2LoT still applies, because it is really a law about information, not energy per se; the sun only provides energy, not information.
The first of these objections misses the mark, because the original anti-evolutionist claim was that evolution violates 2Lot, not that 2LoT alone is insufficient to cause evolution. This was the point of my basketball example; merely possessing knees is not enough to dunk the ball, but the original claim was that certain outside factors (which happen to require knee possession) made ball-dunking impossible. These are two totally different claims.
The second objection, while perhaps consistent with the original claim (that 2LoT renders evolution impossible), only gets that way by redefining 2LoT.
I apologize to both Thorton and Ilíon for misinterpreting your language and putting thoughts in your heads. My bad.
ReplyDeleteIlíon, find me another example anywhere of any human action being described as 'spontaneous' which includes the 3.3 billion years of time it took humans to evolve.
ReplyDeleteI'll save you some time - you can't. This whole thread is a worthless exercise in equivocation and semantic games-playing not worthy of a high school freshman.
RobertC:
ReplyDelete===
Exactly. This is my point 2 above. You remove humans and energy input into making a shuttle, and it sounds pretty silly. The reaction matter->shuttle is preposterous without outside input. So you lump humans and energy spent into the system. But, including humans in the system is the same error as including the Sun and plants in a system and concluding plants cannot make complex carbohydrates.
===
No, according to Coyne, humans are merely materialistic machines acting *within* the system. They don't count as external influences. Many evolutionists do not hold that evolution is a highly improbable event, but rather a reasonably probable event. So they believe that things like spaceships, nuclear power plants and computers are to be expected to spontaneously arise.
CH: "No, according to Coyne, humans are merely materialistic machines acting *within* the system. They don't count as external influences."
ReplyDeleteI don't recall seeing Coyne in your original post, nor do I know the context of this. Again, you're resorting to increasing tricks just so you can keep using the word 'spontaneous.' In the equation matter-->shuttle, I'd prefer human design and energy to be an input into the system.
But let us define the system as you claim Conye does. The whole planet, humans and all, is one open system. Problem is, there is still external energy sources-sunlight and tides to name two. So, pockets of order can be created within it, without any violation to the laws of thermodynamics. For example, cells can take any number of different energy inputs, and use it to drive local ordering.
Don't try to argue the opposite-how many biochemical reactions are non-spontaneous, unless coupled? Does this falsify central metabolism? No.
Similarly, in this new system, lets consider ourselves to be coupled catalysts. We take energy from one reaction, and input it into another.
More simply, if I am part of the system of the planet, I can expend some energy I got by eating plants, and paint a picture, or build a car, or space shuttle. The second law doesn't forbid all synthetic action.
So, you choose to write:
"Their response, amazingly, was that sunlight makes all the difference. That’s right, they believe that the four fundamental forces, with the addition of solar radiation, can create spaceships, nuclear power plants and computers."
The energy input of the sun, of course, contradicts with the chemical definition of spontaneity. Ignoring that, the whole post is a pandering to the supposed silliness of something designed arriving 'spontaneously', except that in this case spontaneous means in a particularly construed system (where 3.5 billion years of evolution, human design and fabrication are part of the system), and ignoring all energy inputs. If you had made this clear, I'd have no objections. Precision in stating your point is important.
CH: "Many evolutionists do not hold that evolution is a highly improbable event, but rather a reasonably probable event."
More precisely, it is directly observed contemporaneously, with strong historical data.
And as I stated above, it is a supported theory, not yet falsified. This post provides no reason to dispense with it.
CH: "So they believe that things like spaceships, nuclear power plants and computers are to be expected to spontaneously arise."
Ok-but only according to an certain system-where evolution and human design and fabrication are part of the system, and a science where need of energy input doesn't define spontaneity.
Wow-religion drives physics and chemistry in some interesting directions.
Would you care to define spontaneous now?
Oh- missed one line:
ReplyDeleteCH: "are to be expected to spontaneously arise."
Is loaded with the word "expected." We can say the second law of thermodynamics allows for increases in local order, evolution etc. However, I wouldn't say we would therefore expect it to happen, merely that it could happen.
Cornelius Hunter: ... the absurd idea that spaceships, nuclear power plants and computers arose spontaneously in our solar system.
ReplyDeleteNatural fission reactor.
Natural fusion reactor.
Spaceship.
-
As a materialist, I am quite prepared to say that there may be more going on than the four fundamental interactions. It would be pretty crazy to say "No, we've discovered it all". But whatever is outside those interactions is either coherently describable or not, and if it's not, there's no point talking about it.
ReplyDeleteI mean, to put that another way… if a fifth force were discovered, would it ipso facto be "supernatural"? If so, then surely the weak and strong nuclear forces are supernatural, because they were discovered and described later than the other two. When is the cutoff point beyond which new discoveries are no longer "material"? 1970? 2010?
It seems to me that either things like magnets are supernatural (they are quite spooky, after all), or the word only refers to that-which-cannot-be-coherently-descibed.
RobertC: "... The reaction matter->shuttle is preposterous without outside input. So you lump humans and energy spent into the system. But, including humans in the system is the same error as including the Sun and plants in a system and concluding plants cannot make complex carbohydrates. ..."
ReplyDeleteC.Hunter: "No, according to Coyne, humans are merely materialistic machines acting *within* the system. They don't count as external influences. ..."
It's not *merely* "according to Coyne" ... it's according to naturalism (and materialism); it's what *must* be true if naturalism is the truth about the nature of reality.
... Isn't it odd that 'atheists' (*) put up such a fight against admitting (and embracing) the logical implications and concomitants of atheism?
ReplyDelete(*) The quote marks are because very few self-identifying atheists are really atheists. If they were really atheists, they'd admit and accept what logically follows from atheism.
Illion-
ReplyDeleteI didn't know naturalism dictated what we choose to define as the system in thermodynamics. I think you came late to the discussion, and decided to latch onto one phrase.
Regardless of the funny choice, the Earth is an open system with energy input, and local clusters of order are permitted.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteDoublee said...
ReplyDelete[begin quote]
I like Dr. Tim Berra's "refutation" of the creationist claim that evolution violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
From Evolution and the Myth of Creationism:
[begin quote-within-quote]
These statements conveniently ignore the fact that you can get order out of disorder if you add energy. For example, an unassembled bicycle that arrives at your house in a shopping carton is in a state of disorder. You supply the energy of your muscles (which you get from food that came ultimately from sunlight) to assemble the bike. You have got order from disorder by supplying energy. The Sun is the source of energy input to the Earth's living systems and allows them to evolve.
[/end quote-within-quote]
[/end quote]
Um, no.
You're not just adding energy; you're also adding a machine that converts that energy to useful work (your arms, muscles, tools) and you're also adding information (which nut goes where?).
To increase order from disorder you need these three things:
1) input of energy
2) a mechanism to convert that energy into useful work
3) a "program" to drive that mechanism
As someone pointed out in another comment, fuel poured onto a car and set afire would simply leave a charred hulk. But put into the engine that functions as a mechanism to convert that energy into useful work, and with a "program" that drives it (the driver on a macro scale; the built-in "program" in hardware of camshafts and distributor timing on a more micro scale), then you've got something.
The unassembled bike from the factory, exposed to the energy of raw sunlight, or campfire heat, or earthquake jostling, or a couple of ten year olds banging on it with random tools, is simply not going to cause the disordered state of the unassembled bicycle to become an ordered state of an assembled bicycle. It's just not.
Dr. Tim Berra's refutation fails.
Chyntt: To increase order from disorder you need these three things:
ReplyDelete1) input of energy
2) a mechanism to convert that energy into useful work
3) a "program" to drive that mechanism
As the question concerns thermodynamic order (entropy decreasing), that is incorrect. A simple example of entropy decreasing is a pond freezing in winter.
"As the question concerns thermodynamic order (entropy decreasing), that is incorrect. A simple example of entropy decreasing is a pond freezing in winter."
ReplyDeleteYou know, here is an example of someone who *should* quit his day-job.
Zachriel said:
ReplyDelete[begin quote]
As the question concerns thermodynamic order (entropy decreasing), that is incorrect. A simple example of entropy decreasing is a pond freezing in winter.
[/end quote]
You're right about the larger question on this thread, but my response was to challenge the claim that adding energy to a disordered system will increase its order, particularly as it applies to the assembling of a bicycle from the factory. Simply adding energy won't assemble the bike.
Concerning the lake freezing, that supports my contention. If you add energy to the frozen lake, it will melt, increasing entropy.
In other words, simply adding energy to a system, without a machine to convert that energy to useful work and a program to run that machine, will increase the entropy of that system.
You are correct with your example. Instead of saying these three things are needed to "increase order from disorder"; I should have said that in order to increase order from disorder by adding energy, you also need the other two things.
Thank you for the correction.
Chyntt: You're right about the larger question on this thread,
ReplyDeleteCornelius Hunter: This seems to hold true in this case as Sewell was unsuccessful in trying to talk some sense into these people. He explained to them that their belief is highly unlikely given the second law of thermodynamics which states that things tend toward disorder, not order.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics was the point of the thread.
Chyntt: Dr. Tim Berra's refutation fails.
Whether natural or artificial, no matter how clever you are, the Second Law of Thermodynamics holds. It applies to machines, to trees, to typing on blogs, to the broad history of evolutionary divergence.
Chyntt: In other words, simply adding energy to a system, without a machine to convert that energy to useful work and a program to run that machine, will increase the entropy of that system.
Adding energy to a system will normally increase the entropy of the system because it opens up more states. That's true of machines too, unless it puts the heat into a sink of some sort! A pond decreases in entropy by radiating heat into the surrounding environment. So does the interior of your refrigerator.