Using Scientific Definitions: Evolution and Thermodynamics

[TheFallibleFiend]

Being lectured by a creationist about thermodynamics is like being lectured on calculus by someone who has never heard of the fundamental theorems or the chain rule.

[wallyjude3]

"Being lectured by a creationist..." More of your pitiful arrogance. You think you're more intelligent than everyone who holds or has held to a creationist viewpoint? You're more intelligent than Newton, Pasteur, Damadian, Wise, Harris, Lester, Snelling, Parker, Sarfati, Kepler, Pascal, etc, etc. And even Einstein, though he did not believe in a personal god, did believe there was a supreme being in control. You're smarter than them all, right?

[TheFallibleFiend]

Newton, Kepler, and Pascal lived in an era before we developed an understanding of the science. It's comical to compare them to buffoons like Sarfatti and Snelling.

Your point about Einstein is irrelevant. Einstein was a not a creationist. Lots of people believe in God who accept evolution - Nothing in evolution says anything about the existence or nonexistence of a God. capable of addressing the subject of God.

[wallyjude3]

"Buffoons...," Name calling does not remove the fact that both men are fully credentialed & practicing scientists. You're not. Your referring to them as buffoons carries no weight, it only further demonstrates your ignorance, disrespect & arrogance. I've seen what happens when guys like you come up against men like these in face-to-face confrontations. it does not come out well for your type. Not at all.

[TheFallibleFiend]

Your comparing Sarfaiti to Galileo is what carries no weight. You consider it arrogant for an engineer who has studied thermodynamics to explain thermo to you, but you don't consider yourself arrogant for thinking you know more about it from having read a few web pages on the subject. You are arrogant. And Sarfatti and Snelling are buffoons.

[wallyjude3]

"Comparing Sarfati to Galileo...," I never said anything about Galileo, so where did that come from? It would appear you read as well as you do science. As for you being an engineer, that is truly irrelevant. First, how do I know you're an engineer, because you say so? Second, even if you are an engineer that alone does not mean you know more than anyone else on a particular subject. I know engineers who would be laughing at your arguments right now, so don't try that tact with me.

[TheFallibleFiend]

Correct. You compared them to Kepler who which is also entirely inappropriate. I misremembered. I don't care whether you know I'm an engineer. Second, the point is that you don't have any education at all on the subject and shouldn't be teaching anyone about it. Third, I don't care what "engineers" you know. You're still utterly ignorant of 2LOT - and so are they, if they agree with you.

[wallyjude3]

"Compared them to Kepler...." Incorrect, I did not compare anyone to anyone else. I simply stated names of eminent scientists who were/are creationists., nothing more. I know you don't care what other engineers say. That you don't care what anybody says is quite clear in your posts. It's funny you keep saying I won't listen. The fact that other engineers disagree with you shows plainly you are not as adept on the subject as you think. But of course, they're wrong & you're right. Yawn.

[TheFallibleFiend]

@wallyjude3 They are not all eminent scientists. Creationists always refer to their gold boys as "eminent" when they want to make them sound impressive.

The fact that you keep babbling nonsense on the subject indicates you don't know anything about it.

[5tunns]

I know they are not "eminent scientists." The only "eminent scientists" are the ones you agree with. It's really amazing how that works, isn't it. What a joke.

[TheFallibleFiend]

@5tunns Nope. Most of the very many scientists I know and agree with are not 'eminent.' But some few of them are. Creationists hold up any bamboozler who agree with them as "eminent."

[wallyjude3]

My point on Einstein is not irrelevant, it is simply inconvenient for you. Do a little research & you'll find Einstein was annoyed at people using him as a reference for their disbelief in God. You're also a historical chauvinist. Because Newton, Pascal & Kepler lived in a different era they were not as smart as you? They understood science very well & you have no reason to believe otherwise. And don't be like others who say if they were alive today they would be atheists.

[TheFallibleFiend]

Einstein was not a creationist and therefore is not "inconvenient." That someone believes in a god does not make them a "creationist."

I never said that Newton, Pascal and Kepler were stupid. They were not aware of evolution or the evidence for it and so their opinion on the subject is irrelevant.

[wallyjude3]

I never said Einstein was a creationist, I said Einstein believed in a god who was in control of the universe. "God does not play dice with the universe."

[TheFallibleFiend]

The fact that he believes in a God is irrelevant, because LOTS of evolutionary scientists accept the existence of god and nothing in evolution refutes the existence of a God.

[TheFallibleFiend]

And my comparison is spot on. Being lectured by a creationist about thermodynamics really is like being lectured on calculus by someone who is ignorant of the fundamental theorems and the chain rule.

If you have any understanding of science beyond the third grade, it is not evidenced in your posts.

[wallyjude3]

"The only definitions which count are the scientific definitions." Isn't that convenient for science. If you can't make your argument you just redefine terms til it all works out for you. How very handy. I think you are very confused about the 2nd law. It's good you took a break to look it up. The law is simply, energy systems tend to toward increased entropy rather than decreased. In other words things will wind down, not up, putting evolution in dire straits.

[TheFallibleFiend]

Not a matter of convenience.  The laws themselves were formulated with those definitions. It's not the scientists who are attempting to redefine the terms - the creationists who won't do their homework.

The law doesn't say that. It says that in an isolated system, entropy does not decrease.

What you're conveying is a 3rd grade understanding of a sophisticated concept.

[wallyjude3]

Ah yes, the old you don't understand the science gambit. You guys are getting quite boring. The universe is a closed system, it is not open. Therefore the universe is winding down & as a result evolution does not happen. Sorry, that's just the way it is. All the redefining of terms is not going to change that. Evolution as defined by descent from a common ancestor does not meet any of the standards required to be considered a science. It can't be observed, repeated, tested or demonstrated.

[TheFallibleFiend]

Not a gambit. You really don't understand. The universe is assumed to be an isolated system. If the universe really is an isolated system, then evolution still does conflict with the second law, because it's the total entropy of the system that cannot decrease. Nothing in the second law prevents local decreases in entropy. The other stuff you say is also false and belies a profound misunderstanding of science; however, it's also an attempt to change the subject.

[wallyjude3]

"You really don't understand." I am getting very sick of hearing this argument from arrogant types like you. It is plainly obvious watching your video, it is you who does not understand. You couldn't even state the 2nd law without taking a break to look it up. If you want to state the universe is an open system you're going to have to provide evidence to that fact, ie the source of the incoming energy. Good luck with that.

[TheFallibleFiend]

I can easily state the second law, have done so on innumerable occasions. What I did was give a reference with multiple correct definitions. What you're getting sick of is irrelevant. You don't know your head from your backside about 2LOT. I never said the universe was an open system. You have reading problems as well. Good luck with that.

[wallyjude3]

"Evolution does not conflict..." It certainly does. Evolution depends totally on gain. Gain of energy, gain of information, etc. If the system is winding down evolution cannot occur. But you will simply redefine to make it work. Redate to make it fit. I happen to be quite well educated. I know you guys can't fathom that intelligent people reject evolution, but many millions of us do because we know what is real science. Evolution is not science, it's conjecture built on assumption. Nothing more.

[TheFallibleFiend]

2LOT is not a statement about information gain.  It's a statement about the availability of energy to do work. The system does not wind down.

Being scientifically illiterate, you don't decide what is science and what is not for the actual scientists.

The millions of people who agree with you are also scientifically illiterate.

[wallyjude3]

"The system does not wind down." I have never heard such palpable nonsense in my life. You claim to understand the laws of thermodynamics & you make a statement like that. Pitiful. Without the continual input of energy, entropy WILL increase. That is winding down. The word increase cannot mean stasis, it means movement. The system will lose energy & eventually shut down. Trying to say anything different is an outright lie. And you try to say I'm scientifically illiterate. Pathetic.

[TheFallibleFiend]

That is not "winding down." Global increase in entropy does not preclude local decrease. That the entropy of the universe increases does not preclude the decrease of entropy on earth.

You are scientifically illiterate. Your attempt to rewrite the 2LOT demonstrates a complete lack of familiarity with the basic science.

[wallyjude3]

"That is not winding down." And that is the lie I predicted you would state.

[TheFallibleFiend]

I did not lie. You are misrepresenting the basic science. The second law is more than just a statement that things "wind down."

You are unfamiliar with the basic science.

[wallyjude3]

I know very well what the basic science is. I know what it states, & that is what is happening, so how am I wrong?

[TheFallibleFiend]

No, you don't. I have explained to you how you are wrong, but you are more interested in refuting evolution than you are in understanding the principles you are misapplying.

Global increase of entropy does not preclude local decrease in entropy. This is why I started from an exact statement of the second law and NOT from a metaphorical statement that is used to explain it to elementary school kids.

[wallyjude3]

"Attempt to change the subject." How is it false & how is it an attempt to change the subject? How does it belie a profound misunderstanding of science? Probably because it does not agree with you. You're not going to try & tell me you can observe, test, repeat & demonstrate descent from a common ancestor are you? That should be quite humorous if you are. The usual transitional species no doubt. Or perhaps nested hierarchies, or morphological similarities. The usual nonsense.

[TheFallibleFiend]

Evolution is observed in the fossil record and in the genome and in the rest of nature.

If evolution were not predictive, Shubin's team would not have been able to find Tiktaalik. Instead he knew just where to look.

Every time we examine the genetics of a new animal, we are conducting an experiment that could disprove evolution if it were indeed wrong.

Nested hierarchies are not nonsense just because a scientific illiterate like yourself hasn't done any homework on them.

[wallyjude3]

"Evolution is observed." This is a bald face lie & every evolutionist knows it. The fossils are interpreted on the basis of the presupposition that evolution occurs, nothing more. Knowing where to look for a fossil is not evidence that evolution is true, it is only indicative of where fossils tend to be found. It is not indicative of the nature or meaning of the fossil. Fossils do not come packaged in a nice sequence.

[TheFallibleFiend]

It is not a lie and your failure to understand basic science does not make the science go away. Knowing where to look for a fossil means evolution is predictive. Shubin realized that in order to find the transition he was looking for he had to look in a layer that existed between the others. He looked there and found it. So your claim that evolution is not predictive is false.

[wallyjude3]

I did not say evolution could not make predictions. What I said was knowing where to look for a fossil does not prove evolution & it does not. Creation science makes many accurate predictions as well, but you're too closed minded to even investigate the situation otherwise you would know this.

[TheFallibleFiend]

You said it could not be "tested." To "test" in science means to confirm or disconfirm a prediction.

Creationism is not science - and while creationISTS make "predictions," creationism doesn't predict anything in particular. I have investigated creationism and in fact started out as a creationist.

[TheFallibleFiend]

You could try taking an actual course in thermodynamics instead of repeating silly stuff you got on a creationist web site.

[wallyjude3]

"Creationist web site." How very arrogant of you to assume that because some one is a creationist that he is therefore intellectually inferior. I do understand thermodynamics & it is not good news for evolution. In fact evolution has had a long run of bad news lately. The attempts to shut down opposing views is clear evidence of this. Don't try to use the argument they are only trying to ensure good science. They simply don't like where things are going.

[TheFallibleFiend]

Every post you have made in this thread has betrayed a complete lack of understanding of 2LOT. Creationist web sites are not scientific sources of information. Cite journals. Cite science texts. You can't because you're not interested in understanding the science. You prefer to "debate" a subject of which you are entirely ignorant.

[wallyjude3]

"Complete lacking of understanding...," More of your arrogance. The 2nd law states clearly that without the continued input of energy entropy will increase. That is very simple. You say you did not claim the universe was an open system. You did not need too. If you hold to evolution it must be. However, you cannot demonstrate a source of the necessary energy so like all the others you gloss over your failure by saying creationists are ignorant. Not so pal!

[TheFallibleFiend]

The entropy of the universe, if it is isolated, is increasing. Evolution being true does not imply an open universe. That total entropy increases does not prevent local decreases. You don't understand 2LOT. That's not arrogance. That's what you have clearly demonstrated. Take a course or read a book.

[wallyjude3]

I have read many books. Trying to argue that local decreases in entropy somehow proves that the system is not winding down is laughable. The entire universe is in entropy & a few pockets of decreased entropy are going to do nothing to change that. If you had even 1/2 the scientific knowledge you claim you would know that. So quit lecturing me on how smart you are & how dumb I am. It's not looking good for you at all.

[TheFallibleFiend]

I never mentioned how smart I was. I did indicate that you don't know squat about the science. What you know about 2LOT is what's laughable. Have any of those many books you've read been books on actual thermodynamics? Why the heck did I study thermo in engineering school when I could read a creationist screed and sputter bullcrap? Oh, that's right ... I wanted to understand the actual science.

[wallyjude3]

"Wanted to understand the,... science." I think you have simply redefined things to suit your view. You keep trying to make the 2nd law something very complicated & beyond the understanding of mere laymen. it's not. It is very clear & simple. Your problem is it does not suit your view of things. That is the bottom line.

[TheFallibleFiend]

What you "think" is irrelevant to the actual science. The 2LOT is not beyond the understand of the layman. It appears to beyond the attention span of you. The 2LOT is a very subtle principle which explains why many engineering students wait to take it. The problem is that you don't know anything about the second law and don't have any interest in learning it. It's easier to recite crap you've memorized than to do actual homework.

[wallyjude3]

It seems you think if you keep saying I don't understand the 2nd law you will eventually convince me you're right. Not going to happen pal. You are not right & no amount semantics or insulting my intelligence or the intelligence of anyone who disagrees with you is going to change that. You can go on thinking you're right & I'm sure you will, but, alas that does not make you right. Local decreases of entropy are totally meaningless when the entire system is in irreversible entropy.

[TheFallibleFiend]

I'm not trying to convince you I'm right. I'm trying to convince you to read a book on the subject or consult an actual scientist. You're ignorant of the 2LOT as every single post you have made on the subject has thoroughly demonstrated.

[TheFallibleFiend]

You can't even start with an actual statement of the 2LOT - instead you start with a comic book misrepresentation and then go on to show a conflict. Your point is not just wrong, but outright stupid as anyone who has studied thermodynamics could inform you.

[wallyjude3]

Trying to argue that a local decrease of entropy is relevant is like sitting in a car with no wheels & a blown engine, telling people there is still gas in the tank. You're going nowhere. It's the fact that you cannot seem to grasp that concept which makes me doubt the claims you make for yourself. I've had people on here tell me they had Phd's in biology who still believed Haeckel's embryo's & that we have a vestigial tail.

[TheFallibleFiend]

Of course it's not like that. I don't care whether you doubt my claims. You don't know what you're talking about and you won't crack a book to open it up. Read the actual 2LOT. Understand it. It's your friend. If you were right you wouldn't need to rely on the 3rd grade misrepresentation of 2lot.

Fortunately, engineers and PhD biologists don't need your validation to proceed with their careers.

[wallyjude3]

"Read the actual 2LOT." I have, several times. That is why I don't agree with you. Hard to fathom isn't it? There are actually people out there who will question the orthodoxy of evolution. Die hard ignorant fools, each one of us.

[TheFallibleFiend]

@wallyjude3 If you *have* read the 2LOT, then why not start with a correct statement of it rather than the 3rd grade equivalent to it?

You're not an ignorant fool for "questioning" evolution and neither is anyone else. You're an ignorant fool for making provably false assertions about it and accusing others of being 'arrogant' when you're clearly not competent in the subject area. The honest approach would be for you to say you disagree, but you don't know enough to refute it.

[TheFallibleFiend]

And this is yet another example of how you don't have any idea whatever what you're talking about.

[wallyjude3]

"this is yet another example of how you don't have any idea...," What is? You should reference your replies, all good scientists do.

[TheFallibleFiend]

@wallyjude3 The reply was threaded underneath the message it responded to, but since you're confused about it...

Your comparison of the sitting car, etc. to evolution is an perfect example of how you don't know what you're talking about - and refuse to read an actual science book on the subject.

[5tunns]

The reply was not underneath. I assumed this is what you meant, but I was not sure. The sitting car was not referring to evolution, it was showing the argument of pockets of decreasing or stable entropy were meaningless. You don't even understand what I'm saying. I know the evolutionist argument on the 2nd law & it is a fallacious one. If you can show entropy decreasing on earth, evolution can be possible. It is not decreasing on earth, it is increasing & evolution is not happening.

[thisis3d]

earth isn't a closed system, we gain energy from the sun, and input of energy in a system allows for entropy to be overcome for a while, however, everything that happens increases the overall entropy in the universe. also the second law doesn't describe how matter and energy behaves in a system. finally evolution is happening, its why medical research works, its why agriculture works, and its why we are still seeing speciation today.

[wallyjude3]

"Earth isn't a closed system,..." I never said it was. I don't think you understand the concept of entropy. Yes, we are gaining energy from the sun, however the sun itself is in entropy. The entire universe is in a continual state of entropy. Therefore, the fact we gain energy from the sun is irrelevant due to the overall state of entropy. Medical research, agriculture, etc have absolutely nothing to do with evolution what so ever.

[TheFallibleFiend]

"I don't think you understand the concept of entropy."

No evidence in his response that he doesn't understand entropy.

"Therefore, the fact we gain energy from the sun is irrelevant due to the overall state of entropy."

Strong evidence that you do not understand entropy.

[wallyjude3]

"You do not understand..." How pitiful. More of the same argument you used day-after-day 3 weeks ago. The entire universe is is entropy, what about this fact do you not understand? If the entire universe is winding down how can you argue our solar system is not? Such logic is laughable. Please do some serious study if only for your own sake.

[TheFallibleFiend]

I have done serious study - and I supplied serious references. You did not. You don't know what you're talking about and have no interest in learning the actual science.

Increase in local entropy does not preclude decrease in local entropy. That's not what the second law says. That's not what it means. That's not what can be reasonably inferred from it.

[wallyjude3]

"Decrease in local entropy." In relation to earth, how is local entropy seen to be decreasing?

[TheFallibleFiend]

I'm not talking about what we see; but about what the second law says (and means). The second law does not preclude local decreases in entropy.

"Entropy is a measure of the energy NOT available to do work." (Read that carefully - over and over.) If the Earth *were* isolated, eventually we would run out of useful energy. But it's an open system, and we continually get new energy from the Sun.

[TheFallibleFiend]

Read that again:

"Entropy is a measure of the energy NOT available to do work."

When we add energy from the outside (the sun), much of it - but not all - is lost to entropy. Entropy is not a percentage. The entropy can increase at the same time useful energy is increasing - if the system is open (which the Earth is).

[wallyjude3]

Entropy, n. "The tendency of the energy of a closed system, including the universe itself, to become less available to do work with the passage of time." The sun IS NOT outside the system, it is part of the system. As the sun is in entropy & giving off less energy, the earth is receiving less energy & is in entropy as well. You're simply trying to redefine the nature of the system, by putting the sun outside, to justify your position. Your definition is simply incorrect.

[TheFallibleFiend]

The definition I used is directly from a book on thermodynamics by Enrico Fermi. The explanation of that definition is exactly what you gave just now. The problem isn't in either of these definitions, but in your interpretation of them.

[thisis3d]

just by standing up and walking you defy entropy, you can it to decrease, because you used energy to do work, but the energy lost by you is replaced by the sun in excess. that is why life is possible in the first place, technically life would defy entropy, but when you have a source of energy decreasing the entropy in a system all sorts of cool stuff happened.

[wallyjude3]

"Just by standing up and walking..." This demonstrates a clear lack of understanding of the nature of entropy. When you walk you experience entropy, you do not defy it. The energy you expend is replaced by food & rest. However, the time will eventually come when entropy will overtake you & you will die, as will all living things. The sun is not decreasing entropy, it is trapped in entropy itself. It is part of a closed system & winding down, slowly but surely.

[thisis3d]

entropy isn't the reason we die excessive ware and tear is. the body is less able to fix itself over time, and our DNA is damaged. i would think a man could be immortal if he could just keep replacing his old wore out cells with new ones from stem cells, and men have an endless supply of stem cells. but the problem is the lack of ability to utilize this. anyway, with the sun, it keeps energy level on earth steady, allowing for life. meaning evolution isn't impossible.

[wallyjude3]

"Ware and tear is." This is really quite funny. The fact that the body is "less able to fix itself over time" is virtually the definition of entropy. You're right, if man could just keep repairing his cells to the same level he could conceivably live forever. But he can't, due to entropy. The energy level of the sun is dropping & as such the energy available to earth is decreasing. The universe, including the earth & the sun is a closed system & its energy is decreasing. End of story.

[thisis3d]

there is a difference between biological aging and the entropy of the universe. unlike the universe we can reverse damage, grow, up until a certain age we overcome entropy. even as we begin to age we over come entropy by eating but our bio machinery wares out. its the nature of being organic. the sun isn't running out of energy, its burning fuel. it begins running out of energy when it has exhausted too much fuel and goes supernova.

[wallyjude3]

"There is a difference..." No, there really is no difference. We never overcome entropy, we may slow it down, but we never stop it or reverse it. The sun is burning fuel but has no source of new fuel & therefore is in entropy.

[TheFallibleFiend]

Yes there is. Biological aging is not the same as entropy. You were really on to something below. You brought in an actual definition from somewhere that is essentially correct. It's not a mathematical definition, but it gets at the principle; moreover, it's exactly what I've said to you previously.

[wallyjude3]

"...Not the same as entropy." I think here we are simply dealing with semantics. As the body ages it loses the ability to regenerate itself & eventually dies. The process is essentially the same as entropy, but if you wish to distinguish the two that's fine with me & I can understand the difference.

[TheFallibleFiend]

You can have two systems that have the same energy, but different entropies.

[wallyjude3]

...But different entropies." I agree. But you still have entropy. It is not reversed & it is not stopped, it is simply occurring at a different rate.

[TheFallibleFiend]

@wallyjude3 Not quite. The law says that the TOTAL entropy cannot decrease. It doesn't say that the entropy cannot stay the same. (In fact, the entropy does indeed increase in both instances - in accordance with the second law - but the point is that 2LOT doesn't say the total entropy will increase, only that it won't decrease.)

[wallyjude3]

"...Only that it won't decrease." Maybe it's just me, but I think you're trying to split the proverbial hair here. As the 2nd law states entropy will not decrease the best you can hope for is temporary stasis. That's not much to pin your hopes on.

[TheFallibleFiend]

@wallyjude3 It's not a matter of pinning hopes. It's a matter of applying the law. I'm talking about systems in general. I'm not saying that either the Earth or the Sun and the Earth together as a system are not gaining entropy.

[wallyjude3]

I don't believe we can split the universe into a number of different systems. The universe is one system & it is closed. As such I don't think much of an argument can be made for a decrease in entropy at any point within it. Nor do I think an argument can be made for stasis.

[TheFallibleFiend]

We define the system any way we wish. OTOH, defining it one way or another can make certain problems easier or more difficult to solve. However, that is completely beside the point. However we articulate the system, if we are careful about what what kind of system we're referring to, we get the correct result - that evolution does not violate 2LOT. I'm not talking about what anyone thinks or believes - I'm talking about applying 2LOT.

[wallyjude3]

"If we are careful,... we get the correct result." I'm sorry, but this very much sounds as if you're advocating a method which defines the system in such a way as to line up with your presuppositions. You can't put the cart before the horse. You must define your parameters before coming to a conclusion, not the other way around, otherwise you will always get the results you want. Evolution presupposes common descent & interprets everything in that light. That's the cart before the horse.

[TheFallibleFiend]

I'm not sure how you conclude that. What I said is we can define "the system" however we wish so long as we are consistent and apply principles appropriately. One of the arts of solving problems in physical problems is determining "what is the system." Usually we define it in a way that makes it easier to solve the problem. Whether evolution presupposes common descent is irrelevant to the question of whether it violates 2LOT.

[wallyjude3]

"...how you conclude that." It simply appeared that way. Your last comment clarifies it better. "Whether evolution presupposes..., is irrelevant..." Evolution certainly does presuppose common descent, that's a given. Whether the 2nd is irrelevant depends on the methodology used to explain that descent. Do you believe evolution is possible in a system where entropy never decreases?

[TheFallibleFiend]

It's not clear to me in what sense evolution presupposes common descent, but arguing it takes us away from the topic of 2LOT.

Yes, evolution is possible in a system where entropy never decreases.

[wallyjude3]

I suppose, technically, evolution itself presupposes nothing, it is those who adhere to it who practice presupposition. As for evolution occurring in the face of entropy, I must disagree. According to some geneticists our codes are degrading over time, due to accumulating mutations. This results in a loss of energy (entropy) in the genome of living things. Degradation of genetic codes is the exact opposite of what evolution would require. This type of entropy would prohibit evolution.

[TheFallibleFiend]

@wallyjude3 Evolution requires no more presupposition than any other part of science. It's odd you would bring this up, because those geneticists who maintain that information cannot increase in the genome do so by assertion - they are few and their "conclusions" are pure unsupported assumption. Degradation of genetic codes is not entropy.

[wallyjude3]

"Evolution requires no more presupposition..." Evolution is nothing but presupposition. One cannot demonstrate any aspect of it outside of presupposition. I said nothing about increasing info in the genome. I said some geneticists view the genome as degrading due to accumulating mutations. Not the same thing. Entropy refers to any continual degradation of energy. The degradation of the genome is just such a loss.

[TheFallibleFiend]

Entropy refers to dispersal of energy. Those "some geneticists" are a select minority who are the ones depending on presupposition.

Evolution does not require presupposition any more than any other part of science. Just because you had evolution explained to you in a way that it didn't make sense without presupposition doesn't mean that's what's required by the theory.

[wallyjude3]

"Entropy refers to a dispersal of energy." Energy comes in many forms & one of these is the energy required by the genome to replicate. In all living things, as time passes, the energy needed to accomplish this diminishes & the genome degrades. Death is the result. Degradation of the genome is most definitely a form of entropy. Evolution itself is a presupposition. It is based entirely on presuppositions. Name one claim of evolution which is not.

[TheFallibleFiend]

@wallyjude3 Degradation of a genome is not a form of entropy. It's not even clear that genomes do "degrade." That sounds like presupposition to me.

Either you don't know much about the basis for evolutionary theory or you don't know about the theoretical bases for the other sciences. Evolution is on very good footing. It's not "presupposition." Repeating mantras does not make them true.

[wallyjude3]

"Don't know much about the basis of evolutionary theory..." You're slipping back into that old "you don't understand" form of argumentation again. Claiming I do not understand is not an answer. I asked you to name one claim of evolution that was not based on presupposition. This response does not address that request. Again, name one claim of evolution which is not based on presupposition.

[TheFallibleFiend]

I said that evolution is no more presupposition than the rest of science. This is taking us away from 2LOT discussion. You don't understand 2LOT. That is a fact.  You have finally started using an actual definition rather than analogy in lieu of a definition and I applaud you for that. But you still don't understand the second law. Nor apparently do you understand genetics very well (neither do I on that one).

[wallyjude3]

The 2nd LOT is fairly simple & straightforward. Where we diverge is in the area of interpretation. It's a fact that disordered material left on its own will remain disordered. It's also a fact that ordered material deprived of input to maintain that order will tend to again become disordered. This is the problem for evolution. How did disorder become ordered without input from an intelligent source & how does ordered material remain that way without the same input?

[TheFallibleFiend]

2LOT is not simple and straightforward. If it were, there wouldn't be so many engineering students who dreaded taking it. Reading a few web pages on 2LOT does not constitute doing your homework. You're right not to believe me - an anonymous guy on the internet, but you're believing someone else who is at least equally suspicious - yourself, if no one else. You want to be treated respectfully and as an intellectual equal, but you have not done your homework.

[TheFallibleFiend]

Evolution says that, for example, existing animals are all related. That's a conclusion well supported by molecular biology. The distribution of ERVs in clades (namely a nested hierarchy) supports this conclusion. This, however, has nothing to do with the subject of 2LOT.

[wallyjude3]

"Existing animals are all related." That's the presupposition & all evidence such as you mentioned is interpreted based on that assumption. That is not science, it's circular reasoning.

[TheFallibleFiend]

That's not a presupposition. It's a conclusion that explains the available evidence.

[wallyjude3]

"...Conclusion... explains the available evidence." Is there no other possible explanation for the evidence?

[TheFallibleFiend]

Are there other explanations? Yes, but they don't make sense.

It could be that ERVs all just happened to insert themselves in the exact place independently in every clade. That's a naturalist explanation, but it seems highly unlikely.

Another explanation is that it happened be supernaturalism, but that's not a scientific explanation. (If we accept magic as an answer then science can never make inferences about anything.)

[wallyjude3]

"If we accept magic as an answer..." Who said anything about magic? "...But it seems highly unlikely." And abiogenesis followed by 100's of millions of years of random mutation & natural selection leading to the highly complex life forms & symbiotic relationships we see today, doesn't seem unlikely?

[TheFallibleFiend]

1. Evolution does not depend on abiogenesis.

2. In abiogenesis, we don't know enough to figure the stats (the current way is wrong, as it considers everything equally likely when it is known not to be equally likely).

3. Supernaturalism = magic.

4. In the case of ERVs we know a lot more about the conditions under which it can occur and what the odds actually are.

[wallyjude3]

Evolution does depend on abiogenesis as the only other option is creation. I know some like to think you can have a creation which then evolved. However, such arguments are only an attempt to avoid the impossibility of defending abiogenesis. I'll grant you the abiogenesis argument, but you still must deal with the rest of it. 100's of millions of years of RM & NS leads to what we see & you think this not unlikely?

[TheFallibleFiend]

Evolution depends on life existing, regardless of how life got here. 1000s of millions of years of RM, NS, sexual selection, and genetic drift. Also, the RM part is a bit vague as the genome contains both "hot spots" and "highly conserved" regions. There could be some other principle at work, but I'm not aware of any law that is violated.

Answer: yes. I think it is not unlikely.

[wallyjude3]

"I think it is not unlikely." Many ridicule people for having faith that life was created by a supreme being. Yet to believe what you do (ie life evolved) requires much more faith than I could muster. RM & NS can simply not explain what we see. There is no model by which you can demonstrate this process. You can't repeat it & you can't observe it. You're in a faith position. You're simply interpreting the evidence from a different presupposition, nothing more. It is not scientific in the least.

[TheFallibleFiend]

1. Believing in a supreme being does not preclude accepting evolution.

2. Accepting that life has and continues to evolve does not require faith, but actually understanding the evidence.

You don't understand the rqmts for observation and repeatability, either. You don't know enough about science to judge what is scientific and what is not.

[wallyjude3]

I am seriously tired of being told I "do not understand" simply because I disagree with you. If I don't understand then tell me how you can observe evolution, how you can experimentally repeat it or demonstrate it. The arrogance of evolutionists is really tiresome. If you do not accept what I say regards ERVs look up the work of John Mattick, an evolutionist.

[TheFallibleFiend]

You're not being told that you do not understand "simply because [you] disagree with me. You're being told you do not understand because what you are saying is utter nonsense - and anyone who has actually studied thermodynamics knows it.

The repeatability and demonstrability criteria of science are not relevant to this video; however, I'm considering making another video just on those topics as they come up so often.

[wallyjude3]

Then enlighten me as to how it is utter nonsense. I would imagine repeatability & demonstrability come up so often simply because it is a major problem for the whole claim that evolutionary theory is based on science, which it is not.

[TheFallibleFiend]

This entire thread is an attempt for me to enlighten you, but your continual refrain is "Nuh uh." You think you already understand what you're talking about.

Repeatability and demonstrability come up often among the non-scientists, because they don't understand the criteria.

It's not relevant to this video, but I will consider making a video in the coming weeks.

[TheFallibleFiend]

The theory of evolution doesn't depend on abiogenesis any more than Boyle's law depends on the Big Bang.

[wallyjude3]

ERV's are often thrown about as proof of evolution. However, reading some up-to-date material might be helpful. There is now strong evidence that ERVs have an important function in the genome.

[TheFallibleFiend]

@wallyjude3 ERVs have an important function? You're thinking of non-coding DNA, not ERVs. ERVs are engodenous retro-viruses - it's where viruses have inserted themselves into th edna.

[TheFallibleFiend]

"But he can't, due to entropy."

No.  That' not the reason.

[TheFallibleFiend]

That should read

"Increase in GLOBAL entropy does not preclude decrease in local entropy."

[5tunns]

You really must come up with a better argument than continually saying I don't know what I'm talking about.

[TheFallibleFiend]

@5tunns I don't know what else to say if you won't read a book on thermodynamics and you insist on maintaining that a metaphor is reality.

[TheFallibleFiend]

I'm not "arguing" anything. I'm explaining the basic science to you, since it's obvious you're not interested in doing anything remotely resembling actual homework on the subject.

OTOH, you're not interested in understanding the science at all. You just want to keep spouting nonsensical crap you've memorized and don't understand.

[ispaniola]

3:30

Dont pretend you were looking for that book there...you laid it there before you started :-P

[sonicstep]

Interesting, regarding the object that turns and so is considered to accelerate.

If an object is 'constrained' to an axis surely that object is not accelerating relative to that axis, since its distance remains constant with respect to it.

[TheFallibleFiend]

I'm not sure what the phrase "constrained to an axis" means or how that pertains the example I gave. Acceleration is a change in velocity. Velocity is a speed AND a direction. If you change either of them, you are accelerating.

[sonicstep]

By constrained I mean that the radius of a point rotating about a central axis remains constant, that is it does not radiate or move inward.

[TheFallibleFiend]

Then that point is, by definition, accelerating, even though the speed of its rotation remains constant. The Moon is accelerating about the Earth. The Earth is accelerating around the Sun.

[TheFallibleFiend]

I'll add links in the side bar to pages that help to make this clear.

[sonicstep]

It depends on which component one is considering.

Consider a tethered car or plane to a pole. The car rotates about an axial pole at a fixed radial distance at a constant rpm.

While the car can be considered to accelerate 'constantly' since it constantly changes direction as it sweeps an angle about the pole, in terms of its 'linear' velocity and acceleration both are zero since that distance relative to the pole does not change it remains constant.

[sonicstep]

If that line broke at the point the fuel ceased then the car would experience two types of linear acceleration positive followed by negative. They would result due to an absence of centripetal force from the line.

O.k. now to see your link ;)

[TheFallibleFiend]

The plane would experience two kinds of acceleration: gravity and air resistance.

If we ignored those two effects, there would be no acceleration and it would exit the orbit tangent to it's direction at time of disconnect.

[TheFallibleFiend]

I think you're trying to force a lay interpretation onto scientific description. You're not wrong. It's just that scientific principles only apply using the precise scientific definitions.

From the site in the link:

"In physics, acceleration does not mean speeding up."

[barisozdil]

These people does not want to learn anything. They are trying to protect their religion. It's a old resistance. Thats way they are twisting the truth with all kind of nasty methods..

[parispeter2]

I think this was very pedagagogical until you got to the arguments against creationism, where it seemed like you had too much to say in a short time and the clarity suffered - better to limit your ambitions I think - and where you didn't define your terms (!): someone not familiar with this debate may not understand "abiogenesis".

[TheFallibleFiend]

Very welcome criticism.

thanks