Evolutionism's appeal to junk science

Why exactly?

Asimov was repeating an anology that is often used to attempt to explain the concept of entropy to a lay person. There is a statistical way of calculating entropy based on the disorder of molecules on a micro scale. I believe The Galatian (or maybe Paul) gives the Boltzman formula for doing this above. It is most closely related to heat being a very poor form of energy. A significant fraction of the energy is lost when trying to convert heat into other forms of energy or to do work. This energy is lost as entropy. It really has nothing to do with what we think of as disorder on a macro scale.

And while Asimov was giving an analogy, I was paraphrasing (did not go word for word because I did want to type in the full reference) the actual statement of the 2LOT from the thermodynamics book sitting on my desk. I believe the thermo book definition of entropy is rather accurate and should be taken over the analogy of a science fiction writer.

 

The laws of thermodynamics are not as difficult to understand as you make them out to be. Bob has been telling you that already. With you it seems like a game of semantics. Put forth a simple scientific law, and you must try to redefine it in bureaucratic verbosity so that it becomes unintelligible to the common reader.
Let's define things on an elementary level by using a school text to define the second law of thermodynamics for us. You don't seem to trust Asimov. Surely you must trust the very people that teach our children.

("The Physical World" BJU Press, Pp. 374,375)
DHK

 

The material you just provided is much closer to what I said that what Bob or you were claiming. Look closely at what was said. "The second law of thermodynamics can be written in several equivalent forms; one modern way to put it is as follows: Energy naturally becomes unusable. The amount of decay and disorder never decreases with time. In other words, the amount of randomness or disorder in a system always increases over time but can never decrease on its own. "

Your source comes pretty close to getting it right. Entropy is the measure of the unusable energy of a system. Like I said in the previous post, this is because heat is a rather poor source of energy and some is lost. But the randomness to which it is lost is at the molecular level and not the macro scale that you are trying to place it at. The very last part that I requoted is also a key part. The entropy of a system can never decrease "own its own." Scientists state this as saying that the entropy of a closed system must always increase. But a living organism is not a closed system. The genome is not a closed system. The biosphere is not a closed system. The earth is not a closed system. The place where your source strays is in going back to trying to tie the thermodynamic idea of entropy or randomness or disorder to what we think of as disorder in the macro world we live in.

The thermo textbook I am using is Introduction to Chemical Engineering Thermodynamics Smith and Van Ness 4th Edition 1987.

Let me quote from it directly. First, on the issue of disorder.

"From a microscopic point of view we therefore associate an increase in entropy with an increase in randomness or a decrease in order at the molecular level."

And let me also give the three different ways that it states the 2LOT.

"No apparatus can operate in such a way that its only effect is to convert heat absorbed by a system completely into work.

No process is possible which consists solely in the transfer of heat from one temperature level to a higher one.

It is impossible by a cyclic process to convert the heat absorbed by a system completely into work."

Now let me say one last thing. It is important to go through these textbook definitions of entropy every once in a while for they are much different than the subject matter that we have been discussing. It is important to periodically point out that the macro world disorder that some try to apply to entropy is not to be found in the technical statements about thermodynamics or entropy in particular. It is important to point out that when you see someone attempting to explain entropy by comparing it to the disorder you see on a macro scale, that it really is a comparison (an analogy) that they are making. I point this out periodically to no avail, but it is important to keep trying. I am sure some out there understand the difference.

And before someone asks, yes I am aware that Asimov was also a chemist. I just find it imortant sometimes to highlight the difference between the technical concept of entropy and the analogies often used to describe it. And it is certainly not the case that I do not trust Asimov. It is the case that I understand the analogies that are drawn to try and explain entropy and how the analogies differ from real life. As all analogies do so differ.

 

"Another way of stating the second law then is, 'The universe is constantly getting more disorderly!'"
Asimov

I would rather believe Asimov than you.
DHK </font>[/QUOTE]Nobody, not even the staunchest of atheistic evolutionists, will deny that the universe is having more and more disorder, or entropy, accumulate in it.

Life and the order it shows is only a temporary, local decrease in entropy.

Failure to understand this point is endemic among YEC creationists, who tend to accept any set of words, no matter how wrong they are, if they support their peculiar position.

But more and more, it is only the ability to ignore evidence and go for verbal points regardless of evidence that allows a mind to continue in the creationist point of view.

 

I'm still wondering if any creationist, anywhere can show me even one process necessary for evolution that is ruled out by the 2nd Law.

"Entropy" seems to have become in the minds of some, a magical chant that will make science go away.

 

Here is an interesting news item I ran across today.

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/asteroid_shower_040726.html

The jist of the story is that geologic evidence is pointing towards two craters, one in Siberia and the other Chesapeake Bay, were created within several thousand years of each other and that they were accompanied by a number of small meteors and dust over the course of a couple million years. This is believed to be the result of an asteroid that broke up and hurtled towards the inner solar system with some pieces intercepting earth.

Now, here is the key thing. They found extra dust matching the isotopic ratios of material having an extraterrestrial origin in geologic layers the same age (well including a miilion or so years forward and back) across varying parts of the world.

Now, just how did these layers get there? If all or most of the geologic layers were layed down at one time by one large flood, then there should not be these worldwide layers enriched with space dust. The material would have fallen on the surface of the water and been diluted and mixed in with all the other sediment.

I ahve posted this same assertion in the past. At that time I used as an example the impactor at the end ot the dinosaurs. It left a thin, worldwide layer of iridium enriched material along with impact created material such as shocked quartz. There is no way to isolate the various products in a thin, worldwide layer if everything is covered with raging water.

 

I said earlier...

"I have presented you in the past with long lists of traits in humans that no longer serve a purpose but that were useful to four legged ancestors. I do not remember that list ever actually being addressed."

Here is the full original post again.

 

There is also a noticable allometry in theropod arms.

Larger bodies have relatively smaller mass. And proarchaeopteryx was the smallest known theropod with relatively largest arms.

 

I am so surprised that our YEC brothers are not beating the doors down to defend their leadership from the list of deliberate misrepresentations and lies I have been asserting that they make to support their view. Well on with the show, I suppose.

One of the common arguments you run across is that the earth cannot be old based on the rate at which various salts run into the ocean. This line originated with Henry Morris (Morris, Henry M., 1974. Scientific Creationism, Green Forest, AR: Master Books, pp. 153-155.) and is still used by young earthers today. For an example see ICR.

http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-017.htm

The origin is work published in 1965 (Riley, J. P. and G. Skirrow, (editors). 1965. Chemical Oceanography (Volume I) Academic Press, New York.) where the residence times of various metals in the ocean were listed. Now the first mistake is that these are residence times which is how long, on average, the metal stays in the ocean before being removed. But Morris calls it the time "to accumulate in ocean from river inflow." This is a major difference and error.*

Now the range of residence times is from 100 years for aluminum to 260 million years for sodium. Usually YECers will just quote the few in the middle that come out to be in the 6 - 10 thousand range. (Props to ICR here for at least including all the values even if they did not tell the truth about what is meant by the data.)

The other thing that they fail to tell you is that these elements are known to be at or very close to equlibrium, that is that the rate in is equal to the rate out. There is no net accumulation. This means that even if the residence time of nickel is 9000 years that this cannot be used to determine an age because you have no way of knowing how long it has been at equilibrium.

SO now we have exposed two flaws in how ICR presents the data. Flaws that they should have been aware of. So either they are talking about things they do not understand and pretending that they do. Or they are purposefully leaving things out in order to misrepresent the data.

But, they have been called on this enough times that some YEC organizations ae trying to address the problems. See the following for example.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/3910.asp

In this, Sarfati tries to demonstrate that only 27% of the sodium that comes into the oceans each year is removed. He believes that he is showing that the ocean is not at equilibrium with respect to sodium. But he makes two major mistakes. The first is very serious. They miss the amount of sodium removed by the alteration of basalt by hydrothermal activity by a factor of 35. If you go back to the original by Austin and Humphreys, you will find that one of their references is a book (Holland, H. D., 1978. The Chemistry of the Atmophere and the Oceans, New York: John Wiley and Sons.) that gives the correct value. So why did they put in such a bad value? The other bad claim is that there is not any removal of sodium by biological activity. Another reference of theirs (Holland, H.D., 1984. The Chemical Evolution of the Atmosphere and the Oceans, Princeton: Princeton University Press.) tells of biological removal, so there is no excuse for this either. It is a misrepresentation, but it is of much less consequence because of the smaller amounts involved.

Once the corrections are made, instead of only 27% being removed, you come up with 7% too much being removed. This is well with the range of experimental error and is consistent with the oceans being in equilibrium with reference to sodium.

And you see these kinds of mistakes made often. Bob will often get stirred up and post for pages on uranium instead of sodium. What he always fails to tell you is that the difference in measured removal rates from the input rates is less than the experimental error in measuring the rates. This means that equilibrium is within the experimental error. So from the data we have, you cannot say that uranium is not at equilibrium.

------------------------

*Let's explain the difference. Say that you have a 100 gallon tank and it has a valve at the bottom that will allow exactly 10 gallons per minute to run out by the force of the head of water when the tank is completely full. Now the residence time would be (100/10=) 10 minutes. The time to accumulate 100 gallons from an empty tank, however, would be much more than 10 minutes because as soon as you started adding water, some would begin to leave through the valve. Less water would leave than was entering until the tank was full and the situation reached equilibrium. That is also the case here. The residence times are listed but the time to accumulate would be much greater. And since they are at equilibrium, you cannot tell how long they have been at equilibrium so you cannot use them to date.

 

For further fuel on the entropy debate, I invite you to read the following.

http://jchemed.chem.wisc.edu/Journal/Issues/1999/Oct/abs1385.html

A sampling.

Enjoy.

 

Genetic evidence that dolphins and whales evolved from land animals.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=9839455

SO for olfactory genes, they can be divided into two groups. The class I genes are used for detecting water soluable odors. Aquatic animals such as the teleost fish (the bony fish) have only the class I genes. The class II genes are used for detecting volatile odors from the air. It seems that amphibians have both classes if I am reading this right and that mammals only have the class II genes.

Well dolphins only have the class II genes and all of these have been disabled. This is strong evidence that they evolved from land animals with functioning olfactory genes.

 

I fully agree. And dont' forget about this verse regarding entropy:

Isa 51:6 Lift up your eyes to the heavens, and look upon the earth beneath: for the heavens shall vanish away like smoke, and the earth shall wax old like a garment, and they that dwell therein shall die in like manner: but my salvation shall be for ever, and my righteousness shall not be abolished.

Furthermore, the Bible directly correlates entropy to biological systems in this verse.

These only serve to also further demonstrate the main principle behind information theory, which goes hand in hand with entropy.

In all examples, I have shown (some in this thread, some previously) how appearant novel function stems from an actual loss of information.

UTEOTW's hemoglobin C and Galatian's sickle cell anemia are examples.

More examples would be insects resistent to pesticides, or bacteria resistant to anti-biotics.

 

"That is the second law of thermodynamics. And Asimov is quite correct when he says "it applies to everything" -- "everything" is driven to decay an disorder.

Oh Bob, where do I start?

I guess the first place would be to point out that all along you have been willing to dismiss the true statements of entropy that I have been giving you. I have given you multiple statements of the second law straight out of a textbook on thermodynamics. I have quoted you directly from that book where it says that the disorder associated with entropy is disorder in the way molecules are arranged on microscopic scales. Someone even gave you the formula for calculating entropy from a statistical treatment of how many states are available for the subject at hand. Yet you have been willing to dismiss all of these on the basis of an analogy being drawn by Asimov.

Second, even in the analogy drawn by Asimov, you accept his analogy as the truth yet you ignore the very next statement where he tells you why entropy is not a problem for evolution. You need to make up your mind whether you think Asimov is a good source on this subject or not. You cannot appeal to Asimov as an expert on the subject but then claim that you need to disallow part of his statement. Or are you secretly an expert in thermodynamics who can make such subtle distinctions?

Third, I gave you another source above who spoke on the issue much more clearly than I have been able to thus far. Did you miss it?

Do you think this group of chemistry teacher knows a bit more than you or I on entropy? Will you still ignore their opinion?

The fourth point is that you are still shrinking from the opportunity to make a real point. I asked you some questions in my last response to you that you failed to address. I don't really find that surprising at this point. Basically, I will concede that despite the above, there likely is some very real entropy reduction between raw chemicals and a human being. But I also assert that local decreases in entropy are allowed and that in aggregate, a progression of small entropy decreases is sufficient to give us a human being. I asked you to either prove that local decreases were not allowed or that they could not be aggregated. You have failed to answer either of these questions. I believe it is because you cannot point to any specific step and say that it is where entropy poses a problem. That is because entropy does not pose a problem.

 

"But evolutionists THEMSELEVS admit that Archaeopteryx is in FACT - a TRUE BIRD."

Still making this claim? Do you have no shame? Do you really expect us to think that these guys do not believe that it is a transitional? You know, scientists are also known to call the amphibious mammal with legs Ambulocetus a whale also. Doesn't look like any modern whale I know of?

Now Bob. Previously you made the claim that Archaeopteryx was a bird only and you cited a conference from 1984. Now, I suspected that the purpose of the conference was to discuss whether it was a bird or a reptile and decided on bird and that it was not to decide whether Archaeopteryx was a bird or a transitional. SO I pointed out my doubts of your claims and asked you to offer proof that the people you were citing believed Archaeopteryx to be only a bird and not a transitional.

You failed to address that claim and instead made a poor attempt at a point by saying that I was willing to make such a point without evidence. This is despite the fact that I clearly said that it was a suspicion but an informed one.

Since you did not address it, I addressed it for you. I went and found several papers from the very two guys whom you cited. The citations indicated that these people really believed that Archaeopteryx was a transitional. I even used the very conference proceedings and the very authors you specifically cited to show that they believed Archaeopteryx to be a transitional.

Yet you have the hubris to come back in here and make the same claim again. Sans evidence. Now that your source has been exposed for what it really is and not what you misrepresented it as, who are you going to cite now? What expert in bird evolution will you now claim says archy is merely a bird and not a transitional? I'll wager that you have no other source and that you will either be content to continue making that same claims despite and without evidence or that you will take the even bolded tactic of using the same conference to again claim that Archaeopteryx is just a bird.

But you have been exposed on this, so don't expect anyone to believe it.

 

"I fully agree.

You fully agree with a statement that says "the second law of thermodynamics in its simplest terms is degeneration." After all the evidence to the contrary that has been given you, you stall "fully agree?"

Remember, this is how a textbook (Introduction to Chemical Engineering Thermodynamics Smith and Van Ness 4th Edition 1987.)of thermodynamics states the 2LOT in its simpest forms.

"No apparatus can operate in such a way that its only effect is to convert heat absorbed by a system completely into work.

No process is possible which consists solely in the transfer of heat from one temperature level to a higher one.

It is impossible by a cyclic process to convert the heat absorbed by a system completely into work."

Not exactly the same.

"These only serve to also further demonstrate the main principle behind information theory, which goes hand in hand with entropy. "

Nope. There is no connection between thermodynamic entropy and information theory. Your version of information theory, which claims Shannon to lend believability to itself just before it dumps Shannon because he makes the wrong conclusion for your position, has been discredited above and not subsequently defended. But of course, YECers are often willing, as has been shown, to dump evidence that disagrees with their foregone conclusion without reason.

"In all examples, I have shown (some in this thread, some previously) how appearant novel function stems from an actual loss of information. "

Like when you cited AIGs lie that the mutation in the small Italian population resulted in a 70% decrease in effectiveness when the abstract I cited you claimed an increase in the original function plus the benefit of a new anti-oxidant function.

Like when you claimed that evolving a family of genes from a single gene was actually a loss of information. Let's see, we have a gene that does A. It gets duplicated several times and the copies evolve until they do B, C, D, E, and F. One copy still does A. So from one gene and one protein we now get several genes and several proteins and several different functions. You claimed this was a loss of information. Funny.

Like the example given of hemoglobin evolving from the ferrodoxins. Like the example given of hemoglobin then developing several specialized forms.

You have given yourself an unsupportable definition of information in which you arbitrarily claim that every change is a loss in information. Even with the hemoglobin C and hemoglobin S, you have been shown how despite their potential drawbacks if an individual gets two copies of the gene, they confer a benefit in the form of increased survivability on the recipient. And in true evolutionary fashion, where malaria is a problem, the gene spreads because the individuals are more likely to survive. Where malaria is not a problem, it is less common because the selective pressure is to remove it. Natural selection in action. Only someone with an axe to grind would claim that a mutation that make the individual more likely to survive is somehow evidence against evolution.

 

test