Evolutionism's appeal to junk science

[The Galatian]

So that's your final try? Is it any wonder people don't buy your story, if you can't think of even one phenomenon required by evolution that is prohibited by the 2nd law?

I think this is the most telling admission of all. Nothing in the 2nd law prohibits evolution.

 

[danrusdad]

Nothing in the 2LOT proves evolution either...

However, the 2LOT does make the POSSIBILITY of the required, necessary, massive entropic decrease virtually zero.

 

[UTEOTW]

Originally posted by danrusdad:
Nothing in the 2LOT proves evolution either...

However, the 2LOT does make the POSSIBILITY of the required, necessary, massive entropic decrease virtually zero.

Not really expecting an answer...

But I will have to ask you to explain this one. No one claims that entropy explains evolution. It is just a bit part of the natural laws within which life, and the rest of the universe for that matter, functions.

But the change in entropy to evolve a human is tiny compared to the local entropy decreases that we can see each and every day. What do you really think the quantitive difference in entropy between you and your parents really is? Measureable? Does it even exist? You really think there is a "massive" entropy decrease to go from one generation to the next other than the gathering together of raw materials which we can see every day? (My grass needs cutting, how about yours?) Whatever decrease there may be required is spread over billions of generations. Tiny local decreases in aggregate are more than sufficient to give us what we see.

 

[Charles Meadows]

Bob,

You seem to be changing the argument! Are you asserting that because the Bible should be read literally that we should then find YECism more scientifically likely than OECism? The bible has nothing to do with interpretation of scientific facts. It gives its own account of creation (which I think you guys also misunderstand).

Like I've said again and again...

If you believe the bible first and foremost then fine - but please stop bombarding our youth with this intellectually dishonest YEC baloney!!!

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by danrusdad:
Nothing in the 2LOT proves evolution either...

However, the 2LOT does make the POSSIBILITY of the required, necessary, massive entropic decrease virtually zero.

Err. Umm. You'r not supposed to be "able" to see that obvious glaring fact.

According to the evolutionists here - you are not supposed to be able to put 2 and 2 together on this.

They "claim" you should be totally confused about what Evolutionism CAN't do when IT says it NEEDS a massive DECREASE in entropy to go from molecule to human brain evolution, EVEN though Isaac Asimov states that every day we continually see positive INCREASED entropy clearly manifest in human biology.

Amazing that they think "I" am the only one capable of noticing such a glaring problem in the junk-science stories of evolutionism.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by UTEOTW:

But the change in entropy to evolve a human is tiny compared to the local entropy decreases that we can see each and every day.

Hmmm "Massive DECREASE" needed but... INCREASE in entropy is what we SEE as the overriding characterstic "of EVERYTHING".

Another way of stating the second law then is, 'The universe is constantly getting more disorderly!' Viewed that way we can see the second law all about us. We have to work hard to straighten a room, but left to itself it becomes a mess again very quickly and very easily. Even if we never enter it, it becomes dusty and musty.

How difficult to maintain houses, and machinery, and our own bodies in perfect working order: how easy to let them deteriorate. In fact, all we have to do is nothing, and everything deteriorates, collapses, breaks down, wears out, all by itself - and that is what the second law is all about."


[Isaac Asimov, "In the Game of Energy and Thermodynamics You Can't Even Break Even", Smithsonian Institution Journal (June 1970), p. 6 (emphasis added).]

Notice that Asimov gives these LOCAL examples of increased entropy as his example of what “the 2nd law is all about”. This is “Good science”!

But, again, it is a local decrease in entropy ( that we see in biological systems on earth) while the entropy of the universe increased in the process. Life in all its forms will require a local decrease in entropy

UTEOTW unwittingly then admits to this statement from the same article by Asimov...

"Life on earth has steadily grown more complex, more versatile, more elaborate, more orderly over the billions of years of the planet's existence

....
How could that vast increase in order (and therefore the vast decrease in entropy) have taken place?

Particularly when we consider that Asimov already stated that EVERYTHING we see is exhibiting the expected INCREASE in entropy EVEN at the local level.

Here Asimov contrasts the massive DECREASE in entropy “needed” by evolutionism’s “stories” -- with that INCREASE in entropy in the LOCAL systems that he just admitted to.


And so HERE UTEOTW makes the the ULTIMATE in junk-scienc appeals for moleculet-to-brain evolution "getting" its much needed "MASSIVE DECREASE"...

UTEOTW said
Tiny local decreases in aggregate are more than sufficient to give us what we see.

The "tiny isolated local decreases" that could be represented when excluding enough environmental factors -- is said to result in a "massive decrease" EVEN though the vastly dominant local entropy value is ALWAYS an Increase!

Truly - UTEOTW's appeal is junk-science at its best. Right up there with "no proof for abiogenesis is equal to the great confirming proof for abiogenesis".

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by Charles Meadows:
Bob,

You seem to be changing the argument! Are you asserting that because the Bible should be read literally that we should then find YECism more scientifically likely than OECism? The bible has nothing to do with interpretation of scientific facts. It gives its own account of creation (which I think you guys also misunderstand).

Like I've said again and again...

If you believe the bible first and foremost then fine - but please stop bombarding our youth with this intellectually dishonest YEC baloney!!!

Charles - is this supposed to be a quote of me saying something??

OR are you simply arguing "in general" for junk science??

In Christ,

Bob

 

[UTEOTW]

Bob

You already admitted that local decreases are allowed. You have not answered the question of whether local decreases are allowed within biological systems. Come on, step to the plate and get an answer down in electrons. You have avoided this question. So come on tell us, are local decreases allowed in a biological system. If not, tell us why.

 

[BobRyan]

Bob observes a consistent argument between Asimov and Suzuki as follows

"Dr. Suzuki concurs with that statement that it affects everything EVEN living systems like plants, forests and humans, and non-living things like machines."


And "obviously" it is seen in this statement by Asimov "again".

Another way of stating the second law then is, 'The universe is constantly getting more disorderly!' Viewed that way we can see the second law all about us. We have to work hard to straighten a room, but left to itself it becomes a mess again very quickly and very easily. Even if we never enter it, it becomes dusty and musty.

How difficult to maintain houses, and machinery, and our own bodies in perfect working order: how easy to let them deteriorate. In fact, all we have to do is nothing, and everything deteriorates, collapses, breaks down, wears out, all by itself - and that is what the second law is all about."


[Isaac Asimov, "In the Game of Energy and Thermodynamics You Can't Even Break Even", Smithsonian Institution Journal (June 1970), p. 6 (emphasis added).]

Notice that Asimov gives these LOCAL examples of increased entropy as his example of what “the 2nd law is all about”. This is “Good science”!

But UTEOTW is "consistent" in his "Asimov-is-wrong" appeals to junk science.

Nope. If you are not talking about "a change in the number of accessible energy eigenstates," you are not talking about thermodynamic entropy. Although all these things are affected by thermodynamic entropy, it is a different thing that what you are talking about. [/QB]

The resulting "Molecule-to-human-brain" evolution that NEEDS "massive DECREASE" in entropy fails flat in this model.

Leaving UTEOTW to simply tilt at the clear statements from Isaac Asimov that undercut his every claim to junk science.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[UTEOTW]

Right up there with "no proof for abiogenesis is equal to the great confirming proof for abiogenesis".

Will you stop that.

I have explained, with references, how natural, plentiful catalysts can lead to RNA all with all the right chiral orientation and how that could lead to simple life. And then how those RNA strands, being optically pure themselves and catalysts to boot, could then sysnthesize optically pure proteins.

Besides, you are the one who thinks that an anology from a science fiction writer taken out of context trumps a thermodynamics textbook.

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by UTEOTW:
Bob

You already admitted that local decreases are allowed. You have not answered the question of whether local decreases are allowed within biological systems. Come on, step to the plate and get an answer down in electrons. You have avoided this question. So come on tell us, are local decreases allowed in a biological system. If not, tell us why.

Certainly they are allowed if you ignore enough of the environment. The PROBLEM is that at the LOCAL level Asimov ALREADY admits that INSTEAD of seeing the much needed local DECREASE - we SEE increase and Asimov confessed that it is in "EVERYTHING".

In other words - Asimov was not willing to turn a blind eye to those parts of the local environment that would reveal the flaw in the local decrease as a "result" rather than an incidental that is washed out by the dominant local INCREASE.

The "efficiency problem" exists at all levels.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[UTEOTW]

Yes Bob, entropy effect everything, even living systems. But not in the way you suppose. You are not talking about thermodynamic entropy. You are talking about something else and quoting an analogy from a science fiction writer out of context to support yourself. Remember if you are not talking about "a change in the number of accessible energy eigenstates," you are not talking about thermodynamic entropy.

Now answer the question. Can entropy decrease in a biological system?

 

[UTEOTW]

And while you are at it, tell us what step in evolution entropy prevents. Can you name any?

 

[BobRyan]

A second way of stating the entropy law is in terms of statistical thermodynamics. It is recognized today that not only are all scientific laws empirical but also that they are statistical. A great number of individual molecules, in a gas for example, may behave in such a way that the over-all aspects of that gas produce predictable patterns in the aggregate, even though individual molecules may deviate from the norm. Laws describing such behavior must be formulated statistically, or probabilistically, rather than strictly dynamically. The dynamical laws then can theoretically be deduced as limiting cases of the probabilistic statements.

In this context entropy is a probability function related to the degree of disorder in a system. The more disordered a system may be, the more likely it is.
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />
"All real processes go with an increase of entropy. The entropy also measures the randomness, or lack of orderliness of the system; the greater the randomness, the greater the entropy."

Note again the universality expressed here—all real processes. Isaac Asimov expresses this concept interestingly as follows:

"Another way of stating the Second Law then is: ‘The universe is constantly getting more disorderly!’ Viewed that way, we can see the Second Law all about us. We have to work hard to straighten a room, but left to itself it becomes a mess again very quickly and very easily. Even if we never enter it, it becomes dusty and musty. How difficult to maintain houses, and machinery, and our own bodies in perfect working order; how easy to let them deteriorate. In fact, all we have to do is nothing, and everything deteriorates, collapses, breaks down, wears out, all by itself and that is what the Second Law is all about."

Remember this tendency from order to disorder applies to all real processes. Real processes include, of course, biological and geological processes, as well as chemical and physical processes. The interesting question is: "How does a real biological process, which goes from order to disorder, result in evolution. which goes from disorder to order?" Perhaps the evolutionist can ultimately find an answer to this question, but he at least should not ignore it, as most evolutionists do.

Especially is such a question vital, when we are thinking of evolution as a growth process on the grand scale from atom to Adam and from particle to people. This represents in absolutely gigantic increase in order and complexity, and is clearly out of place altogether in the context of the Second Law.
</font>[/QUOTE]http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-003.htm

Notice this quote is from Bible believing Christians, scientists who would not "Sell science" to junk-science pawnshops of evolutionism.

Bible believing Christians that have the same training in science as the atheist evolutionists like Dawkings and Isaac Asimov (Phd in Chemistry and associate professor at Boston University).

What a joy to note the words of scientist that refuse to pollute the methods of science on behalf of the myths and stories of evolutionism

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by UTEOTW:
And while you are at it, tell us what step in evolution entropy prevents. Can you name any?

hmm. I am thinking "molecule-to-human-brain" evolution.

Do you know why?

Bet you can't guess...

Ok -- times up. It's because it Requires a "massive decrease in entropy" in the local system and everyone knows that we we SEE in the local system is INCREASED entropy?

Still don't get it?

Another way of stating the second law then is, 'The universe is constantly getting more disorderly!' Viewed that way we can see the second law all about us. We have to work hard to straighten a room, but left to itself it becomes a mess again very quickly and very easily. Even if we never enter it, it becomes dusty and musty.

How difficult to maintain houses, and machinery, and our own bodies in perfect working order: how easy to let them deteriorate. In fact, all we have to do is nothing, and everything deteriorates, collapses, breaks down, wears out, all by itself - and that is what the second law is all about."


[Isaac Asimov, "In the Game of Energy and Thermodynamics You Can't Even Break Even", Smithsonian Institution Journal (June 1970), p. 6 (emphasis added).]

Notice that Asimov gives these LOCAL examples of increased entropy as his example of what “the 2nd law is all about”. This is “Good science”!

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by UTEOTW:
Yes Bob, entropy effect everything, even living systems. But not in the way you suppose.

Here is the "way" I suppose it "effects everything"

Another way of stating the second law then is, 'The universe is constantly getting more disorderly!' Viewed that way we can see the second law all about us. We have to work hard to straighten a room, but left to itself it becomes a mess again very quickly and very easily. Even if we never enter it, it becomes dusty and musty.

How difficult to maintain houses, and machinery, and our own bodies in perfect working order: how easy to let them deteriorate. In fact, all we have to do is nothing, and everything deteriorates, collapses, breaks down, wears out, all by itself - and that is what the second law is all about."


[Isaac Asimov, "In the Game of Energy and Thermodynamics You Can't Even Break Even", Smithsonian Institution Journal (June 1970), p. 6 (emphasis added).]

Notice that Asimov gives these LOCAL examples of increased entropy as his example of what “the 2nd law is all about”. This is “Good science”!

Notice the actual text?

In fact, all we have to do is nothing, and everything deteriorates, collapses, breaks down, wears out, all by itself - and that is what the second law is all about."

UTEOTW
You are not talking about thermodynamic entropy. You are talking about something else

Nope. I am talking about the 2nd law -- about what "The second law is ALL about".

Get it? Yet?

UTEOTW
and quoting an analogy from a science fiction writer out of context to support yourself. Remember if you are not talking about "a change in the number of accessible energy eigenstates," you are not talking about thermodynamic entropy.

I AM talking about the 2nd law. I AM talking about the lack of efficience of energy transformation I AM talking about LOSS of usuable energy.

And the devastating problem here is that 'tiny local -- isolated decreases" that are "construed by ignoring the environment" are NOT the "resultant" from the total entropy in the local system -- rather they are "washed out" entirely.

Instead of "aggregating" to constitute a "massive decrease" over time - they in fact participate in the TOTAL entropy of the LOCAL system which is always INCREASING.

The "needed" aggregation to yield a "massive decrease" is wishfull thinking and only achieved in the imaginative "Stories" of junk science.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[UTEOTW]

You quoted

"Remember this tendency from order to disorder applies to all real processes. Real processes include, of course, biological and geological processes, as well as chemical and physical processes."

There is no doubt that entropy applies to all systems. But you are talking about something other than thermodynamic entropy. If you are not talking about "a change in the number of accessible energy eigenstates," you are not talking about thermodynamic entropy. And whatever else you may try to confuse us with, whatever other science fiction writer whose analogy you may quote out of context, whatever word games you may play, you are not talking about thermodynamic entropy unless you are talking specifically about the randomness on a molecular level that constitutes real thermodynamic entropy.

You will not answer the question for us, so I will. Local decreases are allowed and this includes biological systems. If you think that the "MASSIVE" decrease in entropy for a human brain is a problem then how did you or I manage to grow one? If you think there is such a problem, why don't you quantify for us the needed change in entropy to get from one generation to the next if evolution happens. Why don't you name one specific step in the process that is denied. Look at your post. I ask you what step in the process is prevented and you answer the whole process. What a non-answer. Pick a step that is not allowed and tell us. Is it mutations? Is it selection? What specifically is it?

You don't know and cannot answer the question.

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by UTEOTW:

Besides, you are the one who thinks that an anology from a science fiction writer taken out of context trumps a thermodynamics textbook.

When evolutionists fail to achieve success in real science - they simply "imagine it" as your statement shows above.

Asimov (associate professor at Boston University and PHD in Chemistry) describes the fact that we SEE the 2nd law at work all around us. The loss of efficiency (loss of usuable energy) is SEEN in the decay and disorder affecting everything and SPECIFICALLY seen in human biology as Asimov notes.

This is NOT in contradiction to ANYTHING in his chemistry books (but junk science does object to it). So rather than showing success - you simply imagine it here in your ceaseless anti-Asimov arguments.

But the fact that EVEN an ATHEIST evolutionist (chemist) is more willing to admit the facts of science than you are -- shows that your appeals to junk science should never have been accepted in trade for the Word of God.

How much more obvious could this be??

In Christ,

Bob

 

[UTEOTW]

"Asimov (associate professor at Boston University and PHD in Chemistry) describes the fact that we SEE the 2nd law at work all around us. The loss of efficiency (loss of usuable energy) is SEEN in the decay and disorder affecting everything and SPECIFICALLY seen in human biology as Asimov notes."

Asimov is giving the same flawed analogy that every other person uses when trying to explain entropy. The actual statements of the 2LOT that you have been given are proof enough of that. These things used in the analogy are not examples of "a change in the number of accessible energy eigenstates." Therefore they are not entropy. No matter how many times you repeat the analogy will not make it literal.

 

[UTEOTW]

You are also ignoring the part of your post where he tells you how the general trend towards increasing entropy can be overcome.

You are also quoting out of context by leaving of the part where he specifically states why entropy is not a problem for evolution.

Come on Bob, if Asimov is your expert here, why do you pick and choose what parts to believe?