Impossible evolutionary steps?

[UTEOTW]

Originally posted by Phillip:
UTEOTW, even this example surprises me. You seem much smarter than this. The "order" is already set by the physical shape of the molecules, the molecules have no choice but to settle together in six pointed shapes simply because of their shape.

All that has exchanged by lowering the temperature is removing the energy that causes those initially shaped molecules jostling around.

This is a very sad example of entropy increase, and you complain about the YEC people trying to come up with a hypothesis that fits their theory. You are doing no better with THIS particular example. See if you can give a better example.

One problem that we have here is that we have not all defined exactly what we are talking about. One thing that has yet to be well enough defined in entropy.

Now, entropy is a property of something just like temperature or pressure is. It is specific, it has units. Now one difference between temperature and entropy is that you can measure temperature directly while you cannot do the same for entropy. But for entropy, unlike temperature, only the change is important. Let's give an example of another such property that may be easier to understand.

There is a property call enthalpy. Now this is more directly related to what people think of as energy. It, too, cannot be measured directly. So, for water let's say, we define a specific set of conditions (temperature, pressure,...) and define the enthalpy to be a certain value. From there we can calculate or measure changes and know what the enthalpy of water is at any other set of conditions. We even make it easy and put these into tables. So if you want to know how much heat it takes to heat water at atmospheric pressure from 100F to 200F you just look those points up on the chart and subtract the values.

Now, the same thing happens with entropy. It is a property of the water and we define the value at a certain point and set all the other values relative to that. The charts I mentioned earlier (steam tables) will often include the entropy data. For an example go to this page

http://www.engineersedge.com/thermodynamics/steam_tables.htm

and look at the chart at the bottom of the page.

So, back to the ice. When we say that the entropy of the water decreased when it froze, we are talking about a very real property of the water. We can even calculate the value specifically.

The latent heat of fusion of water is 144 Btu/lb. Let's say that the outside temperature is 20F and you are taking one pound of water at 32F to ice at 32 F. The formula is deltaS = Q / deltaT

So, the decrease in entropy of the water is 144 / (32+460) = 0.293

The increase of entropy of the air is 144 / (20+460) = 0.3

So you see that the entropy of the water decreased. Also note that the entropy of the air increased more than the decrease of the water. This process followed thermodynamics and resulted in a decrease in the entropy of the water accompanied by a net increase in the entropy of the universe. It was spontaneous. No one had to force anything. The water went to a higher ordered state spontaneously.

That is why this is a good example. It shows how locally increased order and lower entropy can come about spontaneously. It is something which everyone can understand. To get into chemistry and how some reactions can be favored while others are not favored is much harder to see. To take that further and talk about equilibrium constants and how even the unfavored reaction can proceed to some extent gets deeper. To then apply this concept to life which does not operate at equilibrium conditions becomes even more complex. To then try and explain how the non-equilibrium conditions means that entropy is actually a driving force TOWARDS life, well most people are lost at that point.

But ice, hey, most people can understand that.

 

[UTEOTW]

Originally posted by Phillip:
Let's talk about a bacteria's flagellum. Particularly a Eukaryote which is composed of two central single microtubules surrounded by a cylinder of nine double microtubules, all covered by a plasma membrane.

This entire systems works very similar to an electric motor with a stator and rotor.

Neither one of these devices does ANYTHING to improve a bacteria by themselves. This is a very complex little system to move bacteria around, but it works well and as I said, you cannot show ANY improvement by the development of the individual components, which is opposite any evolution theory.

This may not be as good of an example as what you have been lead to believe. (Behe, BTW, [he is the guy who started this] accepts the common descent of life including humans.)

The first point to be made is that not all flagellum are nearly as complicated. A flagellum that works with some of the parts of the IC version missing proves that the IC version is not really IC. It can be simplified and work. For example, there are functional flagellum without any of the nine microtubes.

Another objection is that many of the proteins that make up the flagellum have other uses in the bacteria. This is not surprizing since evolution often re-uses parts. That is much easier to carry outthan inventing new parts from scratch.

In the case of the flagellum, the basal part of the flagellum is made of proteins like those that the bacterium uses to make its type III secretory system (TTSS). This system allows some bacteria to translocate proteins directly into the cytoplasm of a host cell. Now, the IC flagellum begins to fall apart when we see that its parts first had other uses in the cell and just needed to be co-opted for a new purpose. (Some scientists maintain that the flagellum should be considered a modification of the TTSS and therefore just a part of the TTSS.)

There are also working flagellum that are missing other parts of the IC version. Some have been found to not need the L-ring, the P-ring, the FliH protein, the FliD protein, or the muramidase domain of FlgJ.

So the IC flagellum is not really IC. Also, the flagellum re-uses other proteins from the bacterium just as one would suspect if it were the product of evolutionary processes.

 

[Benfranklin403]

>>>>>>>>>Those who believe in macro-evolution do not understand "LIFE". Why don't you tell us about yourself as we all have. UTEOTW did a fine job of his background and experience and so have we. Would you do the same?<<<<<<<

I have a Ph.D. in chemistry and a B.S. in Meteorology as well as chemistry. Having been trained in two different fields, it happens that I had courses in thermodynamics in both fields. I am self employed as a consultant. After posting this, I notice that UTEOTW has already done a fine job in describing the entropy changes between ice and water, so I add this as an edit. UTEOW knows what he is talking about so you creationists should listen to him.

You can take most textbooks in physical chemistry and find in the appendix that ice has lower entropy than liquid water. It is a well understood fact and the entropy change is measured by the heat loss or gain. The entropy of ice compared to water does not depend on anyone's religious beliefs, so I will skip that for now.

 

[Benfranklin403]

>>>>>>The water did not freeze all on its own. That statement is foolish. [Roll Eyes] It froze because its temperature dropped below 32 degrees F through heat transfer to its surroundings, a thermodynamic event. It is not a spontaneous event! Get real!!! [Big Grin]<<<<<<<<<<

OldRegular, if you will take the time to consult textbooks in physical chemistry or thermodynamics, you will find that the freezing of water is indeed considered a spontaneous process.

 

[Benfranklin403]

"I did not say the earth was a closed system. I stated that the Second Law applies throughout the universe so your argument about energy from the sun providing the engine for evolution is fallacious."

--- OldRegular

No, he was correct.

The second law does apply in general, however it can be expressed in more than one way and the specific version of the second law used by creationists applies only to an energetically closed system. Since the earth is not closed from the energy of the sun, the particular statement of the second law favored by creationists, in the rare cases in which they correctly state it, does not conflict with evolution. The second law does not state that every single region of a system must become more disorderly. It only states that in a closed system, the net result of the various processes must produce an overall result of greater entropy (disorder). Increased order in one region of a system can be "paid for" by a net increase in disorder of the system as a whole. This is what creationists do not understand. They do not understand that their favored version of the 2nd law is in terms of a net result only.

[ January 24, 2005, 12:11 PM: Message edited by: Benfranklin403 ]

 

[Benfranklin403]

>>>>>>>>I do not think the "state" of a compound or element has much to do with entropy. If changes were made such as iron oxidizing, then you have entropy.<<<<

The state of an element or compound has a great deal to do with entropy. Entropy can be thought of as a measure of disorder. Obviously 1 liter of water in the liquid state has more order than an equal amount of water in the vapor state, if for no other reason than the gases of a vapor are moving at high velocity compared to the molecules of a liquid. Freeze the liquid and there is greater order still.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Benfranklin403:
UTEOW knows what he is talking about so you creationists should listen to him.

This is not intended as a slight toward you or UT but neither of you were eyewitnesses to creation... so to say that either one of you "know" what you are talking about as it directly concerns macroevolution is a stretch... a matter of faith.

If someone I trusted told me that a ravine on my property was started when he dug a ditch 40 years ago, I would tend to believe them. If a geologist or even civil engineer happened by and began to tell me how that ravine developed over hundreds of years via the natural process... I would still believe the first guy.

Both have given reasonable explanations that account for the measurable, observable facts. Both are credible. One says natural processes did it. One says an intelligent designer/worker did it.

The difference? One was an eyewitness and the other was not.

So no matter how sound theories about how many times it rained over the proposed hundreds of years or how the wind was or what the original soil composition might have been... or many other things that the geologist might dream up to explain "what is"- they are simply incorrect because they assumed that non-natural forces were not involved.

You can say that it is "unscientific" to believe eyewitness testimony all you like... but the bottom line is that it is no more "scientific" to assume no supernatural cause for nature than to assume there is one.

 

[Paul of Eugene]

Scott - what if the person spoke to you in a dialect that was old and others who heard him speak said they thought he was trying to say something else, so that it becomes a matter of figuring out what the original "witness" really said?

 

[Phillip]

Originally posted by Paul of Eugene:
Scott - what if the person spoke to you in a dialect that was old and others who heard him speak said they thought he was trying to say something else, so that it becomes a matter of figuring out what the original "witness" really said?

STRAWMAN if I ever heard one.

Obviously, the Bible was written for all people of all ages. Just exactly how long ago do you think these people were who read the Old Testament Creation account?

Obviously, it was applicable in Jesus' time 2000 years ago. Are you telling me that if I told those people in Hebrew that God created the universe in six days they would interpret it in a different way than I do?

If God said a flood covered the Earth and he saved all of the animals and mankind in a boat, that they would interpret it different than I do?

Just who are these "ancients" you keep talking about who would completely interpret the Old Testament in a non-literal fashion?

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Paul of Eugene:
Scott - what if the person spoke to you in a dialect that was old and others who heard him speak said they thought he was trying to say something else, so that it becomes a matter of figuring out what the original "witness" really said?

You have yet to show any evidence from the text or with cross references that anything but a narrative was intended in the first 11 chapters of Genesis.

This, as opposed to macroevolution, lies within the realm of a proveable assertion. You say that something that appears very much like a narrative, with no internal indication of being allegory, is none the less allegorical.

Show me how. Better yet, show where someone else in the Bible including Jesus treated Genesis as anything less than literal history.

You are grasping for straws here. An allegorical interpretation has only one merit. It allows you to agree with those who espouse evolution and naturalism.

 

[UTEOTW]

"This is not intended as a slight toward you or UT but neither of you were eyewitnesses to creation... so to say that either one of you "know" what you are talking about as it directly concerns macroevolution is a stretch... a matter of faith."

No offense taken, but I think his comments were reserved to the entropy discussion.

 

[Phillip]

Are you saying that THIS is not accurate?

"The second law is concerned with entropy (S), which is a measure of disorder. The second law says that the entropy of the universe increases. An increase in overall disorder is therefore spontaneous. If the volume and energy of a system are constant, then every change to the system increases the entropy. If volume or energy change, then the entropy of the system actually decrease. However, the entropy of the universe does not decrease.

For energy to be available there must be a region with high energy level and a region with low energy level. Useful work must be derived from the energy that would flows from the high level to the low level.

100% of the energy can not be transformed to work
Entropy can be produced but never destroyed "

 

[UTEOTW]

No, that sounds like an accurate statement. The key part is "increase in overall disorder is therefore spontaneous." There may be some details to quibble over there, but they are not worth it.

Now look back at the water example. You will see that the overall entropy increased even as the water spontaneously had its entropy decrease. Like I said, this example is a good one because it is simple and can be easily understood. I doubt you have any thermo training and yet I expect that you could follow the entropy calculation that I did for you.

Getting into chemistry and spontaneous and activation energies and equilibrium constants and things, like life, that operate at conditions far from equilibrium is a much more difficult concept. But I think that the ice example can be easily understood. A simple calculation shows you that the actual entropy of the system decreased. Experience shows you that it happens on its on. This thought exercise should be sufficient to convince you that the same processes are valid on more complicated topics. You should see now that local decreases in entropy are spontaneous and are not rare. This should assure you that whatever problems you may see with evolution, entropy is not one of them.

 

[Phillip]

The specifics of entropy are getting off the subject and I am not the scientist to discuss this, but I do know scientists personally who have used the second law of thermodynamics. Such a minor decrease in entropy as shown by water certainly does not open the gateway for something as complex as life.

Back to the subject at hand. It is apparent that nobody is going to bring up anything that you cannot come up with an explanation for. This still does not mean that the items we have discussed are possible, because in the discussions there are certainly a lot of "if this" or "if that". It is amazing that you can find a Indian arrowhead and know for sure there is a designer behind it, but when you see a human being with complexities on the order of many, many magnitudes of higher complexity and say it is simply a drop in entropy. This just certainly does not make sense.

Let us discuss one final issue and that is flying. You discussed a dynosaur with feathers on all four legs. This is quite an interesting "creation". Why don't you explain to me just exactly how we go from a land based animal to powered flight?

 

[OldRegular]

Originally posted by Benfranklin403:
Just a couple of points from someone who has had several courses in thermodynamics. Ice certainly has less entropy than a similar mass of liquid water. Natural processes routinely involve materials going to a state of lower entropy. The formation of ice from water is one such example.

Evolution is not prohibited by the 2nd law. Those who say that the second law is a problem for evolution do not understand thermodynamics.

Natural processes may involve material going to a state of lower entropy. However, it is fallacious to assume that natural processes are spontaneous. Water does not freeze unless its temperature is reduced by transfer of heat from the water. That is not spontaneous. It requires that the surroundings be at a lower temperature.

If water can freeze spontaneously without the removal of heat why can't water boil without the addition of heat [or use of energy to reduce the pressure sufficiently]?

I would argue that those who say the Second Law does not prohibit evolution refuse to face reality!

 

[UTEOTW]

"The specifics of entropy are getting off the subject and I am not the scientist to discuss this, but I do know scientists personally who have used the second law of thermodynamics. Such a minor decrease in entropy as shown by water certainly does not open the gateway for something as complex as life."

Really, all that you need is the demonstration that local entropy can decrease and can do so spontaneously. This is no different if you are talking about water turning to ice or chemistry. If I have not made this clear then I am not sure how to do so.

"Back to the subject at hand. It is apparent that nobody is going to bring up anything that you cannot come up with an explanation for. This still does not mean that the items we have discussed are possible, because in the discussions there are certainly a lot of "if this" or "if that". "

You are right. Just pointing out how something is possible does not mean that it happened. But, if I have convinced you that anyhting you previously thoguht was not possible at all is at least possible, then we have made some progress. Some things are asy to show and some difficult. YOu asked about eyes earlier. Now ther e is a case where eyes don't fossilize and so I cannot show you a series of eye fossils. I must speculate. But I can point to small, plausible steps along the way and I can point to extant creatures that use many of those intermediate steps. I just want you to see that some of the things that people have told you are not possible really are possible. I don't expect to change your mind and convince you that they really did happen. But it is something if you can simply see that things are not as far fetched as you have been made to believe. You might not agree with me but maybe you can at least see why it may be plausible to me. That would be an understanding between us that would make the rest of the discussion worth it.

Edit:
I'll try and get to your flight question later. Off to work.

[ January 25, 2005, 08:31 AM: Message edited by: UTEOTW ]

 

[UTEOTW]

"Natural processes may involve material going to a state of lower entropy. However, it is fallacious to assume that natural processes are spontaneous. Water does not freeze unless its temperature is reduced by transfer of heat from the water. That is not spontaneous. It requires that the surroundings be at a lower temperature."

I do not think you understand the thermodynamic concept of spontaneous.

Let's go back to the statement of the second law I made many pages ago. Something along the lines of Heat cannot flow from an region of lower temperature to one of higher temperature without work being done. Look above at the formula for the change in entropy that I gave Phillip. If you try to make heat flow from a low temperature region to a high temperature one and calculate the entropy change, the change is a net decrease. Since there is a net decrease, this will not happen.

Now look at the math I did for the freezing of water. There was a net increase in entropy. Therefore the freezing of water IF the environment is below freezing results in a new increase in entropy and is therefore thermodynamically favorable and therefore can proceed spontaneaously.

(Here I may need to quibble over the detail that I said I would not a few posts ago. Entropy is not the end all in whether somethng is spontaneous. The real key is Gibb's free energy. The formula is G = H -TS. Without going too far into the details, just notice that in addition to entropy that temperature and enthalpy play a role. There are situations where a decrease in entropy can still be favorable.)

"If water can freeze spontaneously without the removal of heat why can't water boil without the addition of heat [or use of energy to reduce the pressure sufficiently]? "

Neither can happen. Only if the environment is cooler does thermodynamics favor the removal of heat from the water. Only if the enviroment is warmer does it favor the transfer of heat to the water to boil it. Even if you want to flash the water by reducing pressure, you still have to do it in a thermodynamically favored manner.

"I would argue that those who say the Second Law does not prohibit evolution refuse to face reality! "

I would suggest that those who argue that entropy IS a problem for evolution to produce one mechansm necessary for evolution to proceed (mutation, selection, gene flow, recombination, etc.) that cannot happen due to entropy.

I have more than adequately demonstrated that local decreases in entropy can be thermodynamically favored and are not rare occurances.

 

[Mike Gascoigne]

UTEOTW,

The topic called "Stunning Victory of Creation" was closed down by the moderator after you made a long series of allegations that Creationists are telling lies.

www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/3/2693/22.html

Did you observe Matt. 18:15-17 before making all these personal accusations?

Mike

 

[UTEOTW]

Have I gone personally to them? No, I do not know them.

But these are public figures. They do this in a very public forum. There are many, many avenues under which the mistakes of their claims have been pointed out, also publically, and they continue to tell such things. I have not personally spoken to them but they have been made aware and have chosen to continue down the same path. Their chance for private handling of this has passed.

Did you personally speak to anyone about Haekel or Piltdown before making charges?

(Well the answer to that is that you could not since no one uses those things.)

I was also making a point. You asked why I was so against YE. I said one reason was because I found its proponents very dishonest. Examples were asked for so I provided them.

Let's go back to asking if you think they were justified in their claims.

You said you found my examples "unconvincing." So let's take the first one.

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/3/2693/23.html#000343

A couple of guys wanted to show that when selecting rocks for K-Ar dating that is is important to select rocks that have been completely melted to rid the rock of the argon. So they selected samples from a recent volcano. SOme samples they could tell had been completely melted. So they could tell had not. They had them dated. The ones that were completely melted came back with the expected age of zreo. The ones that had not came back with the expected non-zero age.

Morris cited their work. He only mentioned the samples that were not completely melted and pointed out that they dated as old. He did not mention the other samples nor did he mention that the samples were purposely selected because they would date incorrectly. He only used it as an example that dating does not work.

First question. Do you think that he made the right conclusion based on the evidence?

Second question. If he made the right conclusion, why should he have not told the full context of the experiment? If he made the wrong conclusion, does it seem that he should have known what the guys were doing since he cited their paper?

Third question. If he made the wrong conclusion, do you think there is at least reason to think he may have been misleading on purpose or do you think it was an honest mistake?

 

[UTEOTW]

Besides, does this even count as a personal offense against me in particular? I don't think so. Does this mean that before a preacher preaches against some particular sin that he need to go to everyone he thinks may be guilty of that act privately before he can speak against it?

I think you may be trying to misapply the scripture.