Response from Timothy Wallace:trueorigin.org
>> To keep everybody honest, may I have permission to place a copy of the current version http://www.trueorigin.org/steiger.php on my web site (with perhaps minor modification to remove or correct broken links) without change to the text?... <<
Notwithstanding your noble ambition to “keep everybody honest”, I
do not give permission to re-publish any material from the TrueOrigin
site. My own essays have been subject to revision (as openly
indicated in the feedback section) since the beginning, and have been
revised multiple times (including the 2LOT portions), thanks to
readers’ corrections and suggestions. This has consistently had far
less to do with any question of “keeping honest” than with an aim to
communicate with the greatest possible accuracy and clarity.
>> Please give me a reference in the scientific literature to the “generalized second law”. On the web it seems to appear only in creationist literature,
and it is not well defined. <<
I am not in a position to provide you with references to the
generalized second law in the scientific literature. In contrast to
your “only creationist literature” search results, however, an
AltaVista search for “generalized second law” yielded 16 out of 22
URLs (over 70%) that were not creation-related, while an identical
InfoSeek search yielded 12 out of 13 URLs (over 90%) that were not
creation-related.
>> I can precisely answer your second question about origin of information from raw random sequence, and will do so after my paper on the topic has been
accepted in a scientific journal. So we may have to wait a while... <<
Seeing your paper will obviously have to wait, though it sounds
interesting. In the meantime, while there is no question that gene
duplication, divergence, and selection are all empirically evident
mechanisms/processes, this does absolutely nothing to answer the
second question, which requires mechanisms/processes from zero genetic
data in raw matter to the present vast array of genetic data.
(Starting with “gene duplication” begs the question by assuming that
genes already exist.)
And now, to repeat [the unanswered, but critical elements of] my last post:
You began by assuming that I did “not understand that the entropy of
an unisolated system can decrease, at the expense of the rest of the
universe,” and asked whether I was “intentionally ignoring” the fact.
I asked you to cite the specific passage(s) from my text which seemed
to indicate your assumption to be true. Notwithstanding your failure
to cite such a passage in which such a lack of understanding were
unambiguously evident, I have explicitly indicated to you, in any
case, that I do indeed understand that the entropy of an unisolated
system can decrease, at the expense of the rest of the universe.
In short, your question has been answered.
Since, in spite of this, you seem bent on attempting to leverage that
principle into substantiation for evolution (and your message length
is now exhibiting a pattern of increasing by roughly 50% per post),
let’s just distill this down to a couple of questions:
1) Evolution calls for the development of life itself and subsequent
life forms from a purely natural process. Life does not function
without the strictly controlled conversion of raw solar energy into
useable energy. What are the specific, empirically evident original
mechanism/process and pathway of specific, empirically evident
mechanisms/processes that led from zero such conversion capability in
raw matter to the multiple and varied mechanisms and processes that
are inherent in every living organism as we know them?
[I have yet to receive an answer to this question that wasn’t either
pure conjecture and/or a denial that something more than raw solar energy
was needed for life to spontaneously emerge from non-life. (2LOT certainly
“allows” for the needed entropy changes, but those specific,
empirically evident mechanisms/processes don’t just “happen” by themselves, and without them, there’s no entropy change for 2LOT to “allow”.)]
2) Evolution calls for the development of ever more volume and ever
greater variety and complexity of data in the genetic code of living
organisms as they allegedly first emerged, then progressed from,
simplest forms to the present broad spectrum of variety. What
specific, empirically evident original mechanism/process and pathway
of specific, empirically evident mechanisms/processes have led from
zero genetic data in raw matter to the vast array of voluminous
genetic data inherent in living organisms as we know them?
[I have yet to receive an answer to this question that—again—wasn’t either pure conjecture and/or an attempt to confuse the difference between heat entropy (as indicated in 2LOT) and general or informational entropy (as indicated in G2L). (Again, G2L certainly “allows” for the needed entropy changes, but those specific, empirically evident mechanisms/processes don’t just “happen” by themselves, and without them, there’s no entropy change for G2L to “allow”.)]
If definitive, compelling answers cannot be provided to these two
questions—and to my knowledge they have not—then 2LOT (one of
the most solid scientific principles known to man) is no friend to
evolutionary theory, for although it may be (mis)used as “evidence”
that the above hypothesized entropy changes are “possible,” the math
by itself is useless without unambiguous corroborating observations.
Repeated with great frequency are the standard oversimplifications
about solar energy being adequate by itself and the alleged
statistical “inevitability” of the statistically impossible (given
“enough time”), but only a few of science’s more objective leading
figures even come close to honestly acknowledging the problem. (And
that it isn’t largely acknowledged is by no means ipso facto evidence
that the problem doesn’t exist.)
Kind Regards,
TW
Response from Tom Schneider:trueorigin.org
>> I am not in a position to provide you with references to the generalized second law in the scientific literature. <<
Thanks for the pointer though. I found the 16 you mention are at altivista
(“generalized second law”) and see that the physicists are apparently talking
about a generalized second law for the physics of black holes:
MINNOWBROOK SYMPOSIUM ON THE STRUCTURE OF SPACE-TIME MAY 28 - 31, 1999
http://www.phy.syr.edu/research/he_theory/minnowbrook/index.html
http://www.phy.syr.edu/research/he_theory/minnowbrook/wald.html
Bekenstein, J.D. (1974) ‘Generalized Second Law of Thermodynamics in
Black-Hole Physics’, Physical Review D9(12): 3292-3300.
It related to the entropy of a black hole being one quarter of its surface.
This condition is extreme compared to conditions for living organisms and so
does not appear to be relevant to discussions of evolution without a strong,
cogent supporting argument.
>> ... while there is no question that gene duplication, divergence, and selection are all empirically evident mechanisms/processes, this does absolutely nothing to answer the second question, which requires mechanisms/processes from zero genetic data in raw matter to the present vast array of genetic data. (Starting with “gene duplication” begs the question by assuming that genes already exist.) <<
Right. The question of the origin of life is separate from the question of
increase of information once there were genes. But this is off topic.
I’m puzzled by what you mean in the passage from
http://www.trueorigin.org/steiger.php:
“Evolutionist theory faces a problem in the second law, since the law is plainly understood to indicate (as does empirical observation) that things tend towards disorder, simplicity, randomness, and disorganization, while the theory insists that precisely the opposite has been taking place since the universe began (assuming it had a beginning).”
Given that we are not talking about the origin of life (where natural
selection and evolution might not apply) and that you agree there can be a
decrease of an unisolated system (though you have yet to put the sentence
together I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt for the moment), what is the
problem mentioned in this paragraph?
Tom
Response from Timothy Wallace:trueorigin.org
>> Thanks for the pointer though. I found the 16 you mention are at altivista (“generalized second law”) and see that the physicists are apparently talking about a generalized second law for the physics of black holes... ...and so does not appear to be relevant to discussions of evolution without a strong, cogent supporting argument. <<
I am perplexed at how difficult it sometimes seems for intelligent,
educated men—scientists, no less—to research a matter with which
they, by the very nature of their training and field of expertise,
might reasonably be expected to have at least some familiarity. Your
comments imply that you are willing to recognize only that the
generalized second law applies to black hole physics, and nothing
else, since this as all you’ve seen with your own eyes (having
ostensibly never heard of the generalized second law before[?])...
At:
http://www.geocities.com/~combusem/CHEHIST.HTM
and
http://www.weburbia.com/pg/hist2.htm
Rudolf Clausius is credited with formalizing(?) the generalised second
law of thermodynamics (1850). Unless black holes were being studied
or postulated at that time, there would seem to be a hint from this
date that the generalised second law would likely be applicable to
more than just the physics of black holes.
At:
http://cc.uab.es/~iftg1/paper/90.htm
The following is cited:
The generalised second law and extended thermodynamics
D. Pavón, Class. Quantum Grav., 7 (1990) 487-491
(I do not know whether, or to what extent, this paper discusses black
holes.)
At:
http://rainbow.uchicago.edu/physics/t_rel.html
The following is cited:
Acceleration Radiation and the Generalized Second Law of
Thermodynamics. R. M. Wald and W.G. Unruh. Phys. Rev. D 25, 942, 1982.
(I do not know whether, or to what extent, this paper discusses black
holes.)
At:
http://ecen.com/eee9/ecoterme.htm
The following statement is found:
“All real energetic processes generate entropy. If this thermodynamic
concept is applied by analogy to economic processes, an analog of
entropy is generated. Let us remember that even social phenomena have
associated physical fluxes. In all biological and social processes
some organization is lost, and that is equivalent to generation of
entropy, according to a Generalized Second Law of Thermodynamics. It
is an extrapolation, of course, but it seems to work: all evidence is
in favor of its existence, and there are no contradictions so far,
even if it was necessary to invent a negative entropy for living
beings (Schrödinger, Brillouin).”
(The article does not mention black holes.)
See also:
http://www.math.toronto.edu/~pivato/latex/dis/dis.html
(Section 3.2.3 “A Generalised Second Law of Thermodynamics” [and
following] does not seem to address black holes.)
The above citations, at the very least might help make it plain that
the generalized second law relates to more than black holes, and that
it relates the second law’s principle of entropy to a wide variety of
applications (besides just heat entropy, as commonly associated with
the second law in its classic form).
>> ...The question of the origin of life is separate from the question of increase of information once there were genes... <<
So some say. Nevertheless, empirically sound, scientifically
plausible answers to both questions (i.e., from the perspective of
naturalistic philosophy) remain elusive, notwithstanding the often
repeated, but unsubstantiated, claims that natural processes alone can
and/or do provide such answers.
>> I’m puzzled by what you mean in the passage from http://www.trueorigin.org/steiger.php:
“Evolutionist theory faces a problem in the second law, since the law is plainly understood to indicate (as does empirical observation) that things tend towards disorder, simplicity, randomness, and disorganization, while the theory insists that precisely the opposite has been taking place since the universe began (assuming it had a beginning).”
Given that ... you agree there can be a decrease of an unisolated system (though you have yet to put the sentence together I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt for the moment), what is the problem mentioned in this paragraph? <<
The problem is that (speaking strictly from a biological standpoint),
although evolution is claimed to be the explanation for such a
decrease (both with respect to reduced heat entropy and information
entropy), there exists no empirically supported evidence to
substantiate such a claim:
1) The fact that living organisms are able to convert and store energy
and put it to work in specific, orderly ways is not ipso facto
evidence for evolution: it is merely proof that living organisms are
able to convert and store energy and put it to work in specific,
orderly ways. Evolution deserves no credit for this in the absence of
unambiguous compelling evidence that (and how) these processes got the
way they are through purely natural means.
2) The fact that living organisms grow and function in specific,
orderly ways, in accordance with highly complex and voluminous
instructions inherent in their genetic information is not ipso facto
evidence for evolution: it is merely proof that living organisms grow
and function in specific, orderly ways, in accordance with highly
complex and voluminous instructions inherent in their genetic
information. Evolution deserves no credit for this in the absence of
unambiguous compelling evidence that (and how) this information became
so highly complex and voluminous through purely natural means.
Kind Regards,
TW
Response from Tom Schneider:trueorigin.org
>> I am perplexed at how difficult it sometimes seems for intelligent, educated men—scientists, no less—to research a matter with which they, by the very nature of their training and field of expertise, might reasonably be expected to have at least some familiarity. <<
Hm. I’m getting the impression that this is your policy:
when in doubt
insult the lout
>> Your comments imply that you are willing to recognize only that the generalized second law applies to black hole physics, and nothing else, since this as all you’ve seen with your own eyes (having ostensibly never heard of the generalized second law before[?])... <<
I work in a huge variety of fields and so am always learning. I am not so
rigid as you imply. Until I see a reliable source for something you state I
will have doubts about it. This is because so many things on your web site
are clearly made up or incorrect. So you are starting from a bad position
for me and have to prove yourself to be a careful researcher. So far the
business about the correcting the word does not indicate care, but people can
and do make mistakes. The question is whether they will correct the mistake
and go on with their lives or whether they keep sticking in the mistake.
>> At:
http://www.geocities.com/~combusem/CHEHIST.HTM
and
http://www.weburbia.com/pg/hist2.htm
Rudolf Clausius is credited with formalizing(?) the generalised second
law of thermodynamics (1850). Unless black holes were being studied
or postulated at that time, there would seem to be a hint from this
date that the generalised second law would likely be applicable to
more than just the physics of black holes. <<
The relevant entire content of these sites on this issue is:
“1850: Rudolf Clausius generalised second law of thermodynamics.”
The Clausius form is dS>= dq/T, which you object to when written as -ds <=
-dq/T!...
[NOTE that this is the third of no fewer than three times Mr. Schneider falsely accuses me of not understanding that the entropy in unisolated systems can and does decrease in nature, at the expense of its surrounding environment—a simple and common thermodynamic phenomenon. —TW ]
...Most people today realize that there are many forms of the Second Law... So it is usually
just called the Second Law. The phrase above probably means that Clausius
generalized the law on that date. Now-a-days we don’t think of it as any
different than the law itself (it just sounds fancier and more obscure).
The physics pointers are to quantum gravity. I doubt that these are directly
relevant to living things. The economics pointer is also probably not
directly relevant.
>> See also:
http://www.math.toronto.edu/~pivato/latex/dis/dis.html
(Section 3.2.3 “A Generalised Second Law of Thermodynamics” [and
following] does not seem to address black holes.) <<
This is one person’s generalization, though I’m not sure it is necessary.
>> The above citations, at the very least might help make it plain that the generalized second law relates to more than black holes, and that it relates the second law’s principle of entropy to a wide variety of applications (besides just heat entropy, as commonly associated with the second law in its classic form). <<
The citations make it clear that there are probably several different
definitions, most of which are not relevant.
>> The problem is that (speaking strictly from a biological standpoint), although evolution is claimed to be the explanation for such a decrease (both with respect to reduced heat entropy and information entropy), there exists no empirically supported evidence to substantiate such a claim:
1) The fact that living organisms are able to convert and store energy and put it to work in specific, orderly ways is not ipso facto evidence for evolution: it is merely proof that living organisms are able to convert and store energy and put it to work in specific, orderly ways. Evolution deserves no credit for this in the absence of unambiguous compelling evidence that (and how) these processes got the way they are through purely natural means.
2) The fact that living organisms grow and function in specific, orderly ways, in accordance with highly complex and voluminous instructions inherent in their genetic information is not ipso facto evidence for evolution: it is merely proof that living organisms grow and function in specific, orderly ways, in accordance with highly complex and voluminous instructions inherent in their genetic information. Evolution deserves no credit for this in the absence of unambiguous compelling evidence that (and how) this information became so highly complex and voluminous through purely natural means. <<
Evolution is the result of replication, genetic variation and selection in a
population of organisms. So evolution (as the end product) is not the
explanation of the decrease you are worried about. However, selection does
the trick. There are plenty of examples of this, including breeding of
animals and plants and selections in the lab of biological systems. Read
Origin of Species to see the huge amount of evidence even 1.5 centuries ago.
We’ve come quite a way since then.
So “evolution” does not have a problem with the Second Law. You apparently
have a problem seeing how the Second Law fits quite nicely with evolutionary
processes.
Tom
Response from Timothy Wallace:trueorigin.org
>> >> I am perplexed at how difficult it sometimes seems for intelligent, educated men—scientists, no less—to research a matter with which they, by the very nature of their training and field of expertise, might reasonably be expected to have at least some familiarity. << <<
>> Hm. I’m getting the impression that this is your policy:
when in doubt
insult the lout <<
Likewise, yours seems to be:
criticism?
cry, ‘ad hominem!’
My observation of your apparent ‘ignorance’ concerning the scope of
applicability associated with the Second Law was not meant as an
insult. I actually still find it hard to believe that such an
‘ignorance’ on your part really exists, and wonder whether it is not
feigned, for purposes thus far unknown to me. In any case, though no
insult was intended, if any be taken, I offer my apologies.
>> I work in a huge variety of fields and so am always learning. I am not so rigid as you imply... <<
It is your own treatment of the generalized second law (heretofore
implicitly limiting its application to ‘black hole’ physics) that has
implied such rigidity on your part; my role has simply been to observe
the phenomenon.
>> The relevant entire content of these sites on this issue is: “1850: Rudolf Clausius generalised second law of thermodynamics.”>
The Clausius form is dS>= dq/T, which you object to when written as -ds <= -dq/T! <<
On exactly what specific basis do you claim that I “object” to the
form written above?
>> The physics pointers are to quantum gravity. I doubt that these are directly relevant to living things. The economics pointer is also probably not directly relevant. <<
They were cited to demonstrate that G2L was apparently applicable to
more than just ‘black hole’ physics (contrary to what was implied in
your comments).
>> This is one person’s generalization, though I’m not sure it is necessary. <<
It was cited to demonstrate that G2L was apparently applicable to more
than just ‘black hole’ physics (contrary to what was implied in your
comments).
>> The citations make it clear that there are probably several different definitions, most of which are not relevant. <<
They were cited to demonstrate that G2L was apparently applicable to
more than just ‘black hole’ physics (contrary to what was implied in
your comments).
>> Evolution is the result of replication, genetic variation and selection in a population of organisms... <<
You’ve just described ‘MICRO-evolution’, which is essentially the same
thing as genetic variation itself. In effect you’ve presented a
tautology by saying genetic variation is the result of genetic
variation (or [micro-]evolution is the result of [micro-]evolution).
Talking in circles like this does nothing to explain the alleged
‘evolution’ of NEW genetic data, specifying NEW physiological traits
or organs, or the emergence of NEW and varied biological energy
conversion, transport, and storage mechanisms. A passing reference to
‘(micro-)evolution’ simply does not explain these things.
>> ...So evolution (as the end product) is not the explanation of the decrease you are worried about... <<
Exactly (but I’m not particularly worried, thank you :-).
>> However, selection does the trick... <<
No, it does not. Selection is only able to select from what is
already present in the genetic potential of the subject population.
Selection has not been shown empirically to generate unequivocally new
or more complex genetic information or unequivocally new physiological
traits or organs. It merely selects from the genetic potential for
variation already inherent in the population’s combined genetic
potential (the ‘gene pool’).
It is a logical fallacy (i.e., begging the question) to assume that
the ‘gene pool’ already contains unequivocally new or more complex
genetic information or unequivocally new physiological traits or
organs, when the genetic potential can more easily be (and has been
empirically shown to be) comprised of a combination of already
existing traits (some dominant, some recessive) in the subject
population’s ‘gene pool’—traits which are subsequently manifested
in succeeding generations (sometimes dominant, sometimes recessive)
according to the indications of the genetic code as the population
reproduces.
>> There are plenty of examples of this, including breeding of animals and plants and selections in the lab of biological systems. <<
These, again, are examples of genetic variation (animal and plant
breeding is selection for specific, already existing traits or
combinations of already existing traits, and laboratory selection of
biological systems likewise selects that which already exists). They
must not be confused with the allegation made by evolution proponents
that natural processes can account for new and more complex genetic
data, new and more complex organs and traits, and new and more complex
energy conversion, transport, and storage mechanisms. Genetic
variation (or [micro-]evolution) has not been shown empirically to be
capable of generating these things.
>> Read Origin of Species to see the huge amount of evidence even 1.5 centuries ago. We’ve come quite a way since then. <<
While I agree that the text contains numerous examples of natural
selection (in combination with genetic variation), which well prior to
1859 had been observed and documented by others, I invite you to cite
a single example from Origin of Species that serves as
unequivocal, compelling evidence that known natural processes can
account for the generation of new and more complex genetic data, new
and more complex organs and traits, and new and more complex energy
conversion, transport, and storage mechanisms.
>> So “evolution” does not have a problem with the Second Law. <<
It has not been empirically and unequivocally demonstrated that known
natural processes can account for the generation of new and more
complex genetic data, new and more complex organs and traits, and new
and more complex energy conversion, transport, and storage
mechanisms. Specific natural processes to which can be attributed the
entropy decreases necessarily associated with the generation of these
things have similarly not been empirically and unequivocally
demonstrated.
This being the case, yes, evolution does have a problem with the
Second Law—not in the popularly misunderstood sense that entropy
decreases are impossible, or even less than commonplace, but in the sense that a
technical possibility is not ipso facto proof (or even evidence) that
the specific alleged entropy decreases cited above, and their
associated alleged natural mechanisms and processes, are therefore
given as scientifically probable or even possible.
>> You apparently have a problem seeing how the Second Law fits quite nicely with evolutionary processes. <<
Yes, I do(!). You, on the other hand, seem to have a problem
differentiating between (micro-)evolution (i.e., natural selection in
combination with genetic variation—an empirically observed and
understood phenomenon) and (macro)evolution (i.e., an empirically
unsubstantiated extrapolation of (micro-)evolution). You also seem to
have a problem differentiating between a general, calculable change in
entropy and a real-world, empirical demonstration of a specific
process and its inherent mechanism(s) for effecting such a change in
entropy—that specific process being (in this case) the generation
of new and more complex genetic data, new and more complex organs and
traits, and new and more complex energy conversion, transport, and
storage mechanisms.
Kind Regards,
TW
Response from Tom Schneider:trueorigin.org
>> >> The Clausius form is dS>= dq/T, which you object to when written as -ds <=-dq/T! << <<
>> On exactly what specific basis do you claim that I “object” to the form written above? <<
It was the paragraph correction. Besides, you have been remarkably careful
to ask questions rather than make solid statements.
Ok, we’ve beaten “G2L” into the ground. Looks to me like it’s just another
form or various specializations of the Second Law. Renaming it is not going
to change it.
>> >> Evolution is the result of replication, genetic variation and selection in a population of organisms... << <<
>> You’ve just described ‘MICRO-evolution’, which is essentially the same thing as genetic variation itself. <<
Well, lots of people say that molecular clocks are “evolution” but I just
think of that as drift. Sometimes it might get somewhere interesting, but
most of the time it probably doesn’t. That is, all of the cytochrome C’s are
doing the same thing and the variations don’t have much effect.
Further, there is no precise distinction between micro and macro evolution.
But I think that there is a big difference between variation (which includes
dead variants or ones that don’t reproduce) and small steps of evolution
(micro).
What prevents micro evolution from being macro evolution over the course of 3
million years?
>> In effect you’ve presented a tautology by saying genetic variation is the result of genetic variation (or [micro-]evolution is the result of [micro-]evolution). Talking in circles like this does nothing to explain the alleged ‘evolution’ of NEW genetic data, specifying NEW physiological traits or organs, or the emergence of NEW and varied biological energy conversion, transport, and storage mechanisms. A passing reference to ‘(micro-)evolution’ simply does not explain these things. <<
Sure, by your definition of micro-evolution. But when does when does micro
end and macro start?
>> >> However, selection does the trick... << <<
>> No, it does not. Selection is only able to select from what is already present in the genetic potential of the subject population. Selection has not been shown empirically to generate unequivocally new or more complex genetic information or unequivocally new physiological traits or organs. It merely selects from the genetic potential for variation already inherent in the population’s combined genetic potential (the ‘gene pool’). <<
No, selection also plays on the mutations, which keep increasing the
variation.
There is no such thing as “genetic potential”, just as there is no limit to
the number of sentences.
It is also wrong to think that selection can’t produce unequivocally new
functions, as that has been demonstrated many times by things like SELELX.
>> It is a logical fallacy (i.e., begging the question) to assume that the ‘gene pool’ already contains unequivocally new or more complex genetic information or unequivocally new physiological traits or organs, when the genetic potential can more easily be (and has been empirically shown to be) comprised of a combination of already existing traits (some dominant, some recessive) in the subject population’s ‘gene pool’—traits which are subsequently manifested in succeeding generations (sometimes dominant, sometimes recessive) according to the indications of the genetic code as the population reproduces. <<
The pool doesn’t contain the new or “more complex” information at first. It
appears in variants. The DNA polymerase makes mistakes when it copies and
there are lots of rearrangements by transposons. Mendel isn’t everything.
>> >> There are plenty of examples of this, including breeding of animals and plants and selections in the lab of biological systems. << <<
>> These, again, are examples of genetic variation (animal and plant breeding is selection for specific, already existing traits or combinations of already existing traits, and laboratory selection of biological systems likewise selects that which already exists). <<
No, when people do chemostat experiments on bacteria (to pick an example) the
first thing that one should do is streak out the bacteria twice to get a pure
genetic strain. Then this is frozen down as a record of the start point.
All further variation comes from that one strain. So in any decent
experiment (ie, publishable) there is NO variation initially.
>> They must not be confused with the allegation made by evolution proponents... <<
People who look at the data recognize that it is the simplest explanation
available for a vast amount of data.
>> ...that natural processes can account for new and more complex genetic data, new and more complex organs and traits, and new and more complex energy conversion, transport, and storage mechanisms. Genetic variation (or [micro-]evolution) has not been shown empirically to be capable of generating these things. <<
See above about SELEX.
>> >> So “evolution” does not have a problem with the Second Law. << <<
>> It has not been empirically and unequivocally demonstrated that known natural processes can account for the generation of new and more complex genetic data, new and more complex organs and traits, and new and more complex energy conversion, transport, and storage mechanisms. Specific natural processes to which can be attributed the entropy decreases necessarily associated with the generation of these things have similarly not been empirically and unequivocally demonstrated. <<
That’s very different from having a problem with the Second Law!!
>> This being the case, yes, evolution DOES have a problem with the Second Law—not in the popularly misunderstood sense that entropy decreases are impossible, or even commonplace, but in the sense that a technical possibility is not ipso facto proof (or even evidence) that the specific alleged entropy decreases cited above, and their associated alleged natural mechanisms and processes, are therefore given as scientifically probable or even possible. <<
You vaguely imply that SELEX doesn’t work!
>> >> You apparently have a problem seeing how the Second Law fits quite nicely with evolutionary processes. << <<
>> Yes, I do(!). You, on the other hand, seem to have a problem differentiating between (micro-)evolution (i.e., natural selection in combination with genetic variation—an empirically observed and understood phenomenon) and (macro)evolution (i.e., an empirically unsubstantiated extrapolation of (micro-)evolution). <<
Yes, it is not at all clear to me where one ends and the other begins. Many
tiny changes over millions of years could mold the organism enormously. This
is often, granted, an extrapolation. In some cases (horses) it is a ‘connect
the dots’. There isn’t a better explanation around.
>> You also seem to have a problem differentiating between a general, calculable change in entropy and a real-world, empirical demonstration of a specific process and its inherent mechanism(s) for effecting such a change in entropy—that specific process being (in this case) the generation of new and more complex genetic data, new and more complex organs and traits, and new and more complex energy conversion, transport, and storage mechanisms.B> <<
I see what you are asking for. The question is: what kind of data would
satisfy you, besides time travel?
If I measure the two short legs of a right triangle, can I figure out the
length of the long side without measuring it?
Tom
Response from Timothy Wallace:trueorigin.org
>> >> >> The Clausius form is dS>= dq/T, which you object to when written as -ds <=-dq/T! << << <<
>> >> On exactly what specific basis do you claim that I “object” to the form written above? << <<
>> It was the paragraph correction. <<
So then do you retract your assertion that I “object” to dS>= dq/T
when written as -ds <=-dq/T? Do you now retract your assertion
(repeated multiple times) that I do not understand that the entropy of
an unisolated system can decrease, at the expense of its
surroundings? Or are you blithely skipping along to other topics, as
if bearing false witness is a perfectly acceptable practice, requiring
no retractions or apologies on the part of the perpetrator?
>> Besides, you have been remarkably careful to ask questions rather than make solid statements. <<
I have no choice but to ask questions if I want you to substantiate
your statements. I suppose I could respond in the form of an
accusation, but I suspect that would be counterproductive.
>> Ok, we’ve beaten “G2L” into the ground. Looks to me like it’s just another form or various specializations of the Second Law. <<
Thank you for finally acknowledging the simple fact.
>> ...there is no precise distinction between micro and macro evolution. <<
That’s not true. There is a very significant distinction.
“Micro-evolution”, by definition, is the same thing as genetic
variation (the shuffling of existing genetic information). It is both
observable and observed, measurable and measured, repeatable and
repeated—in short, it has been scientifically verified as a natural
phenomenon. However, in every single case, the organism that has
undergone the variation is the same kind of organism.
“Macro-evolution”, on the other hand has not been verified as a
natural phenomenon. It has not been observed, measured, or repeated.
No natural mechanism has successfully been put forth as the means by
which new and more complex genetic information is generated so as to
result in unequivocally new traits, organs, and organisms.
“Macro-evolution” is an entirely contrived notion, extrapolated, with
no empirical basis, from “micro-evolution".
The distinction is both precise and significant. To blur the
distinction is to show contempt for empirical science and mix fact
with fancy.
>> What prevents micro evolution from being macro evolution over the course of 3 million years? <<
A better question is: What ALLOWS micro-evolution to become
macro-evolution over the course of 3 million years? The answer is:
Nothing. “Micro-evolution” starts and ends with the same organism, no
unequivocally new traits or organs—just the manifestation or
suppression of an inherent genetic trait. There’s no scientific basis
for extrapolating “macro-evolution” from that. And as I said, no
natural mechanism has successfully been put forth as the means by
which new and more complex genetic information is generated so as to
result in unequivocally new traits, organs, and organisms, and that’s
what “macro-evolution” happens to require.
So again: What is there about empirical science that allows micro
evolution to become macro evolution over the course of 3 million
years? Absolutely nothing.
>> >> >> However, selection does the trick... << << <<
>> >> No, it does not. Selection is only able to select from what is already present in the genetic potential of the subject population. Selection has not been shown empirically to generate unequivocally new or more comple genetic information or unequivocally new physiologica traits or organs. It merely selects from the genetic potential for variation already inherent in the population’s combined genetic potential (the ‘gene pool’). << <<
>> No, selection also plays on the mutations, which keep increasing the variation. <<
Frankly, you are engaging in semantic subterfuge. The only “playing"
selection does is selecting. And it only selects from what is there. Selection, by definition, does not create anything—it is merely a
natural process by which existing information is selected, not
created.
Mutation has not been shown to be a satisfactory “mechanism” for
generating new and more complex genetic information, so as to result
in unequivocally new traits, organs, and organisms...
“In the meantime, the educated public continues to believe that Darwin has provided all the relevant answers by the magic formula of random mutation plus natural selection—quite unaware of the fact that random mutations turned out to be irrelevant and natural selection a tautology.”
[Koestler, Arthur, Janus: A Summing Up (New York: Vintage Books, 1978) p. 185]
“It has been estimated that those chance errors occur at a rate of about one per several hundred million cells in each generation. This frequency does not seem to be sufficient
to explain the evolution of the great diversity of life forms, given the well-known fact that most mutations are harmful and only very few result in useful variations.”
[Capra, Fritjof, The Web of Life (New York: Anchor Books, 1996) p. 228]
“It should be clear that the claim for an inherent evolutionary increase in entropy and organization is based on an arbitrary model which shows signs of having been constructed simply to yield the desired result. There is nothing in evolutionary or developmental biology that
justifies their assumptions that a successful mutation (which seems merely to mean a selectively neutral one in their model) is always associated with an increase in some global measure of phenotype. Nor is there anything to support the assumption that new species arise as the result
of single gene mutations and are initially genetically uniform. If these assumptions are removed, the whole edifice collapses.”
[Charlesworth, Brian, “Entropy: The Great Illusion,” review of Evolution as Entropy by Daniel R. Brooks and E. O. Wiley (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1986, 335 pp.), Evolution, vol. 40, no. 4 (1986) p. 880]
“The fruit fly has long been the favorite object of mutation experiments because of its fast gestation period (twelve days). X rays have been used to increase the mutation rate in the fruit fly by 15,000 percent. All in all, scientists have been able to ‘catalyze the fruit fly evolutionary process such that what has been seen to occur in (fruit fly) is the equivalent of many millions of years of normal mutations and evolution.’ Even with this tremendous speedup of mutations, scientists have never been able to come up with anything other than another fruit fly.”
[Rifkin, Jeremy, Algeny (New York: Viking Press, 1983) p. 134]
“The proof of the occurrence of mutations is by no means a proof of a current evolution. The most important the inescapable question, is whether the mutations are fully vital,
so that they are able to survive in natural stands. A review of known facts about their ability to survive has led to no other conclusion than that they are always constitutionally weaker than their parent form or species, and in a population with free competition they are eliminated.”
[Nillson, Heribert, (Lund, Sweden: Verlag CWK Gleerup, 1953), (English summary) p. 1186]
>> There is no such thing as “genetic potential”, just as there is no limit to the number of sentences. <<
Indeed just as there are distinct limits to what constitutes a
meaningful sentence, there are also distinct limits to viable genetic
arrangements. Meaningful sentences aren’t random mixtures of words,
letters, and spaces, and nor has genetic code ever been shown to be a
random mixture of unordered genetic material. Genetic variation is
not a mix-n-match free-for-all.
By “genetic potential” I simply mean the range of genetic variations
inherent in the subject population. The population’s gene pool
contains a finite set of genetically determined features. The
“genetic potential” of that population (while surely unknown, due
largely to limits in the scope of man’s knowledge) consists of the
entire set. That limited set does indeed exist, just as the number of
potential sentences also has a limit, since the number of words,
meanings, and combinations, while so vast as to be unknown (if not
incomprehensible) to man, is nevertheless finite.
>> It is also wrong to think that selection can’t produce unequivocally new functions, as that has been demonstrated many times by things like SELELX. <<
It isn’t clear what you mean by introducing the term “functions”, but
I invite you to cite a basis for thinking that selection, in and of
itself, can yield an increase in quantity and quality of genetic
information and—therefore—any unequivocally new genetic traits.
I also invite you to cite a basis for believing that SELEX produces an
increase in quantity and quality of genetic information and—therefore—unequivocally new genetic traits.
>> The pool doesn’t contain the new or “more complex” information at first. It appears in variants. <<
This seems like more semantic subterfuge. Let’s keep our terminology
clear: Variation is limited to the manifestation of variables
inherent in the genetic code. Mutation is limited to (degenerative)
changes to the genetic information itself. While it is a popular
practice to treat these two as synonymous, they are not: one is an
empirically established natural phenomenon in healthy populations, the
other is an empirically established source of disease and defect, the
effects of which are largely weeded out by selection (a process for
which we should be thankful!).
>> The DNA polymerase makes mistakes when it copies and there are lots of rearrangements by transposons... <<
This has a corruptive, degenerative effect on the genetic code.
Errors do not create new information; they damage existing
information. There is no empirical basis for postulating new or more
complex information from a process that degenerates existing
information.
>> >> These, again, are examples of genetic variation (animal and plant breeding is selection for specific, already existing traits or combinations of already existing traits, and laboratory selection of biological systems likewise selects that which already exists). << <<
>> No, when people do chemostat experiments on bacteria (to pick an example) the first thing that one should do is streak out the bacteria twice to get a pure genetic strain. Then this is frozen down as a record of the start point. All further variation comes from that one strain. So in any decent experiment (ie, publishable) there is NO variation initially. <<
Any subsequent changes in such a strain of bacteria will still result
only from either inherent genetic variables or mutations. If a
specific trait has been effectively bred out of the strain by
artificial selection, it will not re-appear unless re-introduced
through exogenic contamination of the strain or through mutation. In
either case, no increase in the quantity or quality of available
genetic information has been effected.
>> >> >> So “evolution” does not have a problem with the Second Law. << << <<
>> >> It has not been empirically and unequivocally demonstrated that known natural processes can account for the generation of new and more complex genetic data, new and more complex organs and traits, and new and more complex energy conversion, transport, and storage mechanisms. Specific natural processes to which can be attributed the entropy decreases necessarily associated with the generation of these things similarly have not been empirically and unequivocally demonstrated. << <<
>> That’s very different from having a problem with the Second Law!! <<
On the contrary, that is the problem evolution has with the Second
Law...
“One problem biologists have faced is the apparent contradiction by evolution of the second law of thermodynamics. Systems should decay through time, giving less, not more, order.”
[Lewin, Roger, “A Downward Slope to Greater Diversity,” Science, vol. 217 (September 24, 1982) p. 1239]
“The greatest puzzle is where all the order in the universe came from originally. How did the cosmos get wound up, if the second law of thermodynamics predicts asymmetric unwinding towards disorder?"
[Davies, Paul C., “Universe in Reverse: Can Time Run Backwards?” Second Look (London: King’s College, September 1979) p. 27]
“We are faced with the idea that genesis was a statistically unlikely event. We are also faced with the certainty that it occurred. Was there a temporary repeal of the second law that permitted a ‘fortuitous concourse of atoms’? If so, study of the Repealer and genesis is a subject properly left to theologians. Or we may hold with the more traditional scientific attitude
that the origin of life is beclouded merely because we don’t know enough about the composition of the atmosphere and other conditions on the earth many eons ago.”
[Angrist, Stanley W., and Loren G. Hepler, Order and Chaos (New York: Basic Books, Inc., 1967) p. 205]
>> You vaguely imply that SELEX doesn’t work! <<
You vaguely imply that SELEX generates previously non-existent genetic
information.
>> >> You...seem to have a problem differentiating between (micro-)evolution (i.e., natural selection in combination with genetic variation—an empirically observed and understood phenomenon) and (macro)evolution (i.e., an empirically unsubstantiated extrapolation of (micro-)evolution). << <<
>> Yes, it is not at all clear to me where one ends and the other begins. <<
I believe I have explained this above.
>> Many tiny changes over millions of years could mold the organism enormously. This is often, granted, an extrapolation. <<
“Could”? On what empirical basis? It is only an extrapolation, and
it has NO empirical support.
>> ...There isn’t a better explanation around. <<
That’s strictly a matter of opinion. And even in the absence of a
“better explanation”, a scientifically unsubstantiated explanation
should be neither touted as fact, nor assumed to be true.
>> I see what you are asking for. The question is: what kind of data would satisfy you, besides time travel? <<
The same kind of data that should be required by any self-respecting
scientist: nothing less than that which would satisfy the requirements
of empirical science. That is, data that demonstrate unequivocally
that natural processes alone can increase the quantity and quality of
available genetic information.
>> If I measure the two short legs of a right triangle, can I figure out the length of the long side without measuring it? <<
Yes. Why? Not because of mere extrapolation, but because you know
the unchanging laws of mathematics (not unlike the laws of
thermodynamics) yield consistent results. The unknown data is
calculated from the known data and is determined precisely and
absolutely through a precise and absolute process. This is a far cry
from assuming the existence of an unknown natural process for which
there is no empirical evidence—based solely on an empirically known
natural process, the similarity of which begins and ends with the fact
that their names share the same root word!
Kind Regards,
TW
Response from Tom Schneider:trueorigin.org
>> So then do you retract your assertion that I “object” to dS>= dq/T when written as -ds <=-dq/T? Do you now retract your assertion (repeated multiple times) that I do not understand that the entropy of an unisolated system can decrease, at the expense of its surroundings? Or are you blithely skipping along to other topics, as if bearing false witness is a perfectly acceptable practice, requiring no retractions or apologies on the part of the perpetrator? <<
Please be polite.
No need to get all upset. Just make clear statements of what you are
thinking and we can discuss them. If you want to do verbal attacks (which
the above feels like to me) then we can just terminate this discussion.
Otherwise we may both have somethings to learn from each other.
This was one of the clearer, although still indirect, statements that you
have made. Previous statements were not made when you said you would, then
you made the wrong statement. It has been like extracting teeth to get a
clear statement from you. If you insist on making indirect statements, then
you will inevitably be misunderstood.
Though you now indirectly imply that you agree that -ds <=-dq/T is valid, my
understanding is that you think it rarely happens. You have avoided answering my previous questions along those lines. In particular, you have not answered my question about a simple jar of water.
Are you willing to make a clear positive statement about the Second Law?
>> I have no choice but to ask questions if I want you to substantiate your statements. I suppose I could respond in the form of an accusation, but I suspect that would be counterproductive. <<
The above was rather full of accusations. “blithely skipping along”,
“bearing false witness”, “the perpetrator”. I surmise that either this is an
intentional tactic to throw me off, which you have used with other people, or you are very scared and angry. If so, what are you scared of? What would happen if you were wrong?
Your nasty words seem inconsistent to me since I thought you were coming from
a philosophy that teaches that god is love, and that one should love ones
fellows. Was I wrong?...
Tom
Response from Timothy Wallace:trueorigin.org
trueorigin.org
Mr. Schneider,
I am not a scientist, but I have better things to do with my limited
time than major on minor issues and entertain your stream of false
accusations (repeated ad nauseam and without substantiation), false
claims (also repeated without substantiation from empirical science),
and evasion of personal responsibility.
It so happens that I am indeed being “polite”, and that I am not “all
upset” (your suggestions to the contrary notwithstanding). If you
consider yourself to have suffered a “verbal attack” for having been
asked to take responsibility for your own words, then you have a
personal problem with honesty and fairness, and we certainly do indeed
have nothing more to discuss.
You began this dialogue accusing me of not understanding that the
entropy of an unisolated system can decrease, at the expense of it
surroundings. I have since clearly indicated that I do indeed
understand this, yet you have persisted in inferring [no less than three times] that I do not.
When asked to substantiate (i.e., document) your claim, you have
consistently evaded responsibility for your accusation, attempting
instead to lead our dialogue wherever you fancy to go with it.
Your pretense to “understand” that I “think it rarely happens” is
based on the same brand of assumption (i.e., false, arbitrary, and
unsubstantiated) as your initial erroneous claim. My refusal to
cooperate with your manipulative attempt at “teacher-student” role
playing shouldn't be interpreted as indicative of my understanding.
As long as you refuse to withdraw your original accusation,
acknowledging it as erroneous, you are in no position to frame further
questions, require additional answers, or pile on more pretentious
claims or accusations.
>> Are you willing to make a clear positive statement about the Second Law? <<
I have already stated unequivocally that my understanding is that the
entropy of an unisolated system can decrease, at the expense of it
surroundings. That this phenomenon routinely takes place as an
integral part of observable biological processes is also quite
apparent. (What I have resisted from the beginning has been playing
into your pretense that this fact somehow supports your belief in
evolution.)
If you don’t think you have been “blithely skipping along” without
taking responsibility for your words (which I asked you to do several
times), then what exactly do you think you have been doing?
If you don’t think falsely and deliberately inferring that I believe
something amounts to “bearing false witness”, then what exactly do you
think it is?
If you don’t think the person who engages in these actions may be
accurately described as a “perpetrator”, then how exactly do you think
he should more accurately be described?
You only make matters worse by piling on further arbitrary accusations
(“all upset”, “scared and angry”, “nasty words”). My reaction to your
behavior may not seem exceptionally friendly, but I assure you that it
is not a reflection of my being “all upset, scared or angry”.
>> Your nasty words seem inconsistent to me since I thought you were coming from a philosophy that teaches that god is love, and that one should love ones fellows. Was I wrong?... <<
Neither Jesus Himself, nor the apostles who documented His teaching,
shrank back from identifying men’s sins—and right to their faces,
at that. Loving you has nothing to do with downplaying or ignoring
your personal failure to live up to God’s standards. Whether you like
it or not, when you unblushingly and repeatedly violate these
standards in the context of our correspondence, it is my duty to bring
this to your attention.
This brings our correspondence to an end for the time being.
Kind Regards,
TW
[NOTE that (1) Schneider never retracted his false claim (made three times) that I did not understand that the entropy in unisolated systems can and does decrease in nature, at the expense of its surrounding environment; (2) Schneider never offered solid, legitimate answers, supported by empirical science, to the two questions I posed concerning origins and entropy; (3) Schneider instead persisted in making claims about science and evolution, via additional and lengthy messages, for which—though asked repeatedly—he offered no empirical support, preferring to largely ignore any questions but his own, in effect delivering a monologue rather than participating in a dialogue; (4) Schneider hastened to take offense at having his immoral and evasive conduct pointed out, though my charges are well-documented in the record.
Whatever his qualifications may be, what Mr. Schneider has practiced in this exchange does not qualify as “science”.
Mr. Schneider sought to further prolong the above exchange, but as long as he was unwilling to take responsibility for his conduct thus far, I refused to go any further. He has since posted the entire exchange (and then some) at his government-funded website, where he also presents a “summary” of the exchange, to which I supply a response here. —TW ]
