Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

OK, comments are on now

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Erik Anderson, thanks for your post giving readers the opportunity to comment on my new video and Biocomplexity paper. As you noted, I usually leave comments off when I post on this topic, for exactly the reason you stated, they usually generate more heat than light. In fact, which I noticed your post this morning, I have to admit I thought, oh God, here we go again, but I was pleasantly surprised by the 100+ comments, for the first time in 13 years, I felt they generated more light than heat!

I want to add one further comment myself. Some people argue that the second law only applies to heat/work, that is, they accept only the first (and oldest) of the three statements of the second law, and not the more general second and third statements, as quoted from Ford’s Classical and Modern Physics text, and in this manner they can avoid the whole issue of evolution and the second law. In fact, this point of view seems to have become much more popular now that the silliness of the widely used “compensation” counterargument has become clear. Well, it is very hard to argue that the second law applies to my scenario “A” (diffusion of heat) and not to my scenario “B” (diffusion of other things), since the same equations govern both, and it is almost universally agreed that the second law at least applies to diffusion in general.

But certainly there are many scientists who don’t think the second law should be generalized to less quantifiable things like tornados and evolution (my scenarios C and D), though many, if not most, general physics books do accept the more general statements, thermodynamics texts not so much. But the main point of my article and video is that whatever law it is that prevents tornados from constructing houses and cars out of rubble—whether this is really the second law, or a generalization of the second law which should have another name—it is most certainly the same law that says natural forces cannot reorganize atoms into computers and airplanes, with or without the input of solar energy. There is only one important difference between scenarios C and D, with regard to the application of the second law: there is a widely-believed theory as to how evolution could construct humans out of dust. But if you can come up with a theory as to how tornados can construct houses and cars out of rubble, and get it widely accepted in the scientific world, then even that difference disappears.

Comments are on, though I can’t promise I will participate. I have been making these same arguments for 13 years now, and I’m a little tired.

Comments
Dr. Sewell: Thank you. I hope I didn't step on any toes by opening up a thread to discuss your video. I think discussion of this topic is important and there were a number of good comments on the thread. Thanks again for your efforts to get us all thinking in this area.Eric Anderson
April 6, 2014
April
04
Apr
6
06
2014
12:52 PM
12
12
52
PM
PDT
Evolve #21 --- Then Sewell wants to know why doesn’t a tornado build an airplane with energy from the sun. The simple answer is that this entropy-lowering activity is exhibited by living things and tornadoes are not alive. --- Evolve, what you have done in this statement is basically use "living things" as a euphemism for "intelligence". For example, plants are "living things", but they don't build houses or airplanes. Neither do squirrels. What you're saying is that the "entropy-lowering activity" that is manifested in the organization of constituent parts into a complex, functional whole is something that is uniquely associated with intelligent activity. It takes intelligence to organize wood, bricks and other materials into a house that just sits there. It takes intelligence to organize metal, circuits and other materials into airplanes that fly through the sky. It takes intelligence to organize digital symbols into specific sequences in a computer program so that it can run and perform various functions over the life-cycle of any given session. The lowering of entropy is a telltale marker of intelligent activity. And, as you've admitted, the origin of life is an entropy lowering event, representing the appearance of an organized system far more complex than a house, an airplane, or any computer program humans have ever created. You have reasoned soundly, sir. Welcome to our side of the debate. HeKSHeKS
April 4, 2014
April
04
Apr
4
04
2014
12:48 PM
12
12
48
PM
PDT
Evolve #12
Atoms don’t produce computers on their own Sewell, it is just a consequence of the evolution of life. Moreover, man-made objects do not exhibit the fundamental properties of life. Life can use solar energy to spontaneously grow, metabolize, reproduce and evolve.
If one is arguing for materialism one cannot call upon “life” as a causal agent for breaching the second law – as Evolve does in the quote above. Because materialism doesn’t even offer a general encompassing concept for life. The core problem for materialism IMO is it's principle inability to explain downward causation. Materialism denies the existence (and causal power) of the organism as a whole - only particles in motion exist. IOW materialism doesn’t succeed in incorporating “life”. So for a true materialist “life” is off-limits as a causal concept. Evolve finds himself in good company however.Box
April 4, 2014
April
04
Apr
4
04
2014
03:23 AM
3
03
23
AM
PDT
OldArmy94 #23: - "How in the name of Darwin did emerging life learn to actively use energy?" It's easy; life learned to harness the low entropy energy from the sun via a process of natural selection acting on random variation, or so the story goes. The above would be the typical response of a Darwinist, and in their minds they would be convinced that this is the only explanation.aqeels
April 4, 2014
April
04
Apr
4
04
2014
01:34 AM
1
01
34
AM
PDT
Magic. ;-) And because a lot of people say it "musta" happened. This is another example of the "Darwin of the Gaps" argument. -QQuerius
April 3, 2014
April
04
Apr
3
03
2014
02:33 PM
2
02
33
PM
PDT
"The reason why life arose and evolved at all is because it learned to actively use energy to decrease entropy locally." How in the name of Darwin did emerging life "learn" to actively use energy?OldArmy94
April 3, 2014
April
04
Apr
3
03
2014
12:38 PM
12
12
38
PM
PDT
Ok, So you refute Sewell's rebuttal that the 2nd law does NOT allow "local decrease in entropy" as long as total entropy increases. I.e., compensation. Can you point me to a source (scientific, or mathematic proof) that "thrashes" Sewell's assertion? Also, what mechanism existed originally to convert the sun's increased entropy, and therefore reverse direction from disorder to order? We can observe a current process like photosynthesis, but that's pretty far down the successive ladder of necessary steps to assume it was the first. If we go all the way back, what was the mechanism? If it's purely material functions in terms of thermal transfer, then the same principle should be observable in non-organic matter.wyatterp
April 3, 2014
April
04
Apr
3
03
2014
12:31 PM
12
12
31
PM
PDT
//HOWEVER, if you believe that life sprung from non-life (materialism), then life would be subject to the 2nd law, which is the problem with abiogenesis as a foundation for life.// It is not a problem at all. The 2nd law allows local decrease in entropy as long as the total entropy of the system increases, which is exactly what we see. Then Sewell wants to know why doesn't a tornado build an airplane with energy from the sun. The simple answer is that this entropy-lowering activity is exhibited by living things and tornadoes are not alive. The fact that life arose from non-life (abiogenesis) wouldn't invalidate this in any manner since this property was achieved by life during its evolution from non-life. The reason why life arose and evolved at all is because it learned to actively use energy to decrease entropy locally.Evolve
April 3, 2014
April
04
Apr
3
03
2014
12:06 PM
12
12
06
PM
PDT
Dionisio: Here are some brief answers for you: a) All human cells have the same genome (DNA), except for gametes (which carry half genetic information) and immunologic cells (T and B lymphocytes), which have the same genome as all other cells, except for a specific DNA rearrangement for T cell receptor/immunoglobulin specificity, which is different for each cell clone. There can be somatic mutations in occasional cells, but they are not important, unless they become a neoplastic clone. b) The huge differences in morphology and function between different human cells (or, more in general, different cells in metazoa) is due to differences in the transcriptome and therefore the proteome. Each cell transcribes and translates only those genes which are appropriate for its condition and role, at each definite time. c) What really governs the differences in the transcriptome and proteome of cells is really mainly a mystery. An important role is certainly to be given to transcription factors, proteins which regulate the transcription. But, obviously,transcription factors must be transcribed and translated (they are proteins), and the genes for transcription factors are the same in all cells. d) An even more important role is certainly to be given to nuclear RNA, whose importance in our understanding of transcription regulation is growing every day. But, again, nuclera RNA derives from transcription of DNA (including non coding DNA), and again DNA is the same in all cells.gpuccio
April 3, 2014
April
04
Apr
3
03
2014
10:49 AM
10
10
49
AM
PDT
Evolve, Are you positing the compensation argument? You said that the "slight decrease in entropy" for life is offset by the increased entropy in the universe. Or is your point that in observing physical growth of living things we see a contradiction with the 2nd law? I guess I'm confused as to what your counter-argument is. Sewell questions the compensation argument as a legitimate mathematical and logical reason why life DOES appear to "violate" the second law (although, that's not really true since we all die). Or perhaps better would be to say that living things do not necessarily fall under the ruling of the 2nd law because other rules are in play to govern life. HOWEVER, if you believe that life sprung from non-life (materialism), then life would be subject to the 2nd law, which is the problem with abiogenesis as a foundation for life.wyatterp
April 3, 2014
April
04
Apr
3
03
2014
10:06 AM
10
10
06
AM
PDT
Evolve, ID doesn't posit intervention once the design is operating. Does your computer require a programmer there with you intervening as you type? (Zappa is on the tube! don't eat that yellow snow- music choice channels on cable)Joe
April 3, 2014
April
04
Apr
3
03
2014
09:38 AM
9
09
38
AM
PDT
Sorry for my off topic comments.
Everyone makes off topic comments but what I am suggesting that rather than shut down a thread when off topic comments take over a thread, and they do quite often, is take them to a secondary thread where one can pursue a different topic. Often these other topics are more interesting than the original one. It is also ok to ask questions at any time.jerry
April 3, 2014
April
04
Apr
3
03
2014
09:34 AM
9
09
34
AM
PDT
///Plants and animals grow and develop because they are extremely complex systems perfectly designed to do so./// Wrong! Plants & animals grow & metabolize without any external intervention as far as we can see. This is a fundamental property of life not exhibited by designed objects.Evolve
April 3, 2014
April
04
Apr
3
03
2014
09:34 AM
9
09
34
AM
PDT
Joe hits it, and apparently Evolve didn't even both to listen and intelligently respond. Sewell's argument hasn't been "thrashed" soundly, it's been ignored, and concepts like "compensation" have been thrown together with bad math that has serious challenges for credibility. Sewell, looking forward to reading your paper in depth. Your YouTube video sets up a good layman's intro to the concept. Would be interested in the mathematical proof that you referenced in both your own work and prior work that discusses entropy in an open system.wyatterp
April 3, 2014
April
04
Apr
3
03
2014
09:30 AM
9
09
30
AM
PDT
Evolve #12
If life violates the second law as Sewell claims, then we shouldn’t be seeing plants and animals grow and develop.
Evolve please evolve! Plants and animals grow and develop because they are extremely complex systems perfectly designed to do so. What the 2nd law claims is that such kind of systems cannot self-create spontaneously from diffusion of sparse atoms (as evolution pretends) because statistical diffusion tends toward disorganization. Since such systems are highly organized they cannot form by diffusion.niwrad
April 3, 2014
April
04
Apr
3
03
2014
09:22 AM
9
09
22
AM
PDT
Evolve, nice drooling drivel. The argument is life arising from blind and undirected process would violate the second law. Designers can get around entropy by harnessing the energy and matter to configure it in specific ways. Then we can perform maintenance to thwart the effects of entropy.Joe
April 3, 2014
April
04
Apr
3
03
2014
09:18 AM
9
09
18
AM
PDT
Sewell is repeating the same old tired nonsense that has been soundly thrashed many times. He's saying since tornadoes can't use energy from the sun to turn rubble into airplanes, atoms can't spontaneously produce computers. Atoms don't produce computers on their own Sewell, it is just a consequence of the evolution of life. Moreover, man-made objects do not exhibit the fundamental properties of life. Life can use solar energy to spontaneously grow, metabolize, reproduce and evolve. We see this happening every single day everywhere around us. The existence of Sewell himself dismantles his own argument. The slight decrease in entropy associated with life is offset by the vast increase in entropy throughout the universe. Tornadoes cannot do the same because they're not alive. If life violates the second law as Sewell claims, then we shouldn't be seeing plants and animals grow and develop. There's a reason why Sewell published his paper in a creationist journal, because it won't pass peer review in a proper science journal.Evolve
April 3, 2014
April
04
Apr
3
03
2014
09:09 AM
9
09
09
AM
PDT
I thought, oh God, here we go again, but I was pleasantly surprised by the 100+ comments, for the first time in 13 years, I felt they generated more light than heat!
If the X-entropy concept is differentiated from usual concept of entropy in terms of microstates, then there will be less confusion, and I think we can all get on the same page. Best wishes for your ideas moving forward. I would prefer to use the word "organization" rather than "order" because order carries the connotation of simplicity (like a bank of computer memory that is all zeros is orderly). "Organization" probably the better term since in a sense a complex, organized system is not "ordered" in the sense that "order" is used in computer science (i.e. Kolmogorov complexity). To the extent X-entropy describes the small number of degrees of freedom permissible to achieve design, then it is true, open systems will actually create more degrees of freedom and thus make design more improbable. Open systems allow more opportunity for disorganization not organization just like unspecified energy like dynamite will not build a building. Sorry I can't be of further assistance in helping to conceptualize the X-entropy concept.scordova
April 3, 2014
April
04
Apr
3
03
2014
08:46 AM
8
08
46
AM
PDT
Thanks Prof. Sewell for your papers, videos, UD posts and - last but not least - your patience, about the 2nd law and evolution. Who says that the 2nd law only applies to heat/work seems to be incapable to generalize a bit. All phenomena of heat/work thermodynamics are special cases of a more general law: systems tend to go toward the more probable states. It cannot be otherwise because the more probable states are far more numerous than the less probable states. As you rightly say, one can give that law whatever name, but the fact remains: systems do tend to the probable states; systems do not tend to the improbable states. Since organization always implies very improbable states, systems do tend to disorganize; systems do not tend to organize. But evolutionists don't like this truth because it directly refutes their wrong claim, that systems spontaneously organize. So they deny the evidence, confuse the discussion by putting on the table non necessary concepts and formulas, and reiterate ad nauseam their wrong ideas. If they want to refute your argument they should simply prove that systems tend to the improbable states, instead of the probable ones (as the 2nd law says). You and I can quietly sit down to wait for they to do that.niwrad
April 3, 2014
April
04
Apr
3
03
2014
08:42 AM
8
08
42
AM
PDT
jerry @ 6 Sorry for my off topic comments. I apologize for my mistake. I'll try to be more careful and will refrain from posting comments. Thank you for bringing this up to my attention.Dionisio
April 3, 2014
April
04
Apr
3
03
2014
08:39 AM
8
08
39
AM
PDT
Welcome to UD DionosoUpright BiPed
April 3, 2014
April
04
Apr
3
03
2014
08:22 AM
8
08
22
AM
PDT
Upright Biped @ 3 I noticed very knowledgeable people comment on different threads, but maybe wrongly assumed they might not look into all the threads, so I wanted to make sure my questions were visible to most people, regardless of which thread the happen to look at. However, after reading your advice, I will try not to post the same questions more than once. This is an exciting learning environment for me. Most of you know a lot more than I do, hence I can learn from reading your OPs and follow-up comments. Again, thank you.Dionisio
April 3, 2014
April
04
Apr
3
03
2014
08:20 AM
8
08
20
AM
PDT
A suggestion for authors about comments. Rather than moderate the comments, take all irrelevant comments to another thread where they can go on with their off topic comments. That way a thread can remain on topic and there are places for some to rant on other things.jerry
April 3, 2014
April
04
Apr
3
03
2014
08:12 AM
8
08
12
AM
PDT
Correction for comment # 1
if there DNA...
sorry, my mistake, it should read
if their DNA...
Dionisio
April 3, 2014
April
04
Apr
3
03
2014
08:03 AM
8
08
03
AM
PDT
Upright BiPed @ 3 Thank you for the advice. Now I know how it works.Dionisio
April 3, 2014
April
04
Apr
3
03
2014
07:59 AM
7
07
59
AM
PDT
Dionoso, it is not necessary to post and double-post your questions on multiple threads on multiple occassions. I can assure you that we can all see your questions. Those who are motivated to respond will do so.Upright BiPed
April 3, 2014
April
04
Apr
3
03
2014
07:53 AM
7
07
53
AM
PDT
Please, don't be hard on me for my stupid questions. I'm a software developer who started to like this whole biology thing.Dionisio
April 3, 2014
April
04
Apr
3
03
2014
07:50 AM
7
07
50
AM
PDT
Do most human cells have the same DNA in their nucleus? then how come there are different cell types by function and even morphology? if there DNA is the same, then what determines their differences? Looking forward to reading your comments. Thank y'all in advance.Dionisio
April 3, 2014
April
04
Apr
3
03
2014
07:49 AM
7
07
49
AM
PDT

Leave a Reply