Well.....this really persuaded me to be a believer.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
22-07-2014, 02:30 PM
RE: Well.....this really persuaded me to be a believer.
Welcome to TTA by the way.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes morondog's post
22-07-2014, 04:26 PM
RE: Well.....this really persuaded me to be a believer.
I thought he was a Mullah at first.Blush
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-07-2014, 04:30 PM
RE: Well.....this really persuaded me to be a believer.
Wow so many retards liked that.

"Rather than love, than money, than fame, give me truth." - Henry David Thoreau
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-07-2014, 04:49 PM
RE: Well.....this really persuaded me to be a believer.
Well, after hearing the argument that evolution negates the second law of thermodynamics, I was intrigued, because I had no answer against that claim. I hoped that this thread would teach me how science could support evolution AND the second law of thermodynamics, but it didn't. I think I misinterpreted the thread though, and I see now that it wasn't intended to be informational, but fun. I'm excited to learn more about the second law of thermodynamics, because I think that could help me with any theological debate I get into.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-07-2014, 05:54 PM
RE: Well.....this really persuaded me to be a believer.
(22-07-2014 02:12 PM)brothersun87 Wrote:  For example, "it is a fundamental axiom of thermodynamics that when heat flows from subsystem A to subsystem B, the entropy (or chaos) of A decreases and the entropy of B increases" The Second Law of Thermodynamics refers to an isolated system, which we don't live in. I don't have it all figured out. I definitely am excited to read more into it.
Entropy isn't some magical thing.
There isn't any force of nature ensuring that entropy always increases in a closed system.
It's just a game of statistics and relies on our own inability to distinguish different states.

For example you have 4 marbles (two red and two blue) in a box with a line down the middle, one box half called Right the other half called Left.
You close the lid, give the box a shake, what do you expect the state to be in? What likelihood is it that the two red marbles will be in the Right and the two blue marbles in the left?
The odds are small but reasonably likely.
So we could consider this state of 2 red on right and 2 blue on left as being ordered with low entropy and all other states as being disordered with high entropy.
We have a higher likelihood of high entropy and a low likelihood of low entropy. But the state can go from high to low entropy just by chance.
But when you consider 2 million marbles (1 million red, 1 million blue) then it is highly unlikely that you shake the box and get a state where all reds are on the right and all blue are on the left. But not impossible. Again, it could happen, it could go from high entropy to low entropy.

Of course you could criticise my experiment and say that shaking the box is introducing energy from the outside thus is not a closed system. But you could consider hydrogen atoms instead of red marbles and helium atoms instead of blue marbles. As long as these are in a gas state then they are moving about in the box (without the need for shaking it). At some point all the hydrogen will be on the right and all the helium on the left. It may just take a few million years for this state to occur.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Stevil's post
22-07-2014, 06:07 PM
RE: Well.....this really persuaded me to be a believer.
In the first 30 seconds:

Takes more faith to be an atheist...

Just a theory....

Not science 'cause you weren't there to observe it...

.... dammit, someone has to draw up some bingo cards for times like this.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Reltzik's post
23-07-2014, 12:23 AM
RE: Well.....this really persuaded me to be a believer.
(22-07-2014 04:49 PM)brothersun87 Wrote:  Well, after hearing the argument that evolution negates the second law of thermodynamics, I was intrigued, because I had no answer against that claim. I hoped that this thread would teach me how science could support evolution AND the second law of thermodynamics, but it didn't. I think I misinterpreted the thread though, and I see now that it wasn't intended to be informational, but fun. I'm excited to learn more about the second law of thermodynamics, because I think that could help me with any theological debate I get into.

Ah, this was once a very exciting thing to me as well. This is just my layman's understanding, perhaps cjlr or someone with more knowledge can comment if I get stuff wrong.

The second law of thermodynamics as pointed out on that website, applies to closed systems, meaning systems which are closed to the entry or exit of energy. Now the Earth is *not* a closed system. Energy is *pumping* into the Earth in vast quantities all the time, thanks to the Sun.

In general the second law of thermodynamics implies that stuff should get simpler as time goes by, but we see that with evolution life gets *more* complex as time goes by. This is because we have energy flowing into the system all the time.

The prerequisite for evolution is self replicating life - how that arose is unclear but there are several good hypotheses. Once you have self-replication, you also need imperfect copying. The energy supplied by the sun is what drives the self replication process and allows life to continue. The imperfect copying means that in a large population of life-forms, at any stage there are those that are more suited to the constantly changing environment than others - these are the ones that survive, and that's literally all there is to evolution.

Richard Dawkins and a few other people have written entire books on how evolution works to make complex life from simple, I'd suggest for a more in depth look you should read one of those.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like morondog's post
23-07-2014, 12:29 AM
RE: Well.....this really persuaded me to be a believer.
(23-07-2014 12:23 AM)morondog Wrote:  Ah, this was once a very exciting thing to me as well. This is just my layman's understanding, perhaps cjlr or someone with more knowledge can comment if I get stuff wrong.

The second law of thermodynamics as pointed out on that website, applies to closed systems, meaning systems which are closed to the entry or exit of energy. Now the Earth is *not* a closed system. Energy is *pumping* into the Earth in vast quantities all the time, thanks to the Sun.

In general the second law of thermodynamics implies that stuff should get simpler as time goes by, but we see that with evolution life gets *more* complex as time goes by. This is because we have energy flowing into the system all the time.

The prerequisite for evolution is self replicating life - how that arose is unclear but there are several good hypotheses. Once you have self-replication, you also need imperfect copying. The energy supplied by the sun is what drives the self replication process and allows life to continue. The imperfect copying means that in a large population of life-forms, at any stage there are those that are more suited to the constantly changing environment than others - these are the ones that survive, and that's literally all there is to evolution.

Richard Dawkins and a few other people have written entire books on how evolution works to make complex life from simple, I'd suggest for a more in depth look you should read one of those.

Thank you so much, morondog! I'll definitely check it out!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes brothersun87's post
23-07-2014, 12:32 AM
RE: Well.....this really persuaded me to be a believer.
Hahahahhaaha wow thank you I really needed that. He gives better giggles than kittens in mittens.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes QUELSQUELS's post
23-07-2014, 01:29 AM
RE: Well.....this really persuaded me to be a believer.
(22-07-2014 04:49 PM)brothersun87 Wrote:  Well, after hearing the argument that evolution negates the second law of thermodynamics, I was intrigued, because I had no answer against that claim. I hoped that this thread would teach me how science could support evolution AND the second law of thermodynamics, but it didn't. I think I misinterpreted the thread though, and I see now that it wasn't intended to be informational, but fun. I'm excited to learn more about the second law of thermodynamics, because I think that could help me with any theological debate I get into.

I'll give it a shot.

The basic answer of the claim to the claim is that the claim is gibberish which doesn't actually understand what entropy and thermodynamics is about at all.

As originally formulated in physics, the 2nd law of thermodynamics describes how the heat equation ultimately involves a breakdown of thermal distinction and an "averaging out" of everything. A good example of this is a refrigerator, or an air-conditioned room. It takes ENERGY to make one thing cold and another thing hot relative to each other -- in these cases, the electricity supplied to air condition a room or cool a refrigerator. Without this energy being pumped in, both the room and the refrigerator would eventually revert to the same temperature as their surrounding environment. Similarly, if the sun stopped pouring in energy, day and night would lose meaning and everywhere on the surface of the Earth would end up being the same (damned cold) temperature. This averaging out of temperature is what the 2nd law of thermodynamics is really about. It has nothing to do with evolution, except maybe in the genes and attributes controlling a body's heat regulation. (Here's a hint. Something called the 2nd law of HEAT DYNAMICS is talking about temperature, not biology.)

But this concept, known as entropy, has been generalized or made into an analogy for a many other circumstances in other fields. In engineering, entropy suggests that useful energy is lost in the form of heat and worn parts. Systems meant to recapture energy (such as regenerative braking in a hybrid car) only recapture some of it -- the rest is lost to inefficiency, usually in forms that are technically impossible to recapture. Of course, pumping more energy INTO the system largely negates this problem again. Applying this view analogously to DNA as a machine, and... well, evolution is still possible. Yes, more-and-more complex genes WILL require more energy to assemble. Supposing that life could get more complex... or continue AT ALL... without an outside energy source is preposterous. However, this energy DOES come in from many sources... mostly originating with sunlight.

Another analogy that's relevant to evolution is from Information Theory. Information theory relates to how data breaks down in transmission or storage. This can cover everything from static in a radio signal, to errors that creep into the message during a game of Telephone, to flawed transcription of documents like the Bible, to fading memories in the mind, to a scratch on your Spice Girls CD lingering in a shoebox from the 90s. (Oh, the cultural treasures lost to entropy!) Entropy in this context is about information lost to signal degradation. It might be possible to reconstruct this data loss if there is sufficient redundancy in the signal, but otherwise every loss is permanent. No matter how many times you retransmit the signal, it will only (if you're extremely lucky) be just as good, and often it will get worse. It will never get better. Applying THIS analogy of entropy to evolution, they're saying that the data/information in our genes can never improve or get more complex, and therefore evolution can't happen. Except... entropy of a signal is about loss of ORIGINAL information. In evolution, new traits are analogous to the static entering into a radio transmission. Correctly understood, information entropy doesn't obviate evolution, but mandates variation, mutation, and so on, which are key elements of evolution. The problem isn't that the ORIGINAL signal is increasing in complexity. It's that complexity is being introduced because choice bits of static are being added to (and thus distorting/decaying the fidelity of) the original signal. And that IS allowed under information theory entropy.

So, entropy in thermodynamics dictate the breakdown of complex heat setups (where one room is cold and another hot, etc). But that's got nothing to do with evolution. Entropy in engineering dictates the wearing down of machines and the loss of energy to inefficiency... which in no way prevents evolution. And entropy in Information Theory dictates that information can't be increased or restored... except under the axioms of Information Theory, the information of the original genetic code is actually "breaking up" during evolution, its original form being lost and replaced with environmentally-influenced "static", and so entropy is still observed.

I'm sure there are other analogs in other disciplines. Entropy-like phenomena are a surprisingly common theme. And I'm sure that people more interested in dissing science than understanding it are butchering these other analogues as well. That's also a surprisingly common theme.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Reltzik's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: