Mod note: This is a dedicated thread for collecting and quarantining the numerous posts by wellwisher on his 'alternative hypothesis' that the entropy of cells explains anything and everything in biology. In addition to entropy spam posts, posts regarding wellwisher’s (mis)understanding of DNA function and evolution are also moved and quarantined here.
-------------------------



There are two types of entropy to consider within life. The first is connected to the entropy with chemical structures. Going from CO2 and H2O into a tree is lowering entropy since there is more order with cellulose. There are more degrees of freedom in the CO2 and H2O.

The second aspect has to due with the impact of life on the environment. The animals eats grass to make CO2.

If life is decreasing entropy, does that mean that evolution, as a whole, moves in the direction of net decreasing entropy? This is not to say that entropy does not promote change, but lowering of entropy implies change leading to less and less entropy.

One possible way to explain this; the net lower of entropy is consistent with increases in efficiency. Efficiency means less wasted energy, thereby lowering entropy, since entropy benefits by wasted energy.

The animal that can gather food faster is more efficient. He will have a selective advantage due to less wasted energy and entropy. The animal that is always looking for food, but can't seem to find what it needs, displays higher entropy within his searching parameters. This will not have selective advantage, unless this higher entropy leads to an overall lowering of entropy; he finds the mother load of food for a net gain in future search efficiency.

In the process of a person's life, from infancy to old age, our bodies undergo various integrated system changes all using the same DNA. For example, the male child might start to grow facial hair starting in their teens, etc. Genes can switch on and off as part of a developmental plan to create the various life transitions as a function of time.

If we collected fossil samples of two twins, but each fossil twin came from two different periods in their parallel developmental stages it may look sort of like mutations, but it would be based on developmental transitions using the same DNA.

Relative to wisdom teeth, if we collected the fossil samples before say age 18, it may appear like evolution is causing these teeth not to form. If we collected fossil samples at 30 for the other twin, after the wisdom teeth drop, now evolution looks different since the same teeth have developed. Yet it will all be done with the same DNA. Chickens have the genes for grow teeth, but development does not normally use these genes. If development did use these genes, we may be tempted to say a mutation.

If you looks at siblings from the same two parents, we can analyze the DNA and know who the parents are, yet there can be a wide range of differences in the siblings, from tall to short, thin to heavy, cute to ugly, smart to dumb, healthy to sickly, etc. The difference can represent a variety of integrated genes. Since all the genes are contained within the parent DNA pool, the gene pool can be quickly shuffled into different working integrated organizations, in a short time. One set of parent DNA can lead to a variety.

If each different sibling bred with a similar person, but the developmental variety suddenly got tighter, so their children were in a tighter range of shapes closer to the parent, it would look loosely like speciation, but done quickly in just one generation. The amount of entropy within development can cause the same DNA to look the same or very different, with all resulting in fully integrated and functional offspring.

Biologyworks under the assumption that life, like the universe, moves toward lower energy and higher entropy. Therefore, life and the evolution of life is connected to random events, instead of any logical progression into expected states.

But consider this situation. The cationic pumping in the cell membrane increases the energy within the cell membrane, while lowering its entropy. A random mixture of cations would satisfy maximium entropy and lowest energy. The cell uses energy to reverse this normal push of the universe, increasing the energy and lowering the entropy within the membrane by segregating the cations.

Now we have a boundary condition, around all cells which defines higher energy and lower entropy; oppisite direction of the universe. The question becomes, does this boundary condition provide a push that will move the innards of the cell into this direction?

One significant observation that says yes, is the observation that the materials of the cell show single handedness, instead of the normal equal amounts of left and right handedeness of chiral molecules. Left handed proteins have lost a degree of freedom compared to a blend of left and right; reflects lower entropy just like the boundary condition. Next, since only left handed proteins are used by life, do these contain higher energy than right handed proteins to reflect the other aspect of the boundary condition? Left handed proteins are more active; energy.

The next logical question becomes, does the boundary condition extend all the way to the genetic material, such that evolution will show movement in the direction of lower entropy and higher energy?

One of the first aspects of evolution did exactly that. The first life used RNA as the genetic material. Life then shifted to DNA. It turns out DNA is more reduced that RNA; contains more potential energy per unit. Also the DNA has fewer degrees of freedom than RNA; DNA is lower in entropy. The DNA forms a double helix, while RNA can be single, double and blends of the two offering more entropy. Going from RNA to DNA implied moving the genetic material in the direction of the boundary condition.

The cells of the body with the strongest low entropy and high energy boundary condition are the neurons. If the theory is correct, what should happen relative to the evolution of the brain, is the input data that is stored in the brain should move in the direction of lower entropy. The data should become more ordered into increasing complex ordering and exhibit higher energy; potential to change nature.

Cancer cells exist at higher entropy and lower energy than healthy cells. Their higher entropy allows additional degrees of freedom, compared to the restictive nature of differentiated cells from which they may stem. Their lower energy is reflected in their high replication rates, making it harder to store energy like cells that don't replicate.

The question becomes, how do we lower the entropy and increase the energy of cancers cells, so they are no longer technically cancer cells?

The modern approach does no work this way. Rather, since the goal is to kill the cancer, its entropy increases even more and its energy lowers more. Death will cause it to become ground down into high entropy while digested into low energy. This approach has had success winning battls, but with new cancer just as active as ever, winning the war is far away.

A theoretical approach, which is the opposite, would attempt to lower the cancer's entropy. This does not mean killing the cancer. Rather we would differentiating it into an inert state where it gets fat (gains energy). Then it is not considered a cancer.

Let me explain the basic theory for how this is possible. The cell membrane sets up a boundary condition for the cell, that defines low entropy and high energy for the cell. This is due to the segregation of sodium and potassium cations.

Cell cycles alter the boundary condition, so there is more ion pump reversal;boundary increases entropy and lowers energy. Equilibrium within the cell will reflect this change within the boundary condition. It will increase the internal entropy (synthesis diversity) and lower energy (higher metabolism to shift the energy economy of the cell).

We need to change the boundary condition around cancer cells, so they move into lower entropy and higher energy mode.

I think I have the smoking gun, which evolutionary theory needs, so it is closer to making future predictions. The cell membrane creates a boundary condition where sodium and potassium cations are separated. The result is higher energy and lower entropy within the membrane. If this boundary condition theory is correct, it should have in demonstratable impact on the inside of the cell, causing the inside of the cell to form an equilibrium. The inside will also lower entropy and gain energy.


many studies show that cells do not need an intact membrane to function [635]. Instead, the intracellular water tends towards a low density structuring due to the kosmotropic character of the majority of the solutes, the confined space within the cell stretching the hydrogen-bonded water and the extensive surface effects of the membranes [1094]. The ions partition according to their preferred aqueous environment; in particular, the K+ ions partition into the cells. Ion pumps must thus be present for other (perhaps fail-safe) purposes, such as speeding up the partition process after metabolically linked changes in ionic concentration.
http://www.lsbu.ac.uk/water/cell.html

The fact that cells, even without membranes, will partian the K+ and Na+, with K+ inside, implies the inside of the cell has been induced by evolution into lower entropy and higher energy than the outside. This configurational equilibrium allows it to induce the lower entropy and higher energy cation partition even without a membrane. As cells evolved, the simple boundary condition set a potential constraint on cells, where the innards needed to line up in a low entropy and high energy way.

Even if the DNA was making random genetic changes for evolution, unless the proteins that result are in equilibrium with boundary constraint, they will not remain part of the evolution of the cell. If nonequiibrium proteins could be carried forward and accumulate 50/50, a cell without a membrane would not be able to partition the equilibrium cations in a way that makes the membrane appear sort of redundant. It needs to favor the proteins that reflect the boundary condition.

If you had a protein that causing entropy to increase in the cell due to random output that is not very well integrated (low entropy), this will define nonequilibrium since equilibrium needs lower entropy (perfect fit).

The boundary condition of a cell; lower entropy and higher energy, allows one to make predictions, since evolution has a dual potential to push life into a sense of order. For example, if we compare proteins, to RNA to DNA, this ordering is implicit of entropy decreasing. That should be the direction of evolution with simple proteins first. Proteins have higher entropy or more degrees of freedom since there are more amino acids than nucleic acids. RNA has fewer degrees of freedom than proteins, while DNA has even fewer degrees of freedom.

The boundary condition push for evolution continues on the DNA. For example, methyation of DNA will add a reduced group to DNA increasing its potenital energy; reduction. Methylation limits genetic expression resulting in fewer degrees of freedom on the DNA.

When abiogenesis began, if proteins were made via dehydration of animo acids on clay surfaces, proteins would have been a mixture of left and right handed. The boundary conditioned lowered entropy or degrees of freedom resulting in only left handed. The constraint of higher energy would make left more active than right. The template relations which evolved, used to make proteins, was an induction into fewer degrees of freedom, allowing repeatable proteins. It was a natural consequence of the boundary condition.

Going from single to multicellular also represented evolution moving in the direction of lower entropy. If we compare X number of singles cells, to X cells stuck together forming an integrated multicellular system, the singles cells have more degrees of freedom. With multicellular, the DNA, by also being differentiated, result in each cell's DNA losing degrees of freedom; differntiated cells use fewer genes.

The energy role of ATP is based on ATP withdrawing electron density away from an enzyme for example. This situation is optimized for the boundary. As enzymes gain potential energy, the reduced state of the -OH group gets better for ATP. As the bondary moves cellular structures into higher energy, ATP gets better and better.

The boundary condition of a cell; lower entropy and higher energy, allows one to make predictions, since evolution has a dual potential to push life into a sense of order. For example, if we compare proteins, to RNA to DNA, this ordering is implicit of entropy decreasing. That should be the direction of evolution with simple proteins first. Proteins have higher entropy or more degrees of freedom since there are more amino acids than nucleic acids. RNA has fewer degrees of freedom than proteins, while DNA has even fewer degrees of freedom.

The boundary condition push for evolution continues on the DNA. For example, methyation of DNA will add a reduced group to DNA increasing its potenital energy; reduction. Methylation limits genetic expression resulting in fewer degrees of freedom on the DNA.

When abiogenesis began, if proteins were made via dehydration of animo acids on clay surfaces, proteins would have been a mixture of left and right handed. The boundary conditioned lowered entropy or degrees of freedom resulting in only left handed. The constraint of higher energy would make left more active than right. The template relations which evolved, used to make proteins, was an induction into fewer degrees of freedom, allowing repeatable proteins. It was a natural consequence of the boundary condition.

Going from single to multicellular also represented evolution moving in the direction of lower entropy. If we compare X number of singles cells, to X cells stuck together forming an integrated multicellular system, the singles cells have more degrees of freedom. With multicellular, the DNA, by also being differentiated, result in each cell's DNA losing degrees of freedom; differntiated cells use fewer genes.

The energy role of ATP is based on ATP withdrawing electron density away from an enzyme for example. This situation is optimized for the boundary. As enzymes gain potential energy, the reduced state of the -OH group gets better for ATP. As the bondary moves cellular structures into higher energy, ATP gets better and better.

is it just me or is that just word salad?

If it's green and leafy....

What separates humans from the apes is human subjectivity. Humans are able to detach from the objective reality of instinct. I suppose drugs can induce that unique place in the mind.

An animal is objective to instinct in that a certain cause and effect will apply with respect to action and reaction. The subjectivity of humans increases the entropy or degrees of freedom that are possible. For example, the animal when hungry may eat its native food. Humans might add all types of subjectivity to that native food from spices and salt to presentation on china plates. That is not objective to the needs of the instinct, but appeases that subjective side.

The advantage to this extra level of human subjectivity is in its diversity and variations. This diveristy is useful to the objective aspect of the human species since having this wide spectrum of choices, makes it easier to constantly evolve culture. The subjectivity sort of generate random possibilities, with the objective analogous to every dog having its day.

Drugs would help the random generation stemming from subjectivity, but it might not explain the objective overlay, which filters and weighs all those choices into optimized systems for culture.

If you compare a uniform stereo-isomer mixture of L and D amino acids to purified L-amino acids, one main difference that I noticed is the mixture of L and D, has a higher entropy (more degrees of freedom) than just L-amino acids. This means purified L-amino acids have lost entropy, compared to the mixture, since the degrees of freedom of the amino acids has decreased to half the original.

The question becomes, does life actively create an equilibrium condition that results in loss of entropy (used to help form only L-amino acids)? The answer is yes. This is connected to cationic pumping at the cell membrane, where sodium and potassium ions are segregated by means of enzymes and energy input. These two cations, like L and D amino acids would prefer a uniform solution. But because energy is being used (up to 90% of the cell energy in neurons), these two cations are forced to lose their original degrees of freedom, segregating on opposite sides of the membrane. This boundary condition, which takes energy to create, defines a low entropy zone within the water, where various low entropy equiibria inductions will happen; L-animo acids.

This low entropy boundary condition is even more fundamental to life than DNA, since it is also part of abiogenesis. With abiogenesis we need to go from chaos and disorder (high entropy) into higher and higher levels of order (low entropy). All we need is the proper boundary condition.

For example, if we compare DNA to RNA, DNA is more reduced. This means, pound for pound, if we burnt DNA we would get more energy than RNA. DNA is a double helix, while RNA has more options. The movement from RNA to DNA genetics followed the boundary into lower entropy. Say we wanted to lower the entropy of the DNA further, using the low entropy boundary condition. One equilibrium induction is to pack the DNA so it loses even more degrees of freedom. Condensed chromosomes are also a logical result of the boundary condition induction. It is not magic or random genetic but a logical result.

Before there were the more modern cationic pumps, there where proton pumps, which segregated protons across a membrane; lower entropy. The mitochnodria still use this older boundary technique. This boundary condition is different from the dual cationic induction. The mitochondrial chromosome is also different being round instead of rods.

The question becomes, does life actively create an equilibrium condition that results in loss of entropy . . . .?As I've mentioned before, the most succinct definition of "life" I've ever seen is "a large local reversal of entropy." Life sucks the organization out of everything around it, leaving it in a state of chaos so that total entropy has not decreased.

The mitochondrial chromosome is also different being round instead of rods.

Just a technical correction. The DNA of the mitochondria is not called a 'chromosome'. It is a loose circular strand, quite similar to bacterial DNA. The word chromosome literally means "colored body", derived from the fact that early microscope studies of cells required staining of the cells, and the Chromosomes were great at picking up the staining colors. That is because of their tight winding, etc., making for many sites where the stains could adhere.

In my experience, there are three main orientations when it comes to explaining the appearance and progression of life. We have evolution, creationism and scientific intelligent design. Whereas evolution is based on random genetic change,s flollowed by selective advantage, scientific intelligent design is much less random up front, compared to evolution, but will go along with selective advantage on the tail end.

Scientific intelligent design is all about a higher ratio of logic up front. To reach this goal takes more intelligence than just assuming black box random, which is why it is called intelligent design. With black box random you can make anything up you want, as long as the black blox has to remain closed. With scientific intelligent design, since you will try to open the black box, you need to be logical.

What tends to happen is scientific intelligent design is lumped into creationism, whereas it is actually much closer to evolution. Those who believe in scientific intelligent design get the feeling, that evolution makes use of bullying and politics to silence science, that is not black box enough. It seems like a religion to SID.

One possible explanation for this reaction, is biology is observational empirical and makes a lot of use of statistics to fill in the blanks. On the other hand, there are other areas of science, such as applied science and engineering, that is more logical since that is the approach they are taught. Some of these scientists have tried to cross the discipline boundaries due to an interest in evolution, and brought with them their causual approach to problem solving. Maybe because these two science approaches are so different the empiriists assume this must be religion since it not black box enough.

In many places in these forums, I have shown how ion pumping uses the lions shares of a cell's energy to lower the entropy and increase energy at the cellular boundary. The cell must think this is very important to devoye most of its energy. The logical question is, does evolution reflect the same direction as this induction? The answer is yes. Evoluiton is not as black box as taught by the more empirical aspects of science, but have a sense of direction.

The thick skulled scientific intelligent design people, who can't seem to get with the black box program, resist because they expect a more logical or intelligent design than the black box. Lower entropy means in the direction of less random; goal of life. The cell, iyself, disproves the modern version of black box evolution by how it uses its energy.

Usual gobbledygook. Intelligent Design is creationism, and it's not even a theory.

In many places in these forums, I have shown how ion pumping uses the lions shares of a cell's energy to lower the entropy and increase energy at the cellular boundary.

I love how internet crackpots think that the mere act of posting their woo-woo hypotheses on internet forums constitutes both demonstration and widespread acceptance of said hypotheses. :rolleyes:

It’s funny. :p

wellwisher:


In my experience, there are three main orientations when it comes to explaining the appearance and progression of life. We have evolution, creationism and scientific intelligent design.

Isn't scientific intelligent design an oxymoron?


What tends to happen is scientific intelligent design is lumped into creationism, whereas it is actually much closer to evolution.

No. ID is only pushed seriously these days by Creationists who want to get their religion taught in US schools. ID is just Creationism under a new name.

My problem with evolution is not with the idea of evolution, but with the random assumptions for its chemical mechanism. The random assumptions are the primary stumbling block for many critics. This stumbling blocks constantly shows its face when people give examples of the odds being too high at various areas in evolution. They are looking for a logical mechanism since the odds don't appear there.

I think I figured out the source of the problem connected to the random assumptions. It came to light many years back during a project I did as an engineer. I forgot how this got me questioning evolution, as is. I was doing development work and had to invent a process to clean several milllon gallons of mercury contaminated water to less than 1PPB. I was able to come up with the invention in about three weeks, which worked very well in pilot studies.

Because of the high visibility of the final cleanup project, I was assigned a mathematician, whose job was to model the process with a statistical design type analysis I objected at first, since I invented the stupiid thing and knew how it worked, chemically and logically, and didn't need any hand holding with gambling math. But I was ordered to let him do his analysis just in case things went south. He could soften potential problems during discharge with statistical magic that would be acceptable to the EPA.

When it was all over, his statistical modelling actually did a very good job. I was old school, but could see the usefulness in what he did. Ironically, he was a mathematician and not a chemists or an engineer, yet his math analysis, without his having any of my expertise, worked well. That made me think, even without a real understanding of the chemical mechanisms, by simply using his math design, he was able to achieve good results that parallelled what I was doing. I was impressed because the blackbox worked better than I expected.

The question that came to me was, since his statistical design was doing all the heavy lifting for him, using a randon assumption, would it have been possible for him to make up a mechanism, and then let the math do all the heavy lifting, and still have the result come out well?

If we apply this question to evolution, is the random assumption there to allow the statistical math to do all the heavy lifting. My math friend seemed to demonstrate that even if his random assumption was not true in reality, it still worked. In other words, my mathematician was able to parallel a rational analysis, from a trained chemical engineer, using a random assumption without needing full knowledge of the detailed mechanism. Reality was not needed by him, since the math was doing all the heavy lifting using blackbox statistics.

If evolution is letting the math doing all the heavy lifting, a random mechanism can be wrong within bio-chemical reality, but will be needed, so the math can do all the lifting. If you look at the DNA, it also contains a double helix of water. This reality is not needed when the math does the heavy lifting. Evolution can deny this and other reality and still get good results as long as it uses the assumptions needed by the math.

One test we could do that can determine whether evolution has a real mechanism or its usefulness is really due to a mathematical tool, is to define evolution without the math, to see if the theory can do the heavy lifting. I don't think the theory can stand without the math tool. This is why there is always a fight to maintain the math tool requirements.

My problem with evolution is not with the idea of evolution, but with the random assumptions for its chemical mechanism. The random assumptions are the primary stumbling block for many critics. This stumbling blocks constantly shows its face when people give examples of the odds being too high at various areas in evolution. They are looking for a logical mechanism since the odds don't appear there.

I think I figured out the source of the problem connected to the random assumptions. It came to light many years back during a project I did as an engineer. I forgot how this got me questioning evolution, as is. I was doing development work and had to invent a process to clean several milllon gallons of mercury contaminated water to less than 1PPB. I was able to come up with the invention in about three weeks, which worked very well in pilot studies.

Because of the high visibility of the final cleanup project, I was assigned a mathematician, whose job was to model the process with a statistical design type analysis I objected at first, since I invented the stupiid thing and knew how it worked, chemically and logically, and didn't need any hand holding with gambling math. But I was ordered to let him do his analysis just in case things went south. He could soften potential problems during discharge with statistical magic that would be acceptable to the EPA.

When it was all over, his statistical modelling actually did a very good job. I was old school, but could see the usefulness in what he did. Ironically, he was a mathematician and not a chemists or an engineer, yet his math analysis, without his having any of my expertise, worked well. That made me think, even without a real understanding of the chemical mechanisms, by simply using his math design, he was able to achieve good results that parallelled what I was doing. I was impressed because the blackbox worked better than I expected.

The question that came to me was, since his statistical design was doing all the heavy lifting for him, using a randon assumption, would it have been possible for him to make up a mechanism, and then let the math do all the heavy lifting, and still have the result come out well?

If we apply this question to evolution, is the random assumption there to allow the statistical math to do all the heavy lifting. My math friend seemed to demonstrate that even if his random assumption was not true in reality, it still worked. In other words, my mathematician was able to parallel a rational analysis, from a trained chemical engineer, using a random assumption without needing full knowledge of the detailed mechanism. Reality was not needed by him, since the math was doing all the heavy lifting using blackbox statistics.

If evolution is letting the math doing all the heavy lifting, a random mechanism can be wrong within bio-chemical reality, but will be needed, so the math can do all the lifting. If you look at the DNA, it also contains a double helix of water. This reality is not needed when the math does the heavy lifting. Evolution can deny this and other reality and still get good results as long as it uses the assumptions needed by the math.

One test we could do that can determine whether evolution has a real mechanism or its usefulness is really due to a mathematical tool, is to define evolution without the math, to see if the theory can do the heavy lifting. I don't think the theory can stand without the math tool. This is why there is always a fight to maintain the math tool requirements.

For crying out loud, are you serious? You gave the statistician the parameters for your process he just modeled what you gave him. Could his model develop a process? Of course not it could only model what was already invented and tested. If you are a chemical engineer as you say then you GOT to be smarter than that!

I can understand people who deny evolution because they fear that if they accept the obvious evidence for evolution god will be pissed off at them. Even though I understand it, it still creeps me out when an intelligent person buries their head that far into the sand.

It is like that astronaugt going on expeditions into the mountains of Turkey to find Noahs Ark, yikes!:bugeye:

My problem with evolution is not with the idea of evolution, but with the random assumptions for its chemical mechanism. The random assumptions are the primary stumbling block for many critics. So quit making them.

They always involve misconceptions of evolutionary theory anyway (along with incompetence in statistical calculation) so you might finally get the hang of the theory if you dropped the reinforcement of misconception inherent in all those "random assumptions".

The point I was making is there are many ways to model things. For example, one can model rational processes using numerical methods based on iterations. Just because such a math model can give good results does not mean the mechanism of the phenomena is based on iterations. That would be putting the cart before the horse.

Statistics is also a tool that helps us model reality, but it is not reality. I believe that evolution has put the statistical cart before the horse. This has been made harder to see because the horse was altered in the image of the cart.

I am not against evolution, just the mechanism is tailored to the math thereby allowing one to lose touch with reality and still get results. For example, the DNA has a double helix of water. How does that water impact the genetic mechanisms of evolution and does evolution include this? It does not have to when the cart leads the horse since you mold life to the needs of the math.

An analogy is developing a process in industry. One is then asked to model it and you chose one of many mathematical methods. If you can get better results by tweaking the math parameters, even this starts to leave conceptual reality, the model is still better in the practical. Industry is less concerned with reality as with high quality results, so if I conformed my theory to help the math perform better, it looks better evne if the cart is is leading the horse.

I am not against evolution, just the mechanism is tailored to the math - - - No, it isn't.


For example, the DNA has a double helix of water. No, it doesn't.

And so forth.

Actually DNA does have a double helix of water. But this is not stressed because when the cart of math is leading the horse of evolution a complete reality mechanism is not important, since the math can do the heavy lifting with less than reality. The power of statistics is it is black box math and allows us to ignore the reality of what is inside the black box. Again, I am not saying there is not a process of change within life that we call evolution. What I am saying is, the current mechanism works because it is conforming itself to the needs of the math; cart leading the horse. The mechanism does not have to be correct, to wor, since the math can make use of a black box to compensate.

In the image below, the extra hydrogen bonding hydrogen on the bases, as well as the extra electron density on the nitrogen and oxygen atoms of the bases were designed by evolution with water in mind. To use evolutionary lingo, this arrangement had selective advantage since the very beginning, even before cells, and therefore plays a important role in evolution. But it may not fit into the current math car, since it does not lead to a needed random grease for the cart wheels. Again math is a powerful tool, but the hammer should not swing the carpenter.

http://www.lsbu.ac.uk/water/images/nuclei.gif

My problem with evolution is not with the idea of evolution, but with the random assumptions for its chemical mechanism. The random assumptions are the primary stumbling block for many critics. This stumbling blocks constantly shows its face when people give examples of the odds being too high at various areas in evolution. They are looking for a logical mechanism since the odds don't appear there.

I think I figured out the source of the problem connected to the random assumptions. It came to light many years back during a project I did as an engineer. I forgot how this got me questioning evolution, as is. I was doing development work and had to invent a process to clean several milllon gallons of mercury contaminated water to less than 1PPB. I was able to come up with the invention in about three weeks, which worked very well in pilot studies.

Because of the high visibility of the final cleanup project, I was assigned a mathematician, whose job was to model the process with a statistical design type analysis I objected at first, since I invented the stupiid thing and knew how it worked, chemically and logically, and didn't need any hand holding with gambling math. But I was ordered to let him do his analysis just in case things went south. He could soften potential problems during discharge with statistical magic that would be acceptable to the EPA.

When it was all over, his statistical modelling actually did a very good job. I was old school, but could see the usefulness in what he did. Ironically, he was a mathematician and not a chemists or an engineer, yet his math analysis, without his having any of my expertise, worked well. That made me think, even without a real understanding of the chemical mechanisms, by simply using his math design, he was able to achieve good results that parallelled what I was doing. I was impressed because the blackbox worked better than I expected.

The question that came to me was, since his statistical design was doing all the heavy lifting for him, using a randon assumption, would it have been possible for him to make up a mechanism, and then let the math do all the heavy lifting, and still have the result come out well?

If we apply this question to evolution, is the random assumption there to allow the statistical math to do all the heavy lifting. My math friend seemed to demonstrate that even if his random assumption was not true in reality, it still worked. In other words, my mathematician was able to parallel a rational analysis, from a trained chemical engineer, using a random assumption without needing full knowledge of the detailed mechanism. Reality was not needed by him, since the math was doing all the heavy lifting using blackbox statistics.

If evolution is letting the math doing all the heavy lifting, a random mechanism can be wrong within bio-chemical reality, but will be needed, so the math can do all the lifting. If you look at the DNA, it also contains a double helix of water. This reality is not needed when the math does the heavy lifting. Evolution can deny this and other reality and still get good results as long as it uses the assumptions needed by the math.

One test we could do that can determine whether evolution has a real mechanism or its usefulness is really due to a mathematical tool, is to define evolution without the math, to see if the theory can do the heavy lifting. I don't think the theory can stand without the math tool. This is why there is always a fight to maintain the math tool requirements.

I have heard this complaint before, that mathematical analysis is being considered prior to biological mechanisms in the bioscience mainstream.

I don't have the link, but a paper was published that undermined the statistical validity of a few hundred other papers. Whether this made a big impact on bio research I don't know. A few hundred papers isn't that many considered over 10 years on a global scale.

It made me wonder - how is it possible that we are using maths to work on genetics?? Bio molecular systems are far from understood fully. Is it possible that a few hundred papers were published and were based on the wrong maths?

The problem with this is that oftentimes these papers take precedence over novel studies that fully disclose the physical mechanisms of action, and it is very hard to overturn the results if there is an already established collection of mathematical studies based on faulty assumptions.



On the other hand, the mechanisms of chromosomal recombination are based on mathematical principles and have been for over a hundred years. These were used to map early genomes with great effectiveness. Digital organisms are beginning to be used to study population mechanics and genetics, and they are often run against real, in lab experiments to check their validity. So, these models are not necessarily wrong either.

You know Wellwisher, even if you repeat this 1000 times:


I am not against evolution, just the mechanism is tailored to the math thereby allowing one to lose touch with reality and still get results.

It will still not be true.


First and foremost evolution is built on observation and the fossil records. Genetics of course has become more and more important as our understanding and knowledge has increased.

What MATH are you specifically talking about?

Actually DNA does have a double helix of water. But this is not stressed because when the cart of math is leading the horse of evolution a complete reality mechanism is not important, since the math can do the heavy lifting with less than reality. The power of statistics is it is black box math and allows us to ignore the reality of what is inside the black box. Again, I am not saying there is not a process of change within life that we call evolution. What I am saying is, the current mechanism works because it is conforming itself to the needs of the math; cart leading the horse. The mechanism does not have to be correct, to wor, since the math can make use of a black box to compensate.

In the image below, the extra hydrogen bonding hydrogen on the bases, as well as the extra electron density on the nitrogen and oxygen atoms of the bases were designed by evolution with water in mind. To use evolutionary lingo, this arrangement had selective advantage since the very beginning, even before cells, and therefore plays a important role in evolution. But it may not fit into the current math car, since it does not lead to a needed random grease for the cart wheels. Again math is a powerful tool, but the hammer should not swing the carpenter.

http://www.lsbu.ac.uk/water/images/nuclei.gif

Seriously? That is your double helix of water??? You are really reaching.

So based on your definition I could just as easily say that DNA is a double helix of phosphates.:rolleyes:

Tell me again that you don't have an [thinly veiled] agenda against evolution.

Your logic is completely lacking about the need for water. Are life and biological processes tied to water? Of course. Is water, O and H, incorporated into DNA? Of course. Does this mean that DNA formed in the abscence of any other organic material? Of course NOT. Your silly assumption that biologist believe that DNA formed on its own in some water environment is absurd (which I think you know, but facts are not an important aspect of your sermon).

Actually DNA does have a double helix of water. No it doesn't.


In the image below, the extra hydrogen bonding hydrogen on the bases, as well as the extra electron density on the nitrogen and oxygen atoms of the bases were designed by evolution with water in mind. No, they weren't.

To use evolutionary lingo, this arrangement had selective advantage since the very beginning, even before cells, and therefore plays a important role in evolution Evolutionary lingo says nothing like that.

Fossil evidence is very important to help show the rough progression of life over time. The data is discontinuous, as expected, since nature tends to recycle. This recycling to create discontinuous data, means there is no guarentee basing a theory on this data will lead to the correct assumptions about the evolution life. Discontunous data implies a discontinuous model for evolution (to fit the random assumptions of the math), with recycle able to hide the true nature of the data.

Let me give an example of how letting the tail of discontinuous data, wag the dog, can lead to problems. Say I made a large four leaf clover pattern on the ground out of popcorn. I was careful to make each piece touch the adjacent pieces. I leave the design and come back weeks later to show others my popcorn artwork. The birds, in the mean time, have pillaged my design (nature recycles) leaving a fragmented and discontinuous fraction of the original design. Based on the hard data remaining, you may not be able to infer the reality of the actual original design.

If it was fragmented enough, nobody may even believe, it was a perfect four leaf clover, since the hard data to prove this is not there. Instead the experts will infer I was drunk and made some multiple random design that were discontinuous in continuity and shape. How can you argue the reality of the four leaf clover design, when the illusion has this hard data that appears to prove otherwise?

Water is an important part of the DNA, with the predominate nature DNA, B-DNA, the most hydrated. .


The DNA double helix can take up a number of conformations (for example, right handed A-DNA pitch 28.2 Å 11 bp, B-DNA pitch 34 Å 10 bp, C-DNA pitch 31Å 9.33 bp, D-DNA pitch 24.2 Å 8 bp and the left handed Z-DNA pitch 43Å 12 bp) with differing hydration. The predominant natural DNA, B-DNA, has a wide and deep major groove and a narrow and deep minor groove and requires the greatest hydration.

http://www.lsbu.ac.uk/water/nucleic.html

But DNA, living things, and the fossil evidence all support the theory. This is the mark of a good theory, and so far there is no alternative theory with the same explanatory power.

But DNA, living things, and the fossil evidence all support the theory. This is the mark of a good theory,
and so far there is no alternative theory with the same explanatory power.Sure there is, and it is even simpler than ToE: "God is Evil." That is the whole theory.

I.e. God likes to trick and mislead people. For two examples:

(1) None of the stars exist (except the sun, if considered to be a star). There appear to be more stars than grains of sand on Earth's beaches - Making all that mass is lot of work, even for God, so about 10,000 years ago, he just made beams of parallel light a little wider than the solar system about 25,000 light years long and pointed them at the sun from many different directions.

Note the GiE theory is falsifiable and the ToE is not! I.e. GiE theory is false if: (1) After about 15,000 years more the heavens are NOT free of their apparent stars. OR if (2) the pioneer space craft, which are now outside of many of God's light beams, had cameras, which still look at where the stars are falsely believed to be, did observe "star light;" but scientists were stupidly believing in the ToE so did not test the GiE theory as they should have. Thus man can test the GiE theory currently, but can not show the ToE is false, with no possibilitity that the "disproof" cannot be explained away so as to keep the ToE alive.

(2) When God created Earth, less than 10,000 years ago, God made all the fossils and placed them in succeeding layers of Earth so that man would falsely conclude that whales evolved from large land animals, etc. He even went to the trouble of making the meat of whales red like that of other land animals, and having them be air breathers with lungs, not like the fish of the sea, and placing their vestigial tiny leg bones deep inside their posterior part of their body for future seekers of whale oil to discover etc. God even foresaw that man would learn about DNA etc. so he cleverly made the changes found in it from one species to the other such as to trick man in to accepting the ToE (and of course, this DNA ToE "evidence" was created to be in full agreement with the sequence of fossils found in the various layers of rocks, etc.)

Your problem is that you have swallowed that false nonsense* about "God is Good" instead of the truth God reveled to me. (That God is Evil and did mislead intelligent men into believing in the ToE, despite its greater complexity.)
-------
* It is amazing that the faith that God is Good still exists when every day you get many examples showing his evil nature. If God were good (and cared about people) then Hitler would have gotten run over by a truck at age 20, etc. I.e. there is much more evidence for the GiE theory than the ToE.

Sure there is, and it is even simpler than ToE: "God is Evil." That is the whole theory.

I.e. God likes to trick and mislead people. For two examples:

(1) None of the stars exist (except the sun, if considered to be a star). There appear to be more stars than grains of sand on Earth's beaches - Making all that mass is lot of work, even for God, so about 10,000 years ago, he just made beams of parallel light a little wider than the solar system about 25,000 light years long and pointed them at the sun from many different directions. Note the GiE theory is falsifiable and the ToE is not! I.e. GiE theory is false if: (1) After about 15,000 years more the heavens are NOT free of their apparent stars. OR if (2) the pioneer space craft, which are now outside of many of God's light beams, had cameras, which still look at where the stars are falsely believed to be, did observe "star light;" but scientists were stupidly believing in the ToE so did not test the GiE theory as they should have.

Considering Voyager cameras were still operational up to a few years ago and that Voyager uses star mapping for orientation, I think they would have noticed something by now. Also evolution is easily falsifiable while god tricking us its not: assuming god is omnipotent he could trick us and make it impossible for us to detect the trick.




Thus man can test the GiE theory currently, but can not show the ToE is false, with no possibilitity that the "disproof" cannot be explained away so as to keep the ToE alive.


Evolution can easily be disproven in a number of ways that could not be explained away. Genetics for example could have proven non-relation of all creatures or even god signature, but it didn't. Unless of course it was gods intent to make it look like they evolve, but if then why would there ever be any evidence to the contrary? God is fucking GOD, he can make 2+2=fish at the snap of his fingers so he can easily make it impossible to detect his forgery. He can forsee all the times people will test his false reality and make an illusion for each test.


Your problem is that you have swallowed that false nonsense* about "God is Good" instead of the truth God reveled to me. (That God is Evil and did mislead intelligent men into believing in the ToE, despite its greater complexity.)


Oh and I'm willing to be a follower! But science does not care, science only cares to understand and map the nature of reality, be it that reality is false or real doesn't matter. And so far science mapping of reality has allow the human population to swell into the billion with more people living happier and in standards of opulence better then any time before... unless of course everything we know is false, that we were spawn into existence just seconds ago with false memories and false history and all :m:

Fossil evidence is very important to help show the rough progression of life over time. The data is discontinuous, as expected, since nature tends to recycle. This recycling to create discontinuous data, means there is no guarentee basing a theory on this data will lead to the correct assumptions about the evolution life.

There is not a continuous line of every change because fossilization is not that common, it is not because of 'recycling'. The fossil evidence is very rich and shows unmistakably that evolution is occuring. I thought your only objection was the 'Math Tool', whatever that is.


Discontunous data implies a discontinuous model for evolution (to fit the random assumptions of the math), with recycle able to hide the true nature of the data.

Well welcome to science, engineering, and reality. We NEVER have the luxury of 100% of the data. That does not mean we do not have coherent and viable theory. Based on your requirements we have NO theories.


Let me give an example of how letting the tail of discontinuous data, wag the dog, can lead to problems. Say I made a large four leaf clover pattern on the ground out of popcorn. I was careful to make each piece touch the adjacent pieces. I leave the design and come back weeks later to show others my popcorn artwork. The birds, in the mean time, have pillaged my design (nature recycles) leaving a fragmented and discontinuous fraction of the original design. Based on the hard data remaining, you may not be able to infer the reality of the actual original design.

What a misleading and trite example.:rolleyes:


Water is an important part of the DNA, with the predominate nature DNA, B-DNA, the most hydrated. .
http://www.lsbu.ac.uk/water/nucleic.html

So you have back peddled from "DNA contains a double helix of water" to "water is an important part of DNA". Yeah, I think that is pretty obvious to anybody that has looked at it.

Of course that website as well as biology in general give NO support to your absurd straw man concerning the initial formation of DNA.

Considering Voyager cameras were still operational up to a few years ago and that Voyager uses star mapping for orientation, I think they would have noticed something by now. .. He {God} can forsee all the times people will test his false reality and make an illusion for each test. ...You'r right no doubt. I.e. God foresaw the trajectories of Pioneers, so did provide "curved" star beams to follow their progress thur space. That was hardly worth mentioning in my prior post as they are small - only about 100 meters in cross section. Do you think the radiation pressure not being exactly what was expected could account for the anomaly (No camera looks directly at the sun, so God may not have it shine in that direction or could have made it shine stronger than it should to really bother scientists with the extra acceleration, which would be harder to explain. - He is very evil, you know.)?


... science only cares to understand and map the nature of reality, be it that reality is false or real doesn't matter. And so far science mapping of reality has allow the human population to swell into the billion with more people living happier and in standards of opulence better then any time before... unless of course everything we know is false, that we were spawn into existence just seconds ago with false memories and false history and all Yes, that updating memories, Star parallax film photos, etc. every second or so, is the approach lesser Gods ruling other universes probably use, but not our great and evil God.
While true that many more humaoids are happier now than even only 100 years ago and certianly ~10,000 years ago when God made Adam, (and Eve as an after thought to show how evil he could be), you forgot to mention all the millions who starve to death, etc. now. How can you deny all the evidence that God is evil?

You'r right no doubt. I.e. God foresaw the trajectories of Pioneers, so did provide "curved" star beams to follow their progress thur space. That was hardly worth mentioning in my prior post as they are small - only about 100 meters in cross section. Do you think the radiation pressure not being exactly what was expected could account for the anomaly (No camera looks directly at the sun, so God may not have it shine in that direction or more likely have it shine stronger than it should to bother scientists. - He is very evil, you know.)?

If god wants to trick us why would he not make sure every detail reaffirms that trick? He has gone this far why not all the way? So no the off-course anomaly is most certianly something else then a flaw in God's trickery.



Yes, that updating memories, Star parallax film photos, etc. every second or so, is the approach lesser Gods ruling other universes probably use, but not our great and evil God.
While true that many more humaoids are happier now than even only 100 years ago and certianly ~10,000 years ago when God made Adam, (and Eve as an after thought to how how evil he could be), you forgot to mention all the millions who starve to death, etc. now. How can you deny all the evidence that God is evil?

I believe the the amount of pleasure for humans has increased greater than the amount if pain: before human population was kept in check by starvation and democide, but sciences has allowed the balance to be broken, ultimately this is likely part of gods evil plan to allow us to crawl up a little just to strike us down again and laugh at our failure, it pleases him so! Thus our progress and inevitable degeneration is like a game of Whac-a-mole to him.

I was watching videos of Libyan rebels fighting and when a comrade is hit and bleeding to death his compatriots would yell out "Allahu akbar!" over and over again, it stuck me that they must also know that god enjoys their suffering and to celebrate gods joy when one of them dies, so they yell out "god is great!" over and over, praising god for hurt them.

Finally I think the evil god topic should be split off into a new thread.

Let me give an example of how letting the tail of discontinuous data, wag the dog, can lead to problems. Say I made a large four leaf clover pattern on the ground out of popcorn. The short answer is that evolutionary theory is not the pattern. Evolutionary theory explains the pattern.

This exact silly, mistaken analogy was rebutted in detail, in another thread, just a couple of weeks ago. I'm not going to bother finding or rehashing the argument.

You can also find adequate refutation on sites such as talkorigins, etc, on the web.

You can take a basic probability and statistics class in any decent institution of learning, such as a local high school or community college. Your teacher can go over your many errors of reasoning, and help you.

Yet you repeat it, as if it had never been addressed. Yet you ignore the fact that it's just the latest in a series of falsehoods and goofy errors you have posted on this topic, each one following the denial of the last.

There is no end to this shit. You don't even have to go around in a circle, as every one of your predecessors in this bs have - with enough digging on those scam websites you are regurgitating here, or enough imagination of your own, you can keep on inventing new and ever more elaborate garbage like this indefinitely, each time expecting respectful and reasonable response.

That's an abuse of the forum. It's rude, disrespectful, childish.

Go away and learn the basics of Darwinian evolutionary theory. Learn from people who employ it and understand it. That will take you a couple of years. Then you can post reasonably on the topic.

I don't have anything against the consistent parts of the theory its the arrogant certainty about the unknown unrecorded history that gets to me because there are still many speculations going around under the veil of TOE. So your objection to the ToE is that it leads to interesting hypotheses and brings up questions for further research?

That it does not immediately answer all questions of fact and history in the field of biology?

Or what exactly do you mean by the "arrogant certainty" of "speculations"? The "veil" of public, open, diligent research?

I prefer the idea of evolution having a sense of direction by means of chemical mechanisms.

Consciousness is not about lacking a sense of direction, like is assumed by the theory of evolution. Consciousness, is goal orientated. If the brain and consciousness is an artifact of the DNA, how can consciousness have a sense of direction when evolutionary change lacks sense of direction?

When you depend on the tail to wag the dog, you miss things.

Huh? Chemical mechanisms cannot predict the complex future environment in which an organism must live. Consciousness in the context of an existing being has many purposes. It's a threat detection and avoidance system. It evaluates potential mates. It helps creatures find and remember food sources, etc... It's a product of what worked successfully in the past. If in the past, it was beneficial for an organism to, for instance, know that it had to fly south for the winter, that's what it's led to do in the present. DNA can code for this sort of instinct without knowing the future.

You are missing all sorts of basic things.

Like what?

I prefer the idea of evolution having a sense of direction by means of chemical mechanisms. When you have some idea of evolutionary theory, including the reasoning and evidence supporting it, you will be in a position to have preferences among the ideas.

Until then, you can have guesses and errors and preconceptions and bigotries and goofball fantasies like helical water, and various other mental irrelevancies, but you can't have "preferences".

I prefer the idea of evolution having a sense of direction by means of chemical mechanisms.

Your preference does not appear to have a basis in reality. If evolution has a sense of direction then it appears to be worse than my mothers sense of direction!

I prefer the idea of evolution having a sense of direction by means of chemical mechanisms.

Consciousness is not about lacking a sense of direction, like is assumed by the theory of evolution. Consciousness, is goal orientated. If the brain and consciousness is an artifact of the DNA, how can consciousness have a sense of direction when evolutionary change lacks sense of direction?

When you depend on the tail to wag the dog, you miss things.

Yes, there is no doubt but what evolution involves a chemical/biological mechanism. We are not born because we want to and we live according to instinctive desires that evolved in us biologically.

We also shape our lives in a social evolutionary way in the sense that the ideological systems we depend on to bind us small group primates into huge societies have to have some goal among its ideals, a goal which all its believers are to some extent dedicated to achieve. These goals have, in the past, been illusionary ("God's Kingdom, Nirvana, the communal utopia, etc.), they even so worked because they enabled their believers to cooperate and make their society operate with maximum efficiency in the developing of further understanding, technology and the population growth that results.

This all may seem a strange way of looking at us, but I see it as the understanding that can enable us to move out of the decline phase of this civilization and look well into our future. This is the perspective of social evolution which is further explained in "The Last Civilization."

brough

When evolution is discussed, I get the impression from the proponents that the current model of evolution is already perfect and there are zero conceptual problems. This is unique to science. If that is true, that means there is no need to fund any additional evolutionary related studies, since it is already perfect, as is. There is nothing more to be done, with continued funding more like a gravy train.

Another thing I notice is the only people putting things on the table for discussion are those who do not believe in the theoretical perfection of evolution as written in the bible of evolution. The proponents of evolution act as critics, trying to defend perfection, without ever providing logic or data as a means to refute ideas. It is always appeal to emotion or lumping all ideas into a version of creationism, which is erroneous and irrational. There is no other area in science that circles the wagons in this way. This behavior told me, there was something wrong and that the perfection deluison needed to be challenged. Enough nagging.

One of the unwritten assumptions of statistics is there is sufficient energy to achieve full randomization. If we fully shuffle a new deck of cards, each hand has given odds. But say I cut a new deck of cards once (not enough energy for full randomization), the odds are totally different. If someone played cards and only wanted to cut the deck once between hands, and not fully shuffle the deck, they could cheat and/or alter the apparent odds.

The DNA does not fully randomize each shuffle. It is well documented that certain areas of the DNA change faster than others. The dice are loaded to some extedn. The unwritten assumption of sufficient energy for full randomization is not correct, which is why some people are not comfortable with the odds applied to evolution.

No one said the theory was perfect.

What are you talking about with regard to randomization? You are refuting a strawman, as usual.

It is good that you can see that evolution is not perfect. What areas of evolution need work and could new insight inot these areas help the current imperfect theory? Once you can see the problems, solutions are less threatening.

If there was sufficient energy for entropy, all the genes along any DNA would have equal likelihood for change. If there is not sufficient energy for that much entropy on the DNA, then not all genes will change at the same rate. This is observed. There is a level of order and direction (conserved) plus a layer of random change.

Where the conceptual problem lies is connected to a lack of a normalized standard. Say we had a deck of cards, if we fully shuffle the deck, each hand has certain odds. If we poorly shuffle the same deck, so there is less entropy, the odds will change for each hand. I place these side by side by normalizing to the full shuffle.

With evolution, rather than normalize these two scenarios to the fully shuffled deck, what we do in evolution is look at the partially shuffled DNA deck (areas change faster) as a separate phenomena, that is fully shuffled in its own way. This can work in terms of results. However, we are not comparing this to the standard of full randomization. By treating this as a separate phenomena, without normalization, it becomes defined by the odds of full randomization. You can't see order if you avoid normalization. I see only partial randomization in evolution with better odds than normalized random. There is a degree of order if you normalize. it is just a question of explaining how.

No theory is perfect and beyond tweaking. Like Newton's Laws of Motion, we now know they are not perfect, as they do not take into account quantum effects, but they are still used all the time, since on most scales for most purposes it works just fine.

Your strawman seems to be a misunderstanding whereby you assume that only perfectly random mutations everywhere along the genome is necessary to generate variation. Mutations are more or less random, which is all that is necessary. The point is that mutations are imperfectly controlled. They are not directed to any evolutionary goal other than preservation of core biological functions.

When evolution is discussed, I get the impression from the proponents that the current model of evolution is already perfect and there are zero conceptual problems. This is unique to science. If that is true, that means there is no need to fund any additional evolutionary related studies, since it is already perfect, as is. There is nothing more to be done, with continued funding more like a gravy train.

Then you have an incorrect impression. The science of evolution has progressed over the years and will continue to do so through research.


Another thing I notice is the only people putting things on the table for discussion are those who do not believe in the theoretical perfection of evolution as written in the bible of evolution. The proponents of evolution act as critics, trying to defend perfection, without ever providing logic or data as a means to refute ideas.

?? There is no "theoretical perfection" in evolution. There is no "perfect" to strive for. Evolution as a system merely aims for "good enough."


The DNA does not fully randomize each shuffle. It is well documented that certain areas of the DNA change faster than others.

Quite true for a number of reasons. Telomere erosion, for example, means that the ends of each strand of DNA erode away with time.


The unwritten assumption of sufficient energy for full randomization is not correct, which is why some people are not comfortable with the odds applied to evolution.

There is plenty of energy for "full randomization" - but a great many mechanisms to prevent it. (Which is fortunate; we wouldn't be here if our DNA were "fully randomized", either during meiosis or over a longer time period.)

Again, we circle the wagons, because evolution is perfect, since nobody can think of any conceptual problems. It is all about memory of the evolutionary dogma with one not allowed to think under risk of blaspheme. This is why religion smells evolution as being a competing religion and goes after it. Religion does not go after other areas of objective science that can be objective to its limitations.

Maybe the fear within the evolutionary community is why point out areas of weakness to the enemy. It is better to pretend the castle walls are too strong to attack. But you have it backwards, it is this irrational defense that is not fooling anyone. Honesty and objectivity is all that is required to make peace.

Again, we circle the wagons, because evolution is perfect, since nobody can think of any conceptual problems. It is all about memory of the evolutionary dogma with one not allowed to think under risk of blaspheme.

Oh come now, give me an alternatively theory that better fits the evidence and I believe it, there is nothing different from evolution than from the earth is round or that the earth revolves around the sun, all of those are theories as well.



Maybe the fear within the evolutionary community is why point out areas of weakness to the enemy.

Can't think of any, give me some.


Honesty and objectivity is all that is required to make peace.

This is an ironic statement coming from a theist.

The theory doesn't seem counter-intuitive to me at all I'm just looking for some explanation for the fact that people like you don't seem to be able to comprehend even the basics of it.

You can obviously read and write, add numbers and tie your shoes. So what is the problem?


Again, we circle the wagons, because evolution is perfect, since nobody can think of any conceptual problems. You have it backwards and creationist framed, as always. Perfection is not even an issue. Theories are not perfect or imperfect - they are useful and reliable and explanatory, or not.

It's not that we think that nobody can, possibly, think of any "conceptual problems" with "evolution" (the theory or the observed reality?). It's that nobody has, yet, established the significance or reality of any.

That doesn't make the theory "perfect", it makes it the current, well-established theory. It has been tested very, very thoroughly. It has been employed universally, with excellent and occasionally dramatic results, and no failures. So far, so good.


Religion does not go after other areas of objective science that can be objective to its limitations. Religion has "gone after" every single branch, field, area, and discipline of objective science.

Again, we circle the wagons, because evolution is perfect

Saying that ten times will not make it so.


This is why religion smells evolution as being a competing religion and goes after it.

Religion smells evolution as a threat because evolution contradicts religious dogma.


Religion does not go after other areas of objective science that can be objective to its limitations.

They used to. They imprisoned Galileo and executed Bruno partly because they professed a belief that the world was round and orbited the sun like every other planet.

After, say, the first Mercury mission, it became impossible to maintain that stance; they would have been laughed off the world stage. So they gave up.

Religion has taken other positions they've had to back down on - blacks can't marry whites, people shouldn't fly ("if we were meant to fly God would have given us wings!") etc etc. They will eventually back down from their opposition to evolution, as they have on other topics. Heck, even the last Pope accepted evolution.


Honesty and objectivity is all that is required to make peace.

It would indeed be refreshing to see religions start to practice that.

Look, we can try again:

Another thing I notice is the only people putting things on the table for discussion are those who do not believe in the theoretical perfection of evolution as written in the bible of evolution. There is no bible of evolution.

No one who comprehends evolution believes in the "theoretical perfection" of it, or anything like it. It's science.

And here is the kind of garbage you are "putting on the table".


One of the unwritten assumptions of statistics is there is sufficient energy to achieve full randomization. That's a written assumption, whenever it is made. It's called "independence" of events. You don't need it, to do statistics - people do statistical analysis of dependent or correlated events all the time. Routinely.

Is anyone keeping track of the assertions wellwisher has made that have been falsified in the course of peer review on this thread, in accordance with the scientific method? He is prohibited from ever repeating them anywhere on SciForums unless they are accompanied by new evidence rebutting the falsification. Even on this thread!

Is anyone keeping track of the assertions wellwisher has made that have been falsified in the course of peer review on this thread, in accordance with the scientific method? He is prohibited from ever repeating them anywhere on SciForums unless they are accompanied by new evidence rebutting the falsification. Even on this thread!


If every scientist were in one accord with this, you would have a strong case
for implimenting these restrictions.

jan.

If every scientist were in one accord with this, you would have a strong case for implimenting these restrictions.I suppose you can name three who aren't? Much of this is bonehead first-year university stuff. Whatever legitimate controversy there might have been died fifty years ago. Even the Catholic universities teach it.

The only people who still struggle to disprove it are the Religious Redneck Retards, and the United States is the only country in which we're constitutionally obligated to treat them with respect which they do not deserve.

I brought up the point that evolution is not perfect. This is nothing personal, just the nature of science theory as it evolves. That means there has to be at least some conceptual or practical problems, anomalies, etc., Yet nobody on the proponent side will dare bring up any specifics out of fear of being accused of blasphame and then given a theist label as the wagons circle; banishment by the goon squad. I have not seem one example, by those in the know out of fear of religious persecution.

If you look at other areas of science, such as cosmology, there are main theories, like big bang, which work well. But problems and anomalies are not swept under the rug out of fear of excommunication. It is OK to propose another theory since the phycista are all trying to be objective to the nature of theory. But evolution is different in that there is genuine fear that the evolutionary goon squad will assisinate your character if you dare say anything but yes dear.

Look at all my posts. Beyond challenging perfection, I have attempted to provide alternate mechanisms like an entropy boundary and an energy balance. This is not religion. But the goon squads assume, since this is not in the memory evolutionary bible, it has to be religion. That approach for a open discusssion is more tactical than rational, so I ignore the goon squads and fight back. Eventually they convince the staff, that theology, like entropy and energy do not belong in a science forum. The goon squads need to diversify their education to include basic physics and physical chemistry.

Selective Advantage:

What I would like to do is talk about selective or natural advantage. I have to admit, this is a good theory, because it is simple and has many applications. What is also good about this theory is it does not require full understanding of the chemical mechanisms of evolution to be useful. This flexibility allowed thistheory to be vuseful even before we knew anything about DNA. Knowledge of DNA was not even needed when selective advantage appeared; black box was good enough. Back in the day, one could have said what we now call genes was done with minuture squirrels. The theory of selective advantage would still work; better little squirrels will persist. Maybe I can see why adding water to the analysis is not needed, even if this is a more refined mechanisms; squirrels can work.

At this time I would to expand upon the theory selective advantage by showing some unique situations allow this theory to fluff. With humans there are some people who love the hot weather and summer. There are others peopl ewho love the cold and the winter. What that means, if this group were living in a place of four seasons, iover the process of a year, one group will have selective advantage in the summer and the other group will have selective advantage in the winter. The environment, in the case the changing of the season, will determine who will have the advantage at any given time of yea. Evolution may go two paths depending how busy the couples get different times of the year. Daytime and nocturnal critters each have selective advantage part of the day.

Say we add the brain as a wild card varaible to the above. Instead of just going with the ebb and flow of individual selective advantage, as the seasons change, let use use the brain. If I liked the cold, but was living in Florida, I would have selective disadvantage, since my body is always too hot. But if I was smart, I would sense by strengths and weakness and migrate to where the weather is colder. Using the same genes and a little brain power, I can migrate into selective advantage.

I like the idea that the migration of the first pre-humans out of Africa, was in response to needing to find a place that offered selective advantage. The other half of split in the tree, who would stay put, had selective advantage at that place. The pre-human group needed to find its advantage, which was much further north.

There is also another layer to selective advantage, besides using the brain to migrate where the weather suits your clothes. An animal can gain selective advantage by using the brain to alter the environment so that the altered environment can give them a selective advantage. The beaver builds dams that cause flooding. Animals that are good hunter, but who can't swim, will now have a selective disadantage; overnight.

Humans are the best example of changing the environment to create selective advantage. The final result may not be natural selection, but it will be still be selective advantage. Say I like the cold, but live in a hot place. I can use AC to keep by house super cold. Now, even though I am in the land of heat lovers, living in a warm place, in my cold house, I can have selective advantage.

To Wellwisher:

Your posts contain several misunderstandings or “false assumptions /presumptions.” For example:
Your post 256 states:

(1) {The start} “When evolution is discussed, I get the impression from the proponents that the current model of evolution is already perfect and there are zero conceptual problems. This is unique to science …”

(2) “The proponents of evolution act as critics, {of those challenging ToE} trying to defend perfection, without ever providing logic or data as a means to refute ideas. It is always appeal to emotion or lumping all ideas into a version of creationism …”

(3) “The unwritten assumption of sufficient energy for full randomization is not correct, which is why some people are not comfortable with the odds applied to evolution. …”

Replies:
(1) No one well versed in the ToE would claim it is perfected. The ToE has a long history of being modified and even of long accepted frauds being exposed. That continues today. For example, on TV a few days ago there was story about a new Dinosaur Museum and some modifications to prior beliefs made possible by more recent fossil finds. Only ones I remember now had to do with how the “hands” were oriented on the arms and some details about the stance of some. I am old enough to remember when only a few were suggesting that the birds evolved from dinosaurs, but now that is widely accepted. Like the Theory of Gravity, there is little likely hood any revision that refute older general beliefs will emerge, but both theories are still being discussed and refined.

(2) Totally false. It is the “proponents of ToE” that are changing it with usually only minor modifications. Your (2) is based on your false (1) impression. You need to read more about the ToE to avoid making these false presumptions. The ToE has been changing since the start precisely because field research and DNA comparative studies have been discovering new facts.

(3) No one well versed in the ToE would dream of postulating your “full randomization” is needed by the ToE. We know many parts of the DNA re much more stable than others – rarely have copy errors, etc. Furthermore, many microorganisms are known to have sections of their DNA which have evolved to be quite likely to change, as that makes for more diversity in the next generation and permits some to resist man’s antibiotics, etc. – a real survival aid, from their POV, has been selected for. Only YOU in what seems to be great ignorance seem to think there is something special or required about “full randomization”

Post 273 repeats many of these errors, but does have a reasonable discussion of “selective advantage” but you also say:

(1) “I have attempted to provide alternate mechanisms like an entropy boundary and an energy balance."
Reply: Can you tell where and how this blocks evolution of is in conflict with the ToE? I.e. how it differs from the ToE?

Certainly, and more as physic than the ToE, energy is required to maintain anything separated from the environment in a non-equilibrium relationship with that environment. I.e. all life forms do at least part of the time need to import energy (and BTW, get rid of waste by-products produced as they use this energy.)

What more than that is part of your different theory? I suspect your false belief that “full randomization” is somehow required for a correct theory may be your theory’s starting point as at times you have, especially with poorly shuffled cards analogy, note that achieving “full randomization” may require more energy than is available – That could be, but so what as “full randomization” is not required by the conventional ToE, and in fact many examples are known where “full randomization” has been selected against – For example the specialized for rapid mutation sections of DNA in some microorganisms.

(2) “I like the idea that the migration of the first pre-humans out of Africa, was in response to needing to find a place that offered selective advantage. … The pre-human group needed to find its advantage, which was much further north. …”

Reply:This strongly hints that “purpose” instead of “chance variations and then selection” has a role to play, which in this case is obviously preposterous, given the total ignorance about average temperature vs. latitude existing in the “pre-humans.” I.e. they did NOT try to find “their nitch”, an environment which gave them an advantage.

Those that on average died further north than where they were born, slowly over thousand of generations were selected for different genetic characteristics than those that by chance drifted southward on average to die. Characteristic in the northern gene pool such as lighter color skin that allowed the weaker sun to make the vitamin D they needed, etc. were favored and those in the gene pool moving south gained more skin pigmentation to protect better against the UV and skin cancer, etc. None of these very ignorant “pre-humans” was finding their more naturally advantaged place. THERE IS NO PLAN OR INTENTION TO EVOLUTION. NO OBJECTIVES. NO GOALS.

Reading your post I (and many others) get the impression you are very false in your claims about wanting to be more scientific. You do a good job of hiding your anti-ToE agenda, but in sections like these suggesting purpose play a role (or other creationist ideas , such as God had a plan / a design in mind, etc.) do occasionally “slip out” despite your best efforts to hid your agenda.

If you look at other areas of science, such as cosmology, there are main theories, like big bang, which work well. But problems and anomalies are not swept under the rug out of fear of excommunication. It is OK to propose another theory since the phycista are all trying to be objective to the nature of theory. But evolution is different in that there is genuine fear that the evolutionary goon squad will assisinate your character if you dare say anything but yes dear.

And yet evolutionary scientists have very public arguments over details of evolution. Google "punctuated equilibrium vs phyletic gradualism" for an example, with people like Gould and Dawkins arguing quite publicly. Neither has, in your words, been "assassinated" or "excommunicated" - nor has either one said "yes dear."

So I fear your premise fails in the real world.


At this time I would to expand upon the theory selective advantage by showing some unique situations allow this theory to fluff. With humans there are some people who love the hot weather and summer. There are others peopl ewho love the cold and the winter. What that means, if this group were living in a place of four seasons, iover the process of a year, one group will have selective advantage in the summer and the other group will have selective advantage in the winter.

If "loving hot weather" meant "reproduced more successfully in hot weather" then yes, they would have a competitive advantage in hot weather. (Of course, in most climates on earth, a group that can tolerate BOTH will outcompete a group that can tolerate one or the other.)


Say we add the brain as a wild card varaible to the above. Instead of just going with the ebb and flow of individual selective advantage, as the seasons change, let use use the brain. If I liked the cold, but was living in Florida, I would have selective disadvantage, since my body is always too hot. But if I was smart, I would sense by strengths and weakness and migrate to where the weather is colder. Using the same genes and a little brain power, I can migrate into selective advantage.

Agreed. Intelligence (and later technology) can help people deal with the environments they are in and/or alter them to make them more survivable.


Humans are the best example of changing the environment to create selective advantage. The final result may not be natural selection, but it will be still be selective advantage. Say I like the cold, but live in a hot place. I can use AC to keep by house super cold. Now, even though I am in the land of heat lovers, living in a warm place, in my cold house, I can have selective advantage.

Yes, you can alter your environment to ensure you survive and pass on your genes. Evolutionarily this led to development of our brains, since groups that could do this well (make better clothing etc) did better that groups that could not.

My contention is not with evolution itself but the theory really seems pretentious to me.

What does that mean? How can a theory be pretentious?I bet that means, it is pretentious of scientific men to remove God from creation, - Big Chiller's somewhat dishonestly hidden assertion - not clearly stated.

It is much like Wellwishers' repeated postings about how "full randomness" is never achieved in evolution so in DNA duplications, like hands dealt from a poorly shuffled deck of cards, (his often used analogy) there is a non-random effect operating - making part of the DNA changes non-random.*
This too is an unstated and dishonest hidden attempt to open a path for non-random guidance by some greater power.

Both Big Chiller and Wellwisher are intelligent and know there is no evidence supporting a "God creation" or "Greater power guiding" POV and "tons of evidence," in several unrelated fields, supporting ToE, so they avoid clearly stating their hidden beliefs, while attacking the only plausible theory, the ToE.
------------
* I.e. God or some great power has "stacked the deck" so while evolution has much of the story correct, it is not the full story. - I.e. Wellwisher has FAITH, but no evidence that: Evolution from single cells is not "fully random" - Evolution has a "sense of direction" - It had no choice but to produce man, etc.

By edit after this later post, 280, of Wellwisher's:

{post 280} ... This does not refute evolution, but implies there is a partial sense of direction ...Thanks for finally becoming honest* that you have FAITH that evolution has a sense of direction.**
-------
* (after I exposed your purpose in my post above - I.e. why you were going on and on in many posts about "lack of full randomization")

** Now a little more honesty, please:
From where do the specified directions come? God? ETs? or what?

This is why religion smells evolution as being a competing religion and goes after it.

'Religion' does not 'go after' evolution. I dare say your religion may go after evolution but it is a bit presumptious to assume your religion is all religion.

The majority of christian churches for instance do not have a problem with evolution.

You posts are simply fraught with misconceptions and outright falshoods.:(

No one well versed in the ToE would dream of postulating your “full randomization” is needed by the ToE. We know many parts of the DNA re much more stable than others – rarely have copy errors, etc. Furthermore, many microorganisms are known to have sections of their DNA which have evolved to be quite likely to change, as that makes for more diversity in the next generation and permits some to resist man’s antibiotics, etc. – a real survival aid, from their POV, has been selected for. Only YOU in what seems to be great ignorance seem to think there is something special or required about “full randomization”


I invented an extension of statistics that can include systems that lack the full energy needed for randomization. The goal was to help expand the current thinking of random systems into a broader base model.

For example, a six sided dice has 1 to 6 odds for each side to appear. Say I loaded that dice. The loading will make it impossible to achieve the same dice odds as before, since you can't overcome the load using energy/entropy (roll faster) to achieve the full unloaded dice randomization. Certain sides will continue to appear more often, while others will hardly ever appear. The DNA behaves like it is loaded. The example of certain bacteria loading the DNA dice so certain sides appear more often, while there are others sides that hardly ever make mistakes.

This change is more about a conceptual POV. If you look at the entire phenonena, like the dual state dice above, there are nonloaded and loaded situations as part of the width of the model. The new model take into consideration both states by normalizing to full randomization. If we just focus on just the loaded dice, as a separate phenonena, without comparing to unloaded dice, we can still model the loaded as being random in its own unique way. This still get good results. Technically, this is oversimplified, since the model does not include the entire dice effect.

Bacteria have their DNA dice loaded, so certain aspects of the DNA will more easily change for the needs of evolution (lucky 7) while others are highly conserved (snake eyes). This does not refute evolution, but implies there is a partial sense of direction using the broader concept of both insufficient and/or sufficient energy to achieve full randomization on the DNA.


On a different note, the theory of selective advantage or natural selection is also a special case of a broader theory. The cell expends a lot of energy to segregate cations at the cellular membrane. This reduces the entropy at the membrane relative to a uniform solution of cations. Selective advantage and the induced membrane boundary both move in same direction with respect to entropy.

If you look at selective advantage, it lowers the degrees of freedom (lowers the entropy) within theorerical diversity that is created by the DNA in favor of a narrowed data set. In other words, natural selection moves in the same direction as the boundary induction within cells. The egg at the boundary is more fundamental than the selective advantage chicken.

This broader principle of lowering entropy, due to the energy intensive boundary induction also goes into the cell lowering the entropy on the DNA; it will load the dice, so there will not be sufficient energy in the cell for full DNA randomization. The membrane entropy induction goes outward and inward. The first tool will make this second tool easier to model. It is still evolution but 2.0, where the simplified assumptions get expanded into into lower entropy models (combine diversity into higher order).

My contention is not with evolution itself but the theory really seems pretentious to me. As long as you confine your comments to vague generalities and personal judgments without basis, you can conceal the fact that you don't understand evolutionary theory. But you cannot contribute to a discussion about it.

When you attempt specific complaints or actual argument, as you have in the past, you reveal that.

I invented an extension of statistics that can include systems that lack the full energy needed for randomization. The goal was to help expand the current thinking of random systems into a broader base model. It would been easier to take a basic stats course. What you have invented is long established routine, and used every day by evolutionary theorists as well as many other researchers in biological fields.

Look at all my posts. Beyond challenging perfection, I have attempted to provide alternate mechanisms like an entropy boundary and an energy balance. You have spammed this forum with garbage straight from creationist websites, goofy presumptions, and insulting assertions concerning people and theories you know less than nothing about. That's about it.

The problems you attempt to fix do not exist. You don't know what you are talking about. OK?

A better theory of evolution should be able to interface abiogenesis, with biological evolution and with the evolution of human consciousness, since this range is all about life. If a theory can only do one of the three, how do you know that theory reflects reality?

Here is an analogy. We will break the growth of a tree down into three stages of its life. We will then treat each stage as though it is independent of the other two stages and call that the best theory possible. I see that approach as flawed or at least over simplified.

Maybe those who like evolution, as is, can explain the logical assumptions behind dissociating that theory from the two bookends of life, that came before and after the evolutionary theory.

A better theory for evolution would use the concept of entropy, as a central premise, instead of the premise of random changes. Entropy is very similar to random in many ways, but with the constraint that the randomness of entropy can be induced into an ordered path. Let me give an example of this effect within nature, then I will show how the cell establishes a parallel set of conditions.

If we expand a gas, the entropy will increase as the gas molecules gain additional degrees of freedom. Under the expansion, the gas will cool as the increasing entropy absorbs energy (energy conservation).

Say I had a large room of moist air. In the center, I will place a condenser which will take the water out of the air and turn it into a liquid. Going from vapor to liquid will lower the entropy of the water. Since the water vapor exerts a partial pressure within the air, the water condensation will lower the pressure (entropy) contribution of the water vapor. This will pull a slight vacuum near the condenser.

If you look this closely, the condensor will induce a zone of low pressure. This will cause the gas in the rest of the room, to expand toward the condenser (higher to lower pressure). The bulk room gas is gaining entropy (randomness), while also being give a sense of direction (move toward that tiny zone of lower pressure).

Relative to the cell, the use of ATP energy to pump and segregate potassium and sodium ions lowers the entropy at the membrane. The cations would prefer to be much more random within the water. This entropy lowering induction is very simular to our condenser, in the above example, with both lowering entropy.

The loss of entropy, at the membrane, will allow entropy to increase elsewhere (analogous to higher to low pressure) but in a way that directs the entropy to the conditions set by the low entropy (pressure) zone. The entropy on the DNA (mutations) is analogous to the high pressure gas expanding toward low pressure, with this apparent random genetic change having a sense of direction.

Selective advantage gives a sense of direction, but does so after the random. But the condensor example, shows that an increase in entropy can also be in response to a lowering of entropy. In the condenser example, for this to work continuously we need to constantly add energy to the condenser, or else the flow of entropy would stop working. The cell has to constantly add energy to the membrane for the same reason, with tweaks in performance altering the (pressure) gradient.

... If we expand a gas, the entropy will increase as the gas molecules gain additional degrees of freedom. ...It has been many years since I did thermodynamic analysis, so I will lets someone else correct many of your other errors. I will just note that the degrees of freedom of a gas are not related to its density as you assert.

BTW, When your start with ignorance and a false premise, normally you reach a false conclusion.

Monatomic gases like He have three translational degrees of freedom.

Diatomic gases like O2 have these three plus two rotational degrees of freedom (Not three rotational freedoms as the rotation about the line joining the two Os makes no change.)

Non linear molecules like H2O have 6 degrees of freedom, but linear triatomic molecules like CO2, sometimes written: OCO have the five degrees of freedom of diatomic molecules, plus two flex modes I will soon illustrate. (H2O also has at least one flex mode more, which I will not illustrate)

If you had greatly compressed the gas instead of expanded it some new degrees of freedom, "internal degrees of freedom" associated with the excitation of vibrational states start to enter. Then the picture gets more complex, and much more complex if you do it correctly with quantum effects included.

For example O2 only has the symmetric oscillation, which can be pictured as:
O--O ---> O-O ---> O--O etc. (some times called the "stretch mode")

But OCO has that plus the anti-symmetric mode (or degree of freedom) which can be pictured as:
O-C--O ----> O--C-O etc. and still more the flex modes in both planes, harder to picture but sort of like:

O......O
....C (ignore the dots they only hold spaces so Sciforum's computer does not drop them)

Half a cycle later becoming:

....C
O.....O

I.e. IN THE PLANE OF YOUR SCREEN, THE "C" oscillates across the line between the two "O"

Now I cannot even try to illustrate the corresponding mode where the "C" is moving out of the screen towards you and half cycle late is behind the screen farther from you than the two Os.

As you obviously don't know much about any of this, please tell, DEFINE, what is the entropy of gas and then support your claims with more than false words.

When you expand a gas it will get cooler. Try this for yourself. Where is the energy going? The energy is going into entropy.

Relative to the expanding gas, it now has the extra freedom to diffuse in bulk.

By degrees of freedom, I am talking about more than just gaseous energy levels. A defect in a diamond provides additional degrees of freedom to a perfect crystal. Mutations have additional degrees of freedom beyond perfect base pairing. Random events add addtional degrees of freedom to an ordered path. These are also examples of entropy.

The point remains, when we lower entropy in one place we can increase and direct entropy from another place. We can take advantage of chemical potentials like pressure to direct an entropy increase.

The energy is going into entropy.That sentence is gibberish!!!
A defect in a diamond provides additional degrees of freedom to a perfect crystal. Mutations have additional degrees of freedom beyond perfect base pairing. Random events add additional degrees of freedom to an ordered path. These are also examples of entropy.No they're not.
The point remains, when we lower entropy in one place we can increase and direct entropy from another place. We can take advantage of chemical potentials like pressure to direct an entropy increase.The Second Law of Thermodynamics allows for spatially and temporally local reversals of entropy. They do not have to be balanced by an increase in entropy somewhere else, although obviously most are.

As I have posted before, the Big Bang may have been nothing more than a rather large local reversal of entropy.

"...Originally Posted by wellwisher
The energy is going into entropy."
That sentence is gibberish!!! ...It certainly is. Likewise his:
"chemical potentials like pressure" is gibberish too.

He doe not even understand what he has read! Mixes it all up - spouts nonsense. I waiting for "gravity is energy" "temperature is entropy", etc.

Worse, I troubled to explain at the level a six grader could understand what are "degrees of freedom" with examples but it went over his head. - He only speaks gibberish and has no knowledge of the subject. - He can not even define entropy for a gas, much less for cell.

The sum total of his knowledge is that energy can reduce entropy (which he does not know what that is, as he cannot define it, etc.) locally but it will increase elsewhere.

Wellwisher, for someone who claims to be a chemical engineer, I find it very puzzling that you don't seem to have a grasp on the concept of entropy.

When you expand a gas it will get cooler. Try this for yourself.

I tried your experiment with a a canister of helium, but it didn't work the way you said it would. I cracked open the valve and the escaping gas heated up! Where did the energy come from? Is this an explanation for abiogenesis?;)

I tried your experiment with a a canister of helium, but it didn't work the way you said it would. I cracked open the valve and the escaping gas heated up! ...Wellwisher is totally ignorant of thermodynamics. Spouting many false statements about facts that have been known for more than 200 years:

When gas rapidly expands (very little heat transfer with the environment, as was the case when you let He escape from a high pressure tank) the temperature change can be negative or positive depending upon the temperature of the gas before expansion. This is because the Joule/Thompson coefficient is function of temperature given by this curve:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/8f/Joule-Thomson_curves_2.svg/400px-Joule-Thomson_curves_2.svg.png
Note that at room temperature (T = ~300 degrees K) this coefficient is negative for only H2, He and Neon (not shown on the graph) so they heat with rapid expansion at room temperature. An "ideal gas" has no temperature change if expansions is into vacuum. If the expansion is restrained, for example by piston, then it will cool. Work is being done on the piston and this energy comes from the internal energy of the gas, dropping its temperature.

I.e. as you experimentally observed for He, these three gases will heat when pressure is rapidly reduced (I.e. when it undergoes a throttling process expansion) at room temperature. If you had a tank of N2 which was warmer than 621 K (348 °C) then the N2 when released would heat up, not cool.

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joule%E2%80%93Thomson_effect

SUMMARY: Wellwisher is totally ignorant and spouting nonsense which he thinks supports his false conclusions

I tried your experiment with a a canister of helium, but it didn't work the way you said it would. I cracked open the valve and the escaping gas heated up! Where did the energy come from? Is this an explanation for abiogenesis?

That is an obvious smoke screen by those who who are trying to defend against impending obsolence. It is just the most used play out of the atheist religion handbook, which doesn't fool anyone but fools.

In engineering, entropy is connected to irretrevable heat that is lost during work cycles. This lost energy is conserved, but goes into various forms of entropy. It is pointless to make a list of entropy situations since there are many many ways for entropy to be expressed. One only has to consider the variety of materials within machines offering endless combinations to lose work efficiency. My guess is a narrow list is the reason evolution did not see this coming. You need to open the mind and think, not memorize.

The segregation of cations at the cell membrane lowers the entropy of these two cations; the cations lose that extra degree of freedom they had in the uniform solution, such as banging off the other cation. If we stopped adding energy to the cation pumps, the cations would attempt to diffuse back into a uniform solution, so they can maximize their entropy, just like the rest of nature.

This most energy intensive process within life (ion pumps) is designed to go against the normal direction of cationic entropy, thereby making use of the induced entropy potential to help direct the rebound that will attempt to increase the entropy again. All the cell needs to due is direct the natural push to gain more degrees of freedom, into useful tasks, like murations.

The choice of these two cations, sodium and potassium, for inducing the lowered entropy at the cell boundary, was not a random choice, but based on the unique impact each cation has on water. This was already part of the design for life, even before life, since you can't substitute other cations and get the same level of impact. No matter how much trial and error there may or may not have been, these cations were the best choice way in advance. Some people call that natural design.

Sodium cations are kosmotropic which means they create order within water relative to pure water. Potassium cations are chaotropic which means these creates disorder (chaos) in water relative to pure water. The water would prefer balance its aqueous entropy, on both sides of the membrane, rather than become segregrated into high and low aqueous entropy. There is a double entropy push; cationic concentration gradient and the balance of the aqueous order. This doubles the options for directing entropy.

... This most energy intensive process within life (ion pumps) is designed to go against the normal direction of cationic entropy, …You have obviously read about ion pumps maintaining non-equal ionic concentrations for the inside and outside of cell. If there were no energy driven selective transport process simple diffusion would eventually make all ionic concentrations of the two sides the same; but as you don’t understand what entropy is, you are already stating non-sense here. I.e. “cationic entropy” is nonsense as entropy is not a property of ions (of either charge) It is system property. Then a few words later, in the same sentence, more nonsense as you speak of “induced entropy potential” – Entropy is not a potential either. The next sentence:

... All the cell needs to due is direct the natural push to gain more degrees of freedom, into useful tasks
only has one clear example of your ignorance and nonsense – cell don’t “gain more degrees of freedom” for useful (or useless) tasks. “degrees of freedom” is a well define concept that I explained to you in post 296, even with example, not just some words you can fling out at random in an effort to impress equally ignorant people. As written your sentence is yet another example of your gibberish. Perhaps you too have mild dyslexia and intended the three words I have made bold in the sentence to be: “are due to its”? Then the sentence would not be gibberish; it would only be a nonsensical statement, not both nonsense and gibberish.

You can use the phrase “degrees of freedom” in a political context, etc. but don’t use it again in a thermodynamic context until you understand the very well defined concept it is referring to.
... The choice of these two cations, sodium and potassium, for inducing the lowered entropy at the cell boundary, was not a random choice, but based on the unique impact each cation has on water. This was already part of the design for life, even before life, since you can't substitute other cations and get the same level of impact. No matter how much trial and error there may or may not have been, these cations were the best choice way in advance. Some people call that natural design.Here you are trying to rationalize your religious like belief – that a choice was made by some greater intelligence, etc. You could equally well say the “choice of ~20% oxygen 80% atmosphere for Earth and a distance from the sun with water in all three states was the best “choice way in advance” and evidence of “natural design.” It is not a choice by some designer and in fact until green plants evolved, the Earth, for most of its history had reducing, not oxidizing atmosphere. Before that evolution only anaerobic life existed on Earth some of which can still be found in the guts of cows etc. I.e. life evolved to fill the possible niches, and they changed after green plants produced O2 for the air.


... Sodium cations are kosmotropic which means they create order within water relative to pure water. Potassium cations are chaotropic which means these creates disorder (chaos) in water relative to pure water.The first part of that is true but irrelevant to the ion pumps. I don't know about the second part but tend to think it false as around ANY positive ion the permanently polarized water molecules do from clusters with the ion in the center and the O atom of H2O closer to the + ion than the two Hs (essentially protons that are repelled by the + ion). So water with ions in it is more ordered than pure water when not near boiling temperatures. The reason why this has nothing to do with the “ion pumps” is that none of these stastically clusters do pass thru the selective channel in the cell membrane wall – only the ions do as is well illustrated here:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a5/Scheme_sodium-potassium_pump-en.svg/300px-Scheme_sodium-potassium_pump-en.svg.png The energy for over powering the tendency of diffusion to make all concentrations the same come from chemical reaction acting on ATP converting it to a lower energy molecule ADP. There is an enzyme involved and in the process the three Na+ ions (the red spheres in the drawing) with its action, the shape of the ion channel changes releasing 3 Na+ to the cell exterior. That removal of positive charge from the interior leaves it negative wrt to the exterior and the new configuration of the channel now permits two K+ to pass thru the channel. – Nothing to do with the statistical formation of H2O cluster around ions in water as you suggest with more nonsense. Typically this net transport of one + charge to the exterior can continue until it achieves ~ -70mV interior, then the "sodium pump" is not strong enough to pump more Na+ to the outside against the electrostatic attraction of the negative interior.

... The water would prefer balance its aqueous entropy, on both sides of the membrane, rather than become segregated into high and low aqueous entropy. There is a double entropy push; cationic concentration gradient and the balance of the aqueous order. This doubles the options for directing entropy.So much nonsense here I hardly know where to start. (1)Water does not have preferences or dislikes. (2) there is no such thing as “aqueous entropy” (nor is there “liquid entropy” nor is there “gaseous entropy” or “hydrogen entropy” – You need to learn what entropy is and what it is not before inventing and slinging crazy terms with the word “entropy” in them. (3) the water is not “segregated” – what you are trying to express, I think, is that: “the normal equal concentrations that diffusion would make on both sides of the membrane is disturbed by and ACTIVE, energy driven process the cells have evolved. (4) Entropy does not "push" it is not force. (5) How does the "balance of the aqueous order" provide the other part of the "push"? - in fact what the hell does "balance of the aqueous order" mean? - That seems like more gibberish, so I can't call it example of nonsense (6) .

To show why "degrees of freedom" relates to how many mode of energy storage there are, and is a very well defined concept, here is the molar heat capacity of some gases:

Data at 15°C and 1 atmosphere.
Gas Constant Volume Heat Capacity cV(J/K)

Ar 12.5
He 12.5 note these two monatomic gases only have 3 degrees of freedom so less energy is required to rise their temperature 1 degree.
CO 20.7
H2 20.4
HCl 21.4
N2 20.6
NO 20.9
O2 21.1
Cl2 24.8 These 7 diatomic gases have 6 degrees of freedom, (3 of translation plus the stretch mode and two rotational ones) so can absorb more energy in the six modes before temperture rises one degree.
CO2 28.2
CS2 40.9
H2S 25.4
N2O 28.5
SO2 31.3 These five triatomic molecules have at least two "flex modes" or 8 degrees of freedom so it takes even more energy to rise them one degree. From the value 40.9 for CS2, I am nearly sure the three atoms form a triangle and it then has 9 degrees of freedom. (The rotational moment of inertia is not zero for any of the three possible rotations.)

All as I explained in post 296, but Wellwisher does not understand and still misuses the well defined term "degrees of freedom" in his posted nonsense.

According to evolution the genetic changes are random, with selective advantage deciding which of these changes will persist. In the case of bird color and mating, the bird's brain is chosing which colors will have selective advantage. The brain does not work in a random way, but is based on order.

This is not much different than the way humans do this. If we decided full figured or skinny women are the most desireable, through the advertising and herd migration, this becomes selective advantage. It is done in the brain, whose most fundamental potential, is connected to an ordering induction into lowered entropy via ion pumping. Random will be reduced to order ib line with other order.

If you look at modern cells, ATP energy is used to create potassium and sodium ion gradients across the cell membrane. In essense, the ATP energy, lowers the entropy of these two cations, via enzymes, by segregating them. This potential is then used for material transport, among other things.

The normal direction of entropy in the universe is for the entropy to increase, yet the cell membrane, through ATP energy and enzymes (more than any place in the cell) does the opposite, and decreases the entropy of these cations.

If you look at photosynthesis, water and CO2 are combined to form reduced materials such as cellulose. This is also an example of entropy lowering, with the energy required, coming from the sun. The disorder within CO2 gas and the disorder within liquid water are turned into molecular order; cellulose. The schema is the same as above, higher entropy moving toward fewer degrees of freedom, using energy. This too is a low entropy boundary condition.

Abiogenesis, I expect would have made use of a similar schema, where entropy is lowered into order by using energy. The current idea of a totally random set of steps is the problem, since it sort of implies a drunken god of chaos stumbling and falling, but somehow making life. That seems far fetched, which is why nobody has had any luck. Making life, which is highly ordered could not be done by a drunken god.

Creationism assumes order, with these two above entropy lowering inductions within modern cells, examples of energized boundary conditions for such an induction into order.

The way I would approach abiogenesis is to make use of the sun for energy, with the energy able to drive a simple mechanism that can lower entropy at a simple membrane boundary. The resonance structure of chlorophyl could be induced naturally, since it will move aliphatics into lower energy because of the resonance. Next, we need membrane material. This simple boundary is able to create an order induction inside its volume.

With an entropy lowering boundary, the genetic material needed for eoclution would have been expected to go from higher to lower entropy or RNA to DNA. The reason is RNA has higher entropy than DNA, is RNA can form both single or double helixes, while DNA can only form double helix (less freedom=lower entropy). This is consistent with an energy intensive ordered boundary approach to abiogenesis and evolution.

What I learn from creation is don't trust the drunken god of random, since he/she can not be depended on. Evolution is far ahead, while the drunken god, even with human holding him up, still can nnot get the ball of life rolling. You need a God that has a sense of direction based on an ordering approach such as entropy lowering boundaries.

One more addendum, natural proteins are left handed helixes instead of both left and right. This too impies loss of entropy, from two to one degree of freedom. This is expected not a mystery like in the land of the drunken god of random, who could not even prevent this since his magic is weak.

More tedious word salad.

It might be too difficut for you so, go slow.

Natural selection is a mental construct that helps us create a sense of order within the chaos. One assumption is that genetic change will occur and this is random. Of all the random changes occurring within a species, future order is created via natural selection. This means the original entropy within all the genetic variations, within the group, is lowered via natural selection; entropy lowers.

The question becomes where does this entropy lowering push come from?

I think it is important to think and question the cause and effect of selective advantage to make sure it adds up conceptually. This is better than living in a black box of tradition where questioning is frowned upon, less we blaspheme the sacred rites.

What we do know, from observation, is nature constantly changes. This means the parameters for selective advantage in nature also change with time. The dinosaurs had their day until the parameters changed and then different critters had the advantage. This suggests that the potential for selective advantage tries to become minimized in any given environment. Thick fur in a hot climate needs additional body feature to deal with the extra heat. Thin fur is a simple way to lower the energy requirement. Or selective advantage is the path of efficiency.

If we set up a hierarchy of potentials, nature can change randomly and the DNA can change randomly. With all that entropy occurring, order via selective advantage wins the battle, with this order a function of overall efficiency in the chaos.

Consider the hypothetical situation where we have nature in random flux, the DNA in random flux and natural selection is also in flux, randomly changing its criteria. This does not coordinate with observation.

It would be like a herd of deer constantly changing the mating games and its rules, sort of like PC so everyone has the chance to be the winner. The result will be deevolutionary. Instead of this hypothetical, what we see is a push toward a sense of order, based on efficiency and minimizing potential with any environment, while also eliminating less optimized changes in the DNA that are inefficient. Life becomes better and better.

Where does this push come from; maximize efficiency in the light of two randomly changing potentials.

If you look at plant cells, photosynthesis fixes carbon. The CO2 starts with higher entropy or more degrees of freedom within space and time. The CO2 can float around the earth and even amplify global entropy via global warming.

Once the CO2 is fixed into the plant, the entropy of the CO2 and the earth lowers. Solar energy is being used to lower entropy by means of a natural chemical mechanism. It takes energy to lower entropy with the sun providing this energy.

Natural selection is also about lowering entropy in randomness of the DNA and the environment. My guess is the membrane boundary conditions of life, by using energy to lower entropy (solar or ATP), is the chemical foundation of selective advantage. The brain uses the same energy/entropy schema; used ATP energy to segregate cations, causing behavior to have the same goal in mind.

One question I posed to myself, would selective advantage also favor more regulatory control over the DNA. Human can control the random of the environment so our energy potential can be minimized if the environment changes?

To regulate the DNA in the mold of lowered entropy, would be like natural selection on the DNA, where the rules of selection favor behavior leading to predictable changes.

Certain aspects of the DNA change faster than others. Although this is in bulk it does display a degree of order and efficiency. The question is how far down the DNA does this plan extend; bulk or more specific?

There would be a selective advantage if cells could better control the random in the DNA so changes become more in line of what is needed and not needed changes have a buffer effect.

You should really get a better grasp on entropy. Or at least quit trying to apply it to everything.

To create something living we can follow the template of life. Here is an angle that came to me while I walkedthe beach this afternoon. If was based on thinking I used to do. If you look at the DNA to make RNA templates from the DNA templates we need energy. To go from RNA to protein, once again we need to add energy. As such, in terms of energy potential DNA is at lowest potential since we need to keeping adding energy to go to proteins.

Since the natural flow of energy potential, in this universe is higher to lower, in the cel this means from the protein grid to the DNA, since this is the direction of lowering energy. We can go the other way, from DNA to proteins but we need to add energy, with that energy building up energy capacitance within the higher potential of the protein grid.

Relative to the protein grid, even more energy is added to ion pump proteins to segregate and exchange cations. This is the top of the energy mountain. This sets the maximum potential with the DNA, which is at the bottom of the hill. This is a very useful arrangement.

When cells accumulate energy rich molecules, as a precursor to cell cycles, they climb another energy hill. This hill represents the energy peak. During cell cycles the cell goes the other way, toward lower potential. The transition into protein synthesis drives the DNA, RNA, protein cycle up its energy curve as the food materials lower potential (metabolized), with the net effects a energy movement down a global energy hill.

Duplication of the DNA, sort of stops the DNA, RNA, protein push up the energy hill sort of at DNA, RNA more or less, but not all the way to protein. It does not go all the way up the energy hill to protein at this point. But the double DNA is at higher potential that single DNA. Other things need to occur to get the DNA back down to lowest potential.

The object of this energy analysis is regardless of the bells and whistles in the details, the basic energy curves are the same for all cells. This suggests making life should try to copy the energy curves, since the bells and whistles are more for fine tuning that the barebones of life.

What is important about the DNA hard drive being at lowest potential is we can tweaks the DNA potential slightly, without changing the DNA other than by means of pertubatiins within in 3-D configuration. This allows us to get the dynmaic shape that optimizes potential of the protein grid.

The energy and entropy of the membrane is very important for defining the top of the energy hill, which impacts the DNA shape in the energy well.

Rather than build your life on random use the energy grid.

Red blood cells are alive in all sense but reproduction. The lost nuclei and DNA of the red blood cell, when these are extruded, are dead in the water. This tells us what is really alive in the cell. The DNA is virtual while the cell body is actual in terms of life. This is because of the molecular capacitance of the cell body compared to the virtual templates of the DNA.

In terms of virus, they are also virtual, and need an actual cell to be alive, just like the DNA. The red blood cells lost their own machinery for reproduction and therefore canot help virus either.

If you begin at the DNA, the cell needs to add energy to make RNA on the DNA. It then needs to add energy to make protein from RNA. Based on an energy hierarchy, the DNA is at lowest potential. The natural flow of energy is from higher to lower, which implies from the living part of the cell to the DNA. This allows cells to react to the environment in real time.

When red blood cells lose their DNA, they also lose their lowest potential energy well. This keeps the cell at higher potential. This plays a role in their important job exchanging oxygen and CO2. It might help keep the iron in hemoglobin in an excited state.

Contrary to the randomness of evolution that is taught, evolution has a sense of direction. The way to prove this is connected to entropy. According to physics the entropy of the universe is increasing. But the entropy of life is decreasing as it evolves.

In engineering, entropy is connected to the irretreviable energy due to inefficiency. The more inefficient, the more entropy since there is more irretrievable energy going into entropy. Biological systems are very efficient, with this efficiency progressing over time. This means entropy is lowering.

Entropy cannot lower over billions of years with a random system, since a random system will follow the direction of increasing.

This idea of lowering entropy is consistent with Darwin's theory of selective advantage and natural selection, since natural selection means most efficient; lowest entropy.

As a practical example, combustion in the presence of O2 will form CO2 and H2O and will generate heat and entropy. Metabolism does the same thing, but recovers most of the energy in the form of ATP, which can be used for biological work. This process lowers the entropy relative to the combustion since there is less irretrievable energy.

Evolution has been giving misinformation about random, since lowering of entropy can only occur if there is a strong sense of direction. Random will not allow entropy to lower over the long term as expressed by life. Good thing I didn't fall for the random illusion but stuck to my guns.

You know, if you had even the slightest clue as to what you're talkng about your posts could be interesting and informative.
As it is, you don't, so your posts are neither.

The only think that is random about evolution is that mutations are random with respepect to their fitness. Other than that, evolution is a process. It has direction and velocity.

I finally figured out how to explain my gut feeling for a conceptual inconsistency within modern evolutionary theory, that I have been attributing to entropy. This concern is not creationism, but it is a logical checks and balance for theory that is not logically consistent.

When I think about Darwin's theory of natural selection and evolution, his model is hard to refute since it is simple and fits the data. I give Darwin two thumbs up. The problem, I finally figured out, had to do with genetic assumptions that were added as an addendum decades later.

Darwin's model describes a sense of direction based on what he called natural selection. Natural selection is not random but can be inferred by observational patterns, which is how Darwin formed the theory in the first place. The theory came from consistent observational patterns. For example, if we had a short neck and long neck giraffe, we can predict the long neck version will have the selective advantage. This prediction is not based on throwing dice, but has a common sense order that Darwin called natural selection.

The order that Darwin suggested is based on a biologist's version of the theory of entropy. In engineering, entropy is connected to inefficiencies and wasted energy that is irretrievable, when making and designing machine. Selective advantages is based on biological efficiency and minimal wasted energy. The long neck giraffe uses less energy to feed, while the short neck has to jump up and down, which is less efficient resulting in a higher entropy state. I agree with Darwin since he defined a useful version of entropy appropriate to biological machines (life). Natural selection means efficiency which means the lowest entropy path is preferred. This is also true about machines, with more efficiency and less entropy, better. Machines evolve from the best.

That being said, since more efficient is the fundamental direction of evolution, this also implies that during evolution, life moved in the direction of lowering entropy states. Going from simple RNA replicators to complicated replicators with bells and whistles to make the base pairing faster and more accurate, was implicit of more efficiency, less wasted motion and lower entropy.

This direction of lowering entropy is not consistent with random changes within the DNA, leading the process. If random was leading, there could never be a sense of direction, such as improving efficiency. This does not mean genetic changes cannot be random, just this cannot be the primary drive for evolution, since random has no sense of direction other than repeat periodically like a dice.

If we go to the environment as the source of the potential for natural selection, this also has a problem. According to physics the universe moves in the direction of lowering energy and increasing entropy. These potentials better describe death than the direction of life.

If a tree dies, the energy value of the wood lowers to CO2 and H2O. The higher entropy would be expressed in total irretrevable energy in the form of gases and dust. Since this is going in the wrong direction, this also cannot be the source of selective advantage, efficiency and lowered entropy. Both random changes in DNA and the environment push the wrong way relative to Darwin.

What Darwin saw is life gaining energy, such as growing tree's wood, and lowering entropy, natural selection is increasing efficiency. However, random DNA and laws of physics (lower energy and higher entropy) oppose this. These two potential help via the process of elimination. But neither is the fundamental potential for the direction of evolution via natural selection. Logically this potential(s) needs to lower entropy and increase energy, so life can grow and evolve.

Except natural selection does not always select the most efficient forms. For instance, the peacock's tail is not a more efficient use of energy. The giraffe's long neck is not an advantage in a forest. The selection is based on a very complex and interconnected set of forces.

The peacocks tail is all about show for mating. If he has the correct tail, the mating process happens quicker; neural efficiency.

The environmental potentials are connected to lower energy and higher entropy. This has more a connection to death than life. In the forest the death factor will eliminate the giraffe since it creates inefficiencies to his design.

Dimmwitta has not evolved to the level of adult discussions, due to brain inefficiencies. His entropy is too high which is why he only able to wasted energy and motion when he participates in discussions.

If you understand how the process of evolution results in efficiencies over time, which implies entropy is lowering, this basic observation allows one to infer which things of life have the potential to pull life in this direction.

For example, photosyntheis fixes carbon. The solar energy that would be wasted impinging onto the earth, is converted to stored energy in an efficient way. Although the universe would prefer lower energy, the tree builds more and more energy value as it grows. Life is not concerned about the universe's rules. The tree is not going in the direction of lower energy until it dies.

This is one boundary condition (photosyntheis) moves in the same direction as evolution. It converts wasted solar energy into retrievable energy (wood). This is one of the primary boundary conditions with potential in the needed direction to overcome random DNA and universe potentials so life can evolve.

What are you saying that isn't said more clearly in the ToE?

If you include the idea of efficiency (entropy) to evolution, this POV then asks what are the sources of potential that can induce this. Like I said, the environment and random changes on the DNA will not favor evolution if these were the primary potentials. They are consistent as secondary variables.

The environment or the laws of physics, lower energy and higher entropy, is more conducive to death than life. As a secondary variable this can weed out the bottom of the curve, by means of lowering efficiency, so can entropy increases. It makes the long neck animal have to work to hard for food.

Completely random DNA will also create more inefficiency than efficiency and could also be used as a potential to weed out. But since these two variables so powerful, you need a powerful potential or two to push in the other direction, since evolution is not about that which is left over, but life pushing forward.

Like I said, the environment and random changes on the DNA will not favor evolution if these were the primary potentials.

Of course they will. Less fit organisms die; more fit ones reproduce. That's all the input from the environment you need.

The laws of physics say the universe moves in the direction of lower energy and higher entropy. Before there was life on earth these rules were in effect. Life, as an entity (not its impact) goes in the opposite direction. The tree gains energy value as it grows. This is not random, since it defies the direction of the universe. If the environment was a primary variable, life would have been neutralized right in the beginning; dead in the water, since energy would decrease to zero and nothing would be stored.

Life had to go many stages opposing lowest energy and higher entropy and then continue doing this for billions of years. The existing theory does not explain how this opposing energy direction is possible. It is more about an abstraction called natural, but does not say how it is possible for life can build up energy for billions of years when the universe prefers lowest energy. Maybe you can explain how existing evolutionary theory explains this. That is what I am trying to add.

I am not discounting evolution, but trying to make provisions for observations that are not explained by the theory. These are connected to the universe preferring lowest energy and highest entropy. If I kill an animal so life stops, the decay of the animal will follow the direction of lower energy and higher energy. The flesh will rot, dehydrate and oxidize until there is no energy left.

But if it is alive, life pushes in the opposite direction. This push is occurring all through evolution pushing in the direction of lower entropy efficiency and higher energy (growing). The adult can walk with more efficiency (lower entropy) that the child, since growth also lowers entropy and increases energy.

The laws of physics say the universe moves in the direction of lower energy and higher entropy. Before there was life on earth these rules were in effect. Life, as an entity (not its impact) goes in the opposite direction.

Really? So how does the formation of quartz crystal fit in to your rather odd idea of entropy.


The tree gains energy value as it grows. This is not random, since it defies the direction of the universe. If the environment was a primary variable, life would have been neutralized right in the beginning; dead in the water, since energy would decrease to zero and nothing would be stored.

What the hell, lets try again. A tree does not defy the direction of the universe. It is really really simple. A tree is not 100% efficient at converting the suns energy, so entropy increases. The entropy increase is slowed as compared to the solar energy just moving unimpeded into space, but only slowed.


Life had to go many stages opposing lowest energy and higher entropy and then continue doing this for billions of years.

wrong


The existing theory does not explain how this opposing energy direction is possible.

that is because your idea is a strawman. Evolution does not explain how planes fly that does not make evolution wrong.


It is more about an abstraction called natural, but does not say how it is possible for life can build up energy for billions of years when the universe prefers lowest energy. Maybe you can explain how existing evolutionary theory explains this. That is what I am trying to add.

Energy storage goes against the direction of the universe? Really? So the moon goes against the direction of the universe? The sun heats up the rocks on the moon and this thermal energy is stored in the rocks. So what the moon is alive?

According to your confused ideas crystals somehow go against the direction of the universe. Hell even the formation of a star goes against your understanding of entropy.

You are floundering and you always flounder when you try to say that evolution or life goes against the direction of entropy.

Life, as an entity (not its impact) goes in the opposite direction. The tree gains energy value as it grows.

And the quartz crystal gains order as it forms, and the snowflake becomes more ordered as it descends. A great many things "buck" entropy, not just life.


The existing theory does not explain how this opposing energy direction is possible.

It doesn't need to. Lots of things oppose entropy.

In engineering, entropy is a measure of inefficiency, in the sense of wasted energy that is irretrievably lost. We add energy to a motor, we get out work, and entropy. The more efficient the process is the less entropy it will create.

When I say life is lowering entropy I am normalizing against a standard. I am not saying it is making negative entropy. That is why I used the term efficiency. Unless it was 100% efficient there will be entropy. But 95% efficient has less entropy that 60% efficiency. If enzymes and cells go from 60% efficiency to 80%, entropy is lowering relative to each other.

Relative to evolution, you contend that life is getting more inefficient as it evolves since you content entropy within life is going up.

As far as life and energy, life is all about making organic compounds. Within these compounds contain potential energy. The cell does not just digest, but it also builds energy value within its structures as it grows.

The moon is an inanimate object subject to the sun shining or not. It does not convert the warmth of the sun, into internal atomic reorganization that stores potential energy and allows it to grow. Each day the same sun is not shining on something that has more and more energy value day after day until it has more energy that the daily amount of sun.

A snowflake will lower entropy. This is driven by energy lowering since the formation of the crystal will give off energy. With life not only it is growing and gaining energy (as measured in a calorimeter), it is also lowering entropy. This is unique to life.

The flesh will rot, dehydrate and oxidize until there is no energy left.

. . and occasionally become oil, which means a lot of energy left.

One of the problem I sense is we are not agreeing on the definition of entropy. I used the engineering definition. In the past I have used other definitions. Maybe it will be easier if someone else picks the definition, and I will use that. I found that it does not make any difference to me. This might help overcome the communication barrier.

The way I see it, life gets more efficient over time as it evolves. Natural selection is all about efficiency in some sense. Evolution it is also about survival, since death will cause entropy to increase drastically.

@wellwisher --

When you're discussing science it's usually best to use the scientific definitions of terms. It's very easy to use a different definition and then claim that everyone else got it wrong, hence why such straw man arguments are so popular. And while you may not like it, engineering isn't a science, nor does it have much relevance to biology other than the way biologists phrase their questions.

@wellwisher --

Just caught this one,


If he has the correct tail, the mating process happens quicker; neural efficiency.

You're wrong here. Peacock tails don't do a damn thing to the mating process but make it happen. A longer, more beautiful tail means that it will happen more frequently, but the process remains the same. And actually, one could make an argument that a longer tail would actually reduce mating efficiency as it would take more energy to do the same amount of work that a peacock with a shorter tail could do with less energy. So it's wasteful, extremely wasteful, and it hampers survivability besides that(it makes it a lot easier for a peacock to be noticed by predators and harder for them to escape). The only benefit it does have, which is why the trait survives to this day, is that females are more willing to mate with a male that has a long tail.

This sort of thing is what biologists call a positive feedback loop. Your "entropy model" just can't cope with all of the variables that biologists have to take into account, hence why none of them would ever use it.

I am not discounting evolution, but trying to make provisions for observations that are not explained by the theory.
What is not explained by the theory?

@spider --

At the moment nothing that we know of, but apparently Wellwisher doesn't think so despite all of the explanations we give.

When I say life is lowering entropy I am normalizing against a standard. I am not saying it is making negative entropy. That is why I used the term efficiency. Unless it was 100% efficient there will be entropy. But 95% efficient has less entropy that 60% efficiency. If enzymes and cells go from 60% efficiency to 80%, entropy is lowering relative to each other.

Whoa nice back peddling! When you said, "Life, as an entity (not its impact) goes in the opposite direction", you didn't really mean opposite. Great...


Relative to evolution, you contend that life is getting more inefficient as it evolves since you content entropy within life is going up.

That is absurd, no one said anything of the sort! Offspring may be more or less efficient than their parents, regardless over the lifetime of the organisim it will increase the entropy of the universe.


As far as life and energy, life is all about making organic compounds. Within these compounds contain potential energy. The cell does not just digest, but it also builds energy value within its structures as it grows.

The moon is an inanimate object subject to the sun shining or not. It does not convert the warmth of the sun, into internal atomic reorganization that stores potential energy and allows it to grow. Each day the same sun is not shining on something that has more and more energy value day after day until it has more energy that the daily amount of sun.

A snowflake will lower entropy. This is driven by energy lowering since the formation of the crystal will give off energy. With life not only it is growing and gaining energy (as measured in a calorimeter), it is also lowering entropy. This is unique to life.

The bottom line here is that you a incorrectly looking at systems as being closed that are not closed - so you come up with the wrong conclusions. The earth has and incredible amount of energy being pumped into it from the sun - about 150,000,000,000,000,000 joules/sec. All of the that energy is reradiated into space. There are several ways to store that energy for short periods of time - life is one of these ways to store that energy.

Life does not reverse entropy. Evolution certainly does not violate entropy.

If the lipids were to disperse, this would increase the entropy of the lipids; disorder. The surface tension in the water helps to keep the membrane together maintaining lower lipid entropy. This is made stronger via the van der Waals forces between lipids.

This works similar to a bead of oil in water. The hydrogen bonding within water, is a fairly strong bond, which helps to lower energy within water. Water in contact with oil or lipids cannot hydrogen bond to the oils or lipids as efficiently, thereby creating potential in the water. To lower this hydrogen bonding potential we need to minimize the surface area of the oil/lipid that is in contact with the water. This keeps the membrane squished together.

The membrane uses phospholipids. The phosphate group is what is called kosmotropic. This helps create order in water, thereby lowering the hydrogen bonding potential within the water at the membrane surface. The phosphate, by lowering the aqueous potential at the lipid interface takes some of the pressure off the lipids. The lipids stay together in the membrane, but this is a little looser because of the phosphates. This looseness allows water to freely diffuse through the membrane with surface tension preventing the membrane lipids from being pushed permanently apart. It is flexible designed needed for life.

Oh Great and Almighty Atheismo! Please stop Wellwisher and his "entropy crusade", I will be forever in your debt.

If the lipids were to disperse, this would increase the entropy of the lipids; disorder. The surface tension in the water helps to keep the membrane together maintaining lower lipid entropy. This is made stronger via the van der Waals forces between lipids.

This works similar to a bead of oil in water. The hydrogen bonding within water, is a fairly strong bond, which helps to lower energy within water. Water in contact with oil or lipids cannot hydrogen bond to the oils or lipids as efficiently, thereby creating potential in the water. To lower this hydrogen bonding potential we need to minimize the surface area of the oil/lipid that is in contact with the water. This keeps the membrane squished together.

The membrane uses phospholipids. The phosphate group is what is called kosmotropic. This helps create order in water, thereby lowering the hydrogen bonding potential within the water at the membrane surface. The phosphate, by lowering the aqueous potential at the lipid interface takes some of the pressure off the lipids. The lipids stay together in the membrane, but this is a little looser because of the phosphates. This looseness allows water to freely diffuse through the membrane with surface tension preventing the membrane lipids from being pushed permanently apart. It is flexible designed needed for life.

I think your explanation might have some problem in explaining cells which are 10 to 20 centimeter in size .
Xenophyophores are the largest examples known, at roughly 4 inches.[3]

Valonia ventricosa.

Valonia ventricosa, with a diameter of 1 to 4 centimeters it is one of the largest single-celled organism
Syringammina fragilissima, is among the largest known protozoans at a maximum 20 centimetres in diameter.

U believe to hold a body of that size you might need some covalent bonds

Huge cell membrans could be assited with scaffolding proteins which are held together with hydrogen bonds. I was sticking to lipids so as to not get too complicated.

Entropy seems to bother certain people, because they may not be familar with the concept being applied to biology, in the sense of the life decreasing entropy. To make this easier to see, there is an equation in chemistry called Gibb's free energy equation.

In this equation G = H -TS, where G is the Gibbs free energy, H is enthalpy, T is temperature, and S is entropy. In chemical systems, as long as the free energy direction is favorable, entropy can decrease as long as the enthalpy is able to compensate.

For example, if we had oil (lipids) and water in a jar. I will shake them vigorously until they blend. This will boost system entropy since both water and oil are within the entire volume; emulsion. If we let it sit, the entropy will start to decrease until the oil and water form two layers. The reason is the Gibbs free energy is favorable and decreasing during the phase separation, due to the enthalpy decreasing via the formation of hydrogen bonds and van der Waals bonds.

Although physics speaks in terms of energy of the universe decreasing and entropy increasing, in chemistry it is often one of the other following that rule of thumb, and not always both at the same time. Since life is composed of organics in water, life is essentially an oil and water system where the enthalpy of hydrogen bonding in water is often more powerful than the organic entropy in many circumstances. Organic things like the membrane come together to lower the free energy even if this lowers entropy.

Getting back to the membrane, cation pumping in the membrane lowers the entropy of sodium and potassium ions by segregating them. According to the Gibbs free energy equation, this can happen, but it will need sufficient enthalpy change for this to occur. This is done via ATP and enzymes. This low entropy induction, due to the favorable Gibbs free energy, now means the entire membrane has lost net entropy. This gives us a lower entropy boundary condition for the entire cell.

But since entropy still wishes to increase in our universe, this bounday is loaded with entropy potential. The Gibbs free energy equation can also work the other way, using this free energy potential to increase entropy to drive reactions and situations where the enthalpy is not favorabable. This helps transport things like water through lipids; surface tension.

And why are we letting an engineer with only a minimal knowledge of evolutionary theory(or biology for that matter) sidetrack this thread about evolution?

That is an obvious smoke screen by those who who are trying to defend against impending obsolence. It is just the most used play out of the atheist religion handbook, which doesn't fool anyone but fools.
Yet you haven't explained why the gas heated up in this one case.
What's the word for someone who makes statements that are diametrically opposite from the reality?


In engineering, entropy is connected to irretrevable heat that is lost during work cycles. This lost energy is conserved
You obviously weren't much of an engineer either then.

The surface tension within water will be the highest at hydrophobic interfaces. Polar groups tend to lower the surface tension since they can hydrogen bond with water. The surface tension in water is connected to disruption of hydrogen bonding.


Utter nonsense, as is your previous post above. Please stop posting crackpot gibberish in B&G about topics you clearly know little, or nothing, about. (This appears to be most biological topics.)

Biologists are not physical chemists, so you may not understand what I wrote based on a biology education, Hercules. Don't confuse your own lack of understanding with my ability to understand.

If you look phospholipids, and removed the phosphate, the lipids would phase separate like oil and water. Once you add the phosphate group, this will alter the water and lipid interface, lowering the surface tension. The phosphate group is kosmotropic meaning it creates order within water. This order lowers the energy within the aqueous surface interface, allowing the lipids to behave differently within the water; lipid bi-layer instead of bead of oil.

The DNA also uses phosphate to create order in water, thereby lowering the surface tension that would exist if there were just bases and sugar of DNA. To minimize energy we will still need to bury the bases, with the phosphate helping to lower surface energy, so the DNA does not have to bead up. It works similar to bi-layer versus bead of lipid oil, so the DNA is an easier template.

The order within the water, created by phosphate, is continuous with the ordered water that hydrogen bonds with the bases within the major and minor grooves of the DNA double helix. These are specific to each base and continuous to the phosphate order via water. The result is a surface finger print in the water.

The problem is that when biology they teach about the DNA double helix, it never mention the water that is part of the double helix. It tends to create the impression the DNA is only made of organics. If you leave the water out of your theories, these theories will always be half baked. The reality of water plus DNA will seem strange when place near this half truth.


The DNA double helix can take up a number of conformations (for example, right handed A-DNA pitch 28.2 Å 11 bp, B-DNA pitch 34 Å 10 bp, C-DNA pitch 31Å 9.33 bp, D-DNA pitch 24.2 Å 8 bp and the left handed Z-DNA pitch 43Å 12 bp) with differing hydration. The predominant natural DNA, B-DNA, has a wide and deep major groove and a narrow and deep minor groove and requires the greatest hydration. [

The DNA becomes active only if there is sufficient bonded water.

The processing of the genetic information within DNA is facilitated by highly discriminatory and strong protein binding. It has been shown that the interfacial water molecules can serve as 'hydration fingerprints' of a given DNA sequence [889]. The major driving force for the specificity is the entropy increase due to the release of bound water molecules (estimated at 3.6 kJ mol-1 for minor groove water and 2.3 kJ mol-1 for major groove water, both at 300 K [1096]), with the DNA sequence determining the hydration pattern in the major and minor grooves (see above).


For example, about 110 water molecules are released on binding of the restriction endonuclease EcoRI to its site GAATTC leaving an essentially dry interface and firmly bound complex (with binding constant ~10,000 times that for nonspecific binding), whereas changing just one base out of the recognition sequence leaves those water molecules mostly unaffected and only little different from EcoRI non-specifically binding to DNA [1176b].

The change of entropy, within the structured water on the DNA, provides free energy for enzyme binding, with certain base sequences providing favorable water surfaces for particular enzymes.

If the enzyme was to try and attach randomly, it cannot get the same amount of free energy out of the water entropy just anywhere on the DNA. Once it hits the sweet spot, the free energy is very favorable to complex binding.

Darwin uses the concept of natural selection, which is a consistent principle for evolution, which is a function of many factors. The question becomes what is the basis for this consistency principle called natural selection?

Natural selection can not be random. If it was random, natural selection change the selection, constantly. Consistency means under similar circumstances, the result should be close but never always different like random. Ironically, random is an important part of modern evolutionary theory, which is inconsistent with this consistency principle laid down by Darwin. This always bothered me.

The question again is, what is the basis for the consistency of natural selection? It can't be due to the spirit of mother nature or that would make evolution a type of religion. Science needs explanations using basic principles of chemistry and physics which underly complex biological states in flux to create consistent choice under given parameters.

One way to answer the question, is natural selection is another way of saying living efficiency under a given set of circumstances. If circumstances change, what defines efficiency might also change. If it is hot, thin fur is more efficient for maintaining body systems. If it is cold, thick fur is more efficient for maintaining body systems. Natural selection will pick the most efficient more often than not.

Efficiency is not random, but requires a sense of consistent order which makes the best use of resources. In engineering, lack of efficiency is connected to entropy. To make the most efficient choice would mean natural selection moves in the direction of lowering entropy; most efficient in terms of environment and bio-systems. An eco-system is very efficent and defines lower entropy compared to a disrupted eco-system that is out of steady state; inefficienct.

The next question becomes if natural selection is based on efficiency under a given set of conditions, and higher efficiency means the lowest entropy choice, what is the basis for this push toward lowered entropy? It can't be genetic, since genetic change is assume to be random. This means inefficient and higher entropy. This goes in the wrong direction relative to efficency. This means the genetics are secondary. There needs to be a stronger push that can achieve efficiency even when the DNA is making things less efficient via random change.

There is one possible, yet simple explanation, connected to water. One way to visualize this is consider water and oil, which we will shake. The shaking will increase system entropy and disorder. If we let it settle, two phases will appear. We can shake this again and again, the system will continue to lower entropy to form the same two phase order. The consistent loss of system entropy is due to the strong hydrogen bonding forces within the water, which reach lowest free energy,when the entropy of the oil is lowered.

Since life is composed of water and organics, we have this basic oil and water analogies throughout life at all levels, with the hydrogen bonding of water trying to lower the entropy of the organics, so the water can minimize free energy. The result is a steady push of the organic of life dissolved in water into order and efficiency.

Your theoretical lifespan has probably already been extended due to many correct findings arising out of the understanding of evolution. For example, you probably have been vaccinated and spared from death from any number of infectious diseases. These vaccines, the science behind them, stands on the pillars of Darwin's divinely inspired work.

The vaccines are man-made, thereby allowing humans to depart from natural selection. Natural selection contains no such artifical additives but lets nature take its own course. What humans have selected is human selection and not natural selection. Evolution created a lifeform that could separate itself from natural selection. The bible gives Adam the breath of life so he could become a living soul who can deviate from natural selection. I look at that symbolically as showing where natural selection stopped with respect to one of its species.

Natural selection can not be random. If it was random, natural selection change the selection, constantly. Consistency means under similar circumstances, the result should be close but never always different like random.

Agreed. Assuming the environment stays constant, natural selection is quite predictable. In an environment with lots of natural light, having eyes is an advantage - and always will be.


Ironically, random is an important part of modern evolutionary theory, which is inconsistent with this consistency principle laid down by Darwin. This always bothered me.

The "random" part has to do with genetic mutations, not with natural selection. If both were random evolution would never produce anything consistent. If neither were random nothing new would ever evolve.

Natural selection can not be random.

Natural selection involves the probability of survival as a function of the requirements of the organism, as the availability of those requirements change over time.

Those probabilities involve both random and deterministic causes. For example, the probability that a fox can survive in America has random effects of nature, competition of the species, etc. Then humans arrive with guns and bulldozers, and all the probability curves are bent into new shapesm, leading to the decimation of the species.



If it was random, natural selection change the selection, constantly.


This is your interpretation, not the one of Science. Natural selection is not a dithering function of uncertainty. It is a tendency to select out the inferior traits of a population based on changing stresses to that population.



Consistency means under similar circumstances, the result should be close but never always different like random. Ironically, random is an important part of modern evolutionary theory, which is inconsistent with this consistency principle laid down by Darwin. This always bothered me.


To alleviate your concern, I suggest rereading the meaning of natural selection (http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_25)



The question again is, what is the basis for the consistency of natural selection? It can't be due to the spirit of mother nature or that would make evolution a type of religion. Science needs explanations using basic principles of chemistry and physics which underly complex biological states in flux to create consistent choice under given parameters.


No, Science needs natural selection (http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_25) to explain the observed phenomena.



One way to answer the question, is natural selection is another way of saying living efficiency under a given set of circumstances. If circumstances change, what defines efficiency might also change. If it is hot, thin fur is more efficient for maintaining body systems. If it is cold, thick fur is more efficient for maintaining body systems. Natural selection will pick the most efficient more often than not.

Efficiency is not random, but requires a sense of consistent order which makes the best use of resources. In engineering, lack of efficiency is connected to entropy. To make the most efficient choice would mean natural selection moves in the direction of lowering entropy; most efficient in terms of environment and bio-systems. An eco-system is very efficent and defines lower entropy compared to a disrupted eco-system that is out of steady state; inefficienct.


Whether the creature lives or dies rests on how well adapted it is to all of the conditions. Efficiency has the meaning attached to a specific problem. The question is, will the adaptation survive the complex set of parameters? The question of fur efficiency may relate to the demand for fur (cold) vs. the cost (nutrients). based on diet alone, animals may allocate energy to more fur in the cold seasons, then shed it warm seasons. Every organism is in a continuous state of negotiating supply and demand for every agent of doom using all available resources to survive.



The next question becomes if natural selection is based on efficiency under a given set of conditions, and higher efficiency means the lowest entropy choice, what is the basis for this push toward lowered entropy? It can't be genetic, since genetic change is assume to be random. This means inefficient and higher entropy. This goes in the wrong direction relative to efficency. This means the genetics are secondary. There needs to be a stronger push that can achieve efficiency even when the DNA is making things less efficient via random change.


The second law of thermodynamics is an expression of the tendency that over time, differences in temperature, pressure, and chemical potential equilibrate in an isolated physical system. This does not correspond to Natural Selection, since it is neither a system nor noes it have any of the attributes relevant to a system.

It would be more relevant to determine the entropy of heat exchange across an animal's fur vs. the entropy across scales. But this will not lead you anywhere towards arguing against Natural Selection. It will just confirm what you already know, that the adaptations fit the induced stress.



There is one possible, yet simple explanation, connected to water. One way to visualize this is consider water and oil, which we will shake. The shaking will increase system entropy and disorder. If we let it settle, two phases will appear. We can shake this again and again, the system will continue to lower entropy to form the same two phase order. The consistent loss of system entropy is due to the strong hydrogen bonding forces within the water, which reach lowest free energy,when the entropy of the oil is lowered.

Since life is composed of water and organics, we have this basic oil and water analogies throughout life at all levels, with the hydrogen bonding of water trying to lower the entropy of the organics, so the water can minimize free energy. The result is a steady push of the organic of life dissolved in water into order and efficiency.

The closest connection I can think of with what you are saying and Natural Selection might be abiogenesis. Using your argument, I would posit that first cells succeeded based on their ability to exploit the hydrogen bond and other energy sources provided in the methane-ammonia environment from which they arose.

To assume that the law of entropy contradicts evolution is incorrect, all laws are conserved in Natural Selection, and, in fact, are the underlying causes for life and evolution in the first place.

The vaccines are man-made, thereby allowing humans to depart from natural selection. Natural selection contains no such artifical additives but lets nature take its own course. What humans have selected is human selection and not natural selection. Evolution created a lifeform that could separate itself from natural selection. The bible gives Adam the breath of life so he could become a living soul who can deviate from natural selection. I look at that symbolically as showing where natural selection stopped with respect to one of its species.

No, I was trying to explain the vaccine science insofar as its ability to respond to evolving microbes. To say you place your life in the hands of the lord who abhors Darwin, is to deny that the flu shot you just took was a windfall of Darwin's discoveries.

To assume that the law of entropy contradicts evolution is incorrect, all laws are conserved in Natural Selection, and, in fact, are the underlying causes for life and evolution in the first place.Life itself is a local reversal of entropy (which as we should all know by now is allowed by the Second Law), so it's no surprise that processes involving life are also local reversals of entropy.

The reason that life and/or evolution do not violate entropy is precisely because they are local. An organism is, indeed, an impressive local increase in the organization of matter and energy. However, its various metabolic processes wreak utter havoc on the matter and energy in its region, so there is a net decrease in organization in the entire region.

The Second Law specifically refuses to require that entropy must increase consistently or steadily. After all, that would be a type of organization!

BTW, there's really nothing so special about the entropy-decreasing organization of evolution or any of the other attributes of life, except perhaps the impressive scope of their organization. Take a good look at a molecule, particularly one of the larger ones made up of atoms from the lower rows in the periodic table. All those electrons spinning in their perfectly spaced orbits, exactly the right number of them per orbit--being shared by another atom! What an affront to entropy!

Or how about a big hunk of a crystalline solid? That's enough organization to send any fan of entropy into a panic!

In chemistry, the Gibbs free energy G of a chemical system is related to entropy by the equation, G= H - TS, where H is enthalpy , T is temperature and S is entropy. Enthalpy is the total energy within a thermodynamic system. Since system energy attempts to lower, if the enthalpy in the system is stronger than the entropy, at any given temperature, the free energy is favorable for the entropy to decrease. In a crystal, the enthalpy associated with the formation of the crystal bonds dominates the original atomic entropy, causing entropy to decrease. This is less common in physics but very common in chemistry.

Life is composed of water and organics. The Gibbs free energy in this system is dominated by the enthalpy associated with the hydrogen bonding of water. This enthalpy will induce the entropy of the organics to decrease over time to lower the total free energy. This is the steady push for natural selection and evolution, including abiogenesis, since abiogenesis was also organics in water. If we used another solvent, you would lose the push of the hydrogen bonding of water and the process would be much slower.

One way to see how evolution means lowering entropy is to look at the internal components of the cells, such as enzymes, in terms of nano machines. We are looking at the machine/enzyme and not what it does. What it does can increase entropy. The machine analogy is being used since entropy in engineering is based on the lost or irretreviable energy due to machine inefficiencies.

The question becomes, do the cellular (machine) efficiencies of biological systems during evolution, get better or worse over time. Better efficiencies in these bio-nano machines, means machine entropy decreases over time. According to Gibbs free energy this would have needed a consistent source of enthalpy to be able to lower the entropy consistently over time. Water is the prime choice. But there are also other sources of enthalpy like ATP. This is the future but I need to respect the past until it fades aways.

If you ever saw a forest that was invaded by Gypsy moth caterpillars, in large numbers they can defoliate a large section of a local forest. Changing into moths would have two uses. It will take the pressure off the local forest and help the slow caterpillars migrate to new feeding grounds; another local forest.

There are also butterflies that migrate. They go where the weather suits their clothes (like in the song). The change from caterpillar to butterfly makes this possible. If they did not change, they would die in the cold.

These are reasonable humanistic explanations, but like most evolutionary explanations they never address the physical chemical dynamics that logically lead to these results. This is why evolution is still stuck in its 19th century subjective past, using the subjective magic of random and humanistic explanations to address the harder questions without actually having to say anything. I can sing "coom by yah", like anyone else, but I need more than that.

The real reason for the transition is energy and entropy. The caterpillar is a slow eating machine. This combination causes it to gain energy value (grows and stores energy) with this molecular energy storage and body growth lowering entropy. It appears that the caterpillar exceeds a practical limit of energy gaining and entropy lowering, causing a reaction that will lower energy and increase entropy. The butterfly reflects this transition; higher energy burn and more degrees of freedom. One could compare energy and entropy to infer this if you want.

A similar explanation might also explain the Cambric explosion. All you would need is an ancient bio-state that could lower entropy too much, while storing a lot of energy. The result will be a strong push to increase entropy and lower energy. The result would be huge diversity. The result will not be animals coming out of cocoons, but rather very stronger stimulus on the DNA.

The real reason for the transition is energy and entropy. The caterpillar is a slow eating machine. This combination causes it to gain energy value (grows and stores energy) with this molecular energy storage and body growth lowering entropy. It appears that the caterpillar exceeds a practical limit of energy gaining and entropy lowering, causing a reaction that will lower energy and increase entropy. The butterfly reflects this transition; higher energy burn and more degrees of freedom. One could compare energy and entropy to infer this if you want.

A similar explanation might also explain the Cambric explosion. All you would need is an ancient bio-state that could lower entropy too much, while storing a lot of energy. The result will be a strong push to increase entropy and lower energy. The result would be huge diversity. The result will not be animals coming out of cocoons, but rather very stronger stimulus on the DNA.

Not again. Geeze, this whole attempt at trying to link entropy to evolution has failed everytime you have tried, so when do you admitt defeat and try something else?

Life itself is a local reversal of entropy





One way to see how evolution means lowering entropy is to look at the internal components of the cells, such as enzymes


So then we are agreed that the discussion of entropy is irrelevant to the validity of Natural Selection?

The argument used by creationists that life violates entropy is absurd, wouldn't you agree, since Natural Selection is not a system, much less a closed system?

The lowering of entropy, observed within life's many systems, is the basis for natural selection, since natural selection is about efficiency under any set of conditions. Regardless of circumstances there is a sweet spot in terms of efficiency. Nature does not routinely pick the most inefficient for natural selection, which is why random explanations are not correct, since random implies higher entropy. An ecosystem is an efficient organization of life composed of many aspects that are efficient both internally and externally.

In chemistry, Gibbs free energy allows entropy to decrease, as long as the enthalpy or the energy within the living system is favorable. This will take energy to do. The induced loss of entropy, due to enthalpy changes, also implies efficiency which also implies natural selection. Natural selection is a superficial output, but entropy is what is behind the scenes.

An interesting application of the Gibbs free energy equation G = H -TS, to life, is connected to T or temperature. The most advanced life on earth is warm blooded. This means the TS aspects is maintained at a higher average level. There is more average free energy within the entropy times temperature contribution in warm blooded than cooled blooded critters. There is an extra entropy push within the order and efficiency of the warm blooded critter. This is partially reflected by the brain. For example, more free energy for entropy within the firing of neurons could provide alternate ways to behave; increasing exposure for learning.

Bearing young live also benefits by the extra free energy within entropy. The mother, rather than lower the enthalpy of food all the way to waste, makes use of this higher entropy contribution, to alter enthalpy of food, so the food goes only part way so it can feed the growing embryo over a long period of time.

An interesting application of the Gibbs free energy equation G = H -TS, to life, is connected to T or temperature. The most advanced life on earth is warm blooded. This means the TS aspects is maintained at a higher average level. There is more average free energy within the entropy times temperature contribution in warm blooded than cooled blooded critters. There is an extra entropy push within the order and efficiency of the warm blooded critter. This is partially reflected by the brain. For example, more free energy for entropy within the firing of neurons could provide alternate ways to behave; increasing exposure for learning. Just enough knowledge to be dangerous....

... Nature does not routinely pick the most inefficient for natural selection, which is why random explanations are not correct, since random implies higher entropy.....You seem to be confused about the role randomness plays in evolution theory. It is the variations that are random - in modern terms genes not copied correctly for the offspring - i.e. suffer random change. What is incorrect about that?


NOT nature selecting at random which will prosper. No one is suggesting that.

Nature does not routinely pick the most inefficient for natural selection, which is why random explanations are not correct, since random implies higher entropy.Nature does not "pick" anything. Mutation happens by chance. Cosmic rays, etc.

The ones that are viable may survive to reproduce, the rest won't. You don't seem to understand mutation.

Nature does not routinely pick the most inefficient for natural selection

Correct. Nor does it pick the most thermodynamically efficient. Evolution does not care about entropy or thermodynamics - it only cares about the ability to survive and reproduce.

The lowering of entropy, observed within life's many systems, is the basis for natural selection

In your opinion, but the accepted basis is selected mutation.

I disagree that just because the product of a process is more organized or complex that entropy has been reversed. Vast wells of energy were drained over billions of years. This is why you have to close the loop before measuring entropy. Look at all the soil, the sediment, all the by-products of every biosphere that ever was, the work done on the atmosphere. Consider solar and chemical energy spent to produce these. You haven't begun to measure total energy or organization. It's beyond calculation anyway. The best you can try to do is to is measure some infinitesimal contributor, and for some folks, that becomes their life's work.

Which leads us back to evolution by selected mutation, the theory that stands undisturbed by the demolition squads that periodically try to blow it into kingdom come (literally and figuratively).

... Evolution does not care about entropy or thermodynamics - it only cares about the ability to survive and reproduce.wellwisher just has too much (but still little understanding) exposure to thermodynmics and is essentially ignorant about the most fundamental aspects of evolution.

To give one of thousands of illustrations that what you say is correct and what he claims (Nature picking the most thermodynamically efficient, lowest entropy etc.) is false.

I have a Cockatiel:
http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTHKW62vzDp1Ddc7VP8iLqRBFL2DIDFk rrPMxcq7CER5lBhm9Nhlg * Don't get one if you will lock it in the cage. They need hours of TLC and give the same back.
Note the aerodynamically inefficient top of head feathers with unique structure that hinder flying (more drag and negative lift).
Note the bright orange spots on side of head. They require special coding in the DNA, special chemistry for dye production, more detailed information and processing to put these spots in that location compared to just being uniformly yellow (or with body white as this one is).

Why does nature destroy the lower entropy uniformity of only one color) (make a complex color mix) and make all this extra biological (energy waste) effort burden on flying and metabolic processes??

Answer: Because it is sexy as hell (even from a human POV & a huge turn on for other cockatiels.) Nature only cares about reproductive success, not low entropy.

All cockatiels have these inefficiencies (and are very smart)*.

* We love each other dearly. Mine has some dark grey in wings too - more complex dye production and control in DNA, less efficient than this white yellow** + orange spots one. I understand about half a dozen of her requests and she knows the meaning of a dozen or so phrases (in English and half a dozen in Portuguese!) For example, If I am leaving the room she is in and say "I'll be right back." she will wait a few minutes for my return. Otherwise she will fly to my shoulders to go where I am going. She thinks she is the owner of the house and will verbally complain if you interfer with her wishes.

She also likes to imitate sounds. Today I needed to fine chop some oats in the rarely used (~ once per month) blender, which sits on a back corner of the kitchen sink counter. I had not even touched it, only its electric plug, when she made a reasonably accurate "GRRRR..." from my shoulder !

** I'm not sure but think their heads are always yellow, even the more common in nature ones that have gray bodies.

Where I differ from existing evolutionary theory, is that I base my explanation of evolution on two laws of science; energy and entropy. Existing evolutionary theory, begins with a couple of theories. Theories are not as certain as laws of science. A law is definitive while a theory needs work because it is often mixed with subjectivities. These subjectivities is what make people think they need to fight religion. All you need to do is upgrade the foundation premises from theory to law and that ends. The fight is there to compensate for subjective doubts due to theory.


Why does nature destroy the lower entropy uniformity of only one color) (make a complex color mix) and make all this extra biological (energy waste) effort burden on flying and metabolic processes??

Answer: Because it is sexy as hell (even from a human POV & a huge turn on for other cockatiels.) Nature only cares about reproductive success, not low entropy.

With natural selection, you don't look at only individuals. The reason is, efficiencies can often mean in individuals in conjunction with groups and eco-systems, since energy and entropy applies at all levels, from individual to the eco-system. The machine has overall efficiencies as well as efficiencies of its parts. DNA tends to focus on one critter at a time, which can dissociate the critter from the bigger picture. A genetic change will not last, if it is not conducive to the needs of the broader picture of system wide free energy.

According to the Gibbs free energy equation, the free energy can lower in two ways; by lowering enthalpy or increasing entropy. There are times when genetic entropy, allows free energy to lower. Changes in the DNA can become connected to the overall free energy within the wider based system and can become the focal point for entropy to increase, as long as the free energy is decreasing. It is not exactly random if you look at the larger free energy picture.

In the case of the cockatiels, although its genetic change may not provide individual efficiencies in terms of flight, it does make the larger male-female system more optimized, at the level of the brain; sensory input to trigger propagation. In this case, the overall free energy is based on a larger picture. In an assembly plant for making cars, each machine station plays a role in final production. We might need to slow one machine down, and take a hit on that machine's efficiency, to allow the next machine more time to work, so there are fewer mistakes. The overall line is better.

The DNA alone is too narrow to explain why eco-systems can reform quickly even after drastic changes to the environment. All the ducks line quickly up in a row based on overall system free energy. This might require changes in behavior in time frames where there is not enough time for DNA trial in error.

I was actually going to use a free energy analysis to explain the Cambric explosion. The free energy was favorable for this higher entropy change.

In terms of something analogous to visualize, let us consider a stem cell. This is a very plastic cell which can differentiate to almost any differentiated cell that uses that particular DNA. Unlike differentiated cells, which are fixed into a low entropy states of high efficiency limitations, the stem cell can undergo much higher levels of entropy to become any of hundreds of cells.

Inherent within stem cells is biochemistry that allows the entropy side of the free equation to become very significant. This high entropy cellular plastic state is working in conjunction with the overall order within the growing multicellular life form, which is growing into a highly integrated and efficient machine of many parts. The overall free energy is optimized using stem cell entropy.

Getting back to the Cambric explosion, all that would be theoretically needed would be something similar to multicellular version of stem cells such as stem mothers. Her eggs would need to be very plastic ,analogous to the high entropy designed into stem cells.

There would need to a high level of entropy potential stored within the free energy of the biochemistry of the stem mother's eggs, leading to wide generic diversity. It is not exactly random, since the entropy, although increasing like stem cels, is flowing down paths that optimize overall system free energy. Most of the plastic change might have been limited to body style, since that is all you can easily infer from fossils. The motor and drive train of the stem mother may have been conserved (insides), with the entropy more restricted to the superficial body style, such as stem cell changes into more bone, muscle, nerve, skin, etc.

Where I differ from existing evolutionary theory, ... Probably, if not just ignorant, because you have near zero understanding of it. - Evolution is not some group dynamic concerned with reduction of the entropy of the group or even of the "bigger system" - group plus its enviroment.
Quite the contrary the more inclusive you make the system the more certain is that the total entropy will increase. Evolution is ONE (not a group) individually having a very rare beneficial copying mistake in the DNA it passes to its off springs, which then may over generations become dominate in the group.
... With natural selection, you don't look at only individuals. The reason is, efficiencies can often mean in individuals in conjunction with groups and eco-systems, since energy and entropy applies at all levels, from individual to the eco-system. ... It is not exactly random if you look at the larger free energy picture. No it IS the individual random DNA change, but of course 99.99+% are selected against and many of these random copy errors IN INDIVIDUALS don't even result in a viable organism.
In the case of the cockatiels, although its genetic change may not provide individual efficiencies in terms of flight, it does make the larger male-female system more optimized, That must be your way of addmiting it is sexual selection (followed by survival advantages) benefit, not entropy reduction, that makes evolution proceed.
... The DNA alone is too narrow to explain why eco-systems can reform quickly even after drastic changes to the environment. All the ducks line quickly up in a row based on overall system free energy. This might require changes in behavior in time frames where there is not enough time for DNA trial in error.Yes the random change in DNA is just the starting point. It must result in greater probability of being reproduced in the subsequent generations - not in lower energy requirements (although that may help, especially if food is limited) and certainly there is no pressure to lower entropy. In fact as the cockatiels (and thousands of other creatures) show in their evolution, normally inefficiencies become common IN THE ENTIRE GROUP. Perhaps you don't read well either. I made the point of prior post and now again in larger type below:
.... To give one of thousands of illustrations that what you say is correct and what he claims (Nature picking the most thermodynamically efficient, lowest entropy etc.) is false.
... Note the aerodynamically inefficient top of head feathers with unique structure that hinder flying (more drag and negative lift).
Note the bright orange spots on side of head. They require special coding in the DNA, special chemistry for dye production, more detailed information and processing to put these spots in that location compared to just being uniformly yellow (or with body white as this one is).

Why does nature destroy the lower entropy uniformity of only one color) (make a complex color mix) and make all this extra biological (energy waste) effort burden on flying and metabolic processes??

Answer: Because it is sexy as hell (even from a human POV & a huge turn on for other cockatiels.) Nature only cares about reproductive success, not low entropy.

All cockatiels have these inefficiencies ...{higher energy requirements, higher entropy design.}

Like I said, if you base evolution on fuzzy random based theory and not science laws, you will need to use subjective rhetoric to make it seem correct.

Sexual selection of birds is a brain phenomena, since animals are not blind folded making random choices. Rather visual and audio signals enter the brain to be processed. These signals are compared to instinctive templates in the brain. The brain is the most progressed part of the life form, since it makes the interactions between the animal and the environment possible. Minimizing inefficiencies via the brain is important part of natural selection.

If you ever fell in love, once triggered there is a strong usage of energy, since it causes a significant change in free energy. The bond also lowers entropy since you can't look at anyone else. If the female's bird's brain is triggered by the sensory triggers from the male, this optimizes the release of free energy and lowers their combined entropy. If not there, the free energy is maintained in both with entropy higher; open the options.

If there is a blockage, such that there is no trigger to release the enthalpy so free energy can lower, the entropy side can be used. The result can be a generic change, or change of mind, to take advantage of the situation.

Where we differs is I place free energy ahead of the DNA. The current theory magically has the DNA leading out of the context of free energy. That defies two laws of science based on theory. When you chose theory that defies known laws, it always appeared like a religion to me.

... Theories are not as certain as laws of science. A law is definitive while a theory needs work because it is often mixed with subjectivities. These subjectivities is what make people think they need to fight religion. ...You are not fooling anyone. Many before you have attacked the idea that evolution is RANDOM change followed by selection. That is the first necessary step required before you can introduce "intelligent design" concepts etc.

Certainly "religion" is not scientific law based, not nearly as firmly established as the truth as evolution is. If it were, it would not come in several dozen mutually contradicting versions.

... If the female's bird's brain is triggered by the sensory triggers from the male, this optimizes the release of free energy and lowers their combined entropy.
Where we differs is I place free energy ahead of the DNA. The current theory magically has the DNA leading out of the context of free energy. That defies two laws of science based on theory. When you chose theory that defies known laws, it always appeared like a religion to me.The thinking does not get much more subjective and fuzzy than your statement now made bold.
That is your idea of a theory that follows "scientific laws" !!! - You should be posting this in the "Jokes and Funny Stories" thread.

BTW - name even one "scientific law" (not one of your fuzzy concepts) that the theory of evolution violates,"defies known laws"

One problem that constantly occurs, which may not be clear to many people, has to do with practical science. Statistics and probability were originally a mathematical tool that allowed one to model complex situations where the cause and effects were hard to model. We could still get good results using less brain power. You no longer needed a Sherlock Holmes to make cause and effect connection, but only needed this useful method and data collection. It was a labor saver tool. You lost the need for logic, but the trade off was you could more, faster.

As an example, we would take a situation where the cause and effect is well known. Instead of saying it is known, we will pretend it is not known. We can run a statistical model and achieve good predictive results even while being dumbed down. If you never understood the original logic, which might get subtle, you can still apply the stat model and achieve a type of bottom line relationship. It is a useful tool, like a chain saw instead of a hand saw. But chain saws can't do delicate cuts. However, they can cut more wood, faster.

Originally, it was well understood that this was a tool that made it easier to do more things, faster, compared to old school cause and effect for everything. As time went on, the practical utility of this tool, had its own cause and effect altered ,to where science assumed, since statistics works so well in so many cases, the universe had to be random, since this is how the tool works. The cart was placed before the horse. You can still use the hand saw for the delicate cuts but that seems to violate the assumption of random. However, random is all one can expect of the chain saw therefore delicate cuts are assumed impossible.

The idea of energy and entropy is based on cause and effect laws that appeared before the chain saw approach to science. There is a logical explanation based on these two laws. The problem is, I am not using the tool that is also used by gambling casinos, based on random and chance. Sure you can win large jackpots, but most of the time, the subjectivity of random luck is all there is. I am not into gambling but prefer a logical approach based on cause and effect reality.

Do a history check of statistical modeling to see the transition into the cart leading the horse and thinking random is natural. Darwin saw order in natural selection not chaos. Chain saw science can't even see the paradox it has created. Darwin was part of the age of reason, where reality was expected to be logical. Random was considered the stuff of superstition.

With natural selection, you don't look at only individuals.

Agreed. You look at the likelihood that that individual will reproduce.


The reason is, efficiencies can often mean in individuals in conjunction with groups and eco-systems, since energy and entropy applies at all levels, from individual to the eco-system.

Also agreed. However, evolution has nothing to do with efficiency. Peacock tails are extremely INefficient when it comes to the energy needed to keep a peacock alive. But they appeal to the opposite sex - so those traits are preserved and amplified.


A genetic change will not last, if it is not conducive to the needs of the broader picture of system wide free energy.

Genes do not really give a shit about "the broader picture of system wide free energy." Species often drive themselves into extinction, or near-extinction, because of their overuse of energy (food.)


The DNA alone is too narrow to explain why eco-systems can reform quickly even after drastic changes to the environment.

DNA, and the structures it encodes (like the HOX gene complex) is precisely why organisms can adapt quickly to drastic changes in the environment.

Where I differ from existing evolutionary theory, is that I base my explanation of evolution on two laws of science; energy and entropy.

which is invalid since
(1) the 1st law of thermodynamics applies to total energy, which you ignore
(2) the 2nd law of thermodynamics only to closed systems, which you ignore




Existing evolutionary theory, begins with a couple of theories.

Theory doesn't begin with theory. It begins with evidence.



Theories are not as certain as laws of science.

You are ignoring the defintion of "theory" and "law"



A law is definitive while a theory needs work because it is often mixed with subjectivities.

False.



These subjectivities is what make people think they need to fight religion.

Your subjective rationale for fighting science is evident from your writings.



All you need to do is upgrade the foundation premises from theory to law and that ends.

Your rationale that theory is untenable is false and ignores the definitions.



The fight is there to compensate for subjective doubts due to theory.

Your subjective doubts are invalidated by ignoring the definition of theory, and the facts.



With natural selection, you don't look at only individuals.

And you don't look only at thermodynamics.



The reason is, efficiencies can often mean in individuals in conjunction with groups and eco-systems, since energy and entropy applies at all levels, from individual to the eco-system.

Only in closed systems, which you continue to ignore.



The machine has overall efficiencies as well as efficiencies of its parts. DNA tends to focus on one critter at a time, which can dissociate the critter from the bigger picture. A genetic change will not last, if it is not conducive to the needs of the broader picture of system wide free energy.

A variation or mutation will not survive if the critter can't survive, period. Natural Selection.



According to the Gibbs free energy equation, the free energy can lower in two ways; by lowering enthalpy or increasing entropy.

Gibbs free energy applies to a thermodynamic system at contant temperature and pressure, which you ignore.



There are times when genetic entropy, allows free energy to lower.

Genetic entropy is an invented term.



Changes in the DNA can become connected to the overall free energy within the wider based system and can become the focal point for entropy to increase, as long as the free energy is decreasing.

Changes in DNA are connected to probability densities.



It is not exactly random if you look at the larger free energy picture.

You are ignoring the fact that DNA varies randomly over populations and individual gametes.



The DNA alone is too narrow to explain why eco-systems can reform quickly even after drastic changes to the environment.

You introduce a claim that eco-system reforming is time critical, but no evidence.
DNA explains inheritance, period. Natural selection explains evolution by inheritance, period.



All the ducks line quickly up in a row based on overall system free energy. This might require changes in behavior in time frames where there is not enough time for DNA trial in error.
What is your concern about time frames? You throw this in without justifying it.


I was actually going to use a free energy analysis to explain the Cambric explosion. The free energy was favorable for this higher entropy change.

Your concern over the Cambric is unfounded. You are ignoring the explosion that occured just at the end of the Pre-Cambrian: the end of the reducing atmosphere, the beginning of both aerobic and anaerobic respiration, sexual reporduction, diversity in monocytes, cell clustering, etc.


Like I said, if you base evolution on fuzzy random based theory and not science laws, you will need to use subjective rhetoric to make it seem correct.

Fuzzy to you, clear to scientists, who deal with random processes daily. It's fundamental to math and science, including thermo. Nothing subjective is required, for example: I can say "Normal", "Uniform" , "Rayleigh" and "Poisson" and most scientists will know what kind of random process I am talking about. The statistics of a process are in the data it exhibits, it's as objective as it gets.



Where we differs is I place free energy ahead of the DNA. The current theory magically has the DNA leading out of the context of free energy. That defies two laws of science based on theory. When you chose theory that defies known laws, it always appeared like a religion to me.
Where we differ is "we" don't deny science and you do, by inserting inapplicable laws from the unrelated field of thermodynamics, and magically ahieving your desired effect of denial of science.

Since you have neither proven a thermodynamic system exiists, that is a system at all, that it is a closed system, or that is is at constant temperature and pressure, your analogy falls flat and all of your conclusions are invalidated and therefore your entire argument against the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection fails.

Please feel free to post my rebuttal at the Neo-Creation-Science forum of your choosing.

... Darwin was part of the age of reason, where reality was expected to be logical. Random was considered the stuff of superstition.The bold is NOT true. More of your inventions. The study of random probability was one of the more advanced sciences!

Probability, because of its importance to gamblers like Chevaliers de Mere, a prominent member of the French court and avid gambler. He prompted an exchange of many letters between Pascal & Fermat discussing probability – Questions like how many rolls of two die together are need to make “box cars” (a pair of 6s) more likely to occur than not? Or another was if four die are rolled, is it more or less likely that a six will appear? Etc.

The chance of getting at least one 6 in four rolls is only very slightly* better than 50/50 i.e. 671/1296 to be exact; and more than 24 rolls of two die are on average required to get box cars. You want to try to show that? that was known mathematically, not the "stuff of superstition."

*Far less than the 2/3 the simple minded often guess. With slight odds in your favor you can make money betting there will be no 6, even in four rolls.

Also agreed. However, evolution has nothing to do with efficiency. Peacock tails are extremely INefficient when it comes to the energy needed to keep a peacock alive. But they appeal to the opposite sex - so those traits are preserved and amplified.

You need to extend the concept of efficiency to more than just biochemistry. The tail of the peacock has an impact on the female at the level of the brain; appeal. The brain is at the top of the hierarchy in terms of the animals overall control system. Optimization changes in the brain can lead to overall system efficiencies.

Picture an assembly line with a robot arm that choses particular objects to send down the line. Improvements in selectivity can optimize the system, even with the rest of the assembly line the same.

The idea of those traits preserved and amplified does not explain where the energy and entropy comes from to do this? It relies on a nebulous version of energy in the ethereal world of chaos. I am trying to get past that subjective veil.

Random changes on the DNA is implicit of higher entropy. The enthalpy increase is associated with the higher potential implicit of improper base pairs. The hydrogen bonded has residual energy/enthalpy. This is consistent with free energy, but needs energy beyond the DNA to add up. I am looking beyond the DNA so it does not look as random to me.

For example, after the DNA is duplicated, the nuclear membrane and other features in the cell disperse. This reflects a high entropy induction, that is times, as cellular order changes into disorder. This transitions implies there is a lot of entropy potential in the cell at that time. Some was used by the DNA, previously, with the cell generating this potential way before the DNA is even replicated. This potential is being filtered through the context of the cell so mutations have a better batting average than would a purely random change to the entire DNA.

There are parts of the DNA that are conserved and parts that are more subject to change during DNA duplication. This, by itself is not implicit of random. There is no need to change that which is already optimized. How the DNA know which is which so it can restrict some genes more than others? It has to do with free energy and that which is more or less favorable for entropy.

The bold is NOT true. More of your inventions. The study of random probability was one of the more advanced sciences!

Probability, because of its importance to gamblers like Chevaliers de Mere, a prominent member of the French court and avid gambler. He prompted an exchange of many letters between Pascal & Fermat discussing probability – Questions like how many rolls of two die together are need to make “box cars” (a pair of 6s) more likely to occur than not? Or another was if four die are rolled, is it more or less likely that a six will appear? Etc.

The chance of getting at least one 6 in four rolls is only very slightly better than 50/50 i.e. 671/1296 to be exact; and more than 24 rolls of two die are on average required to get box cars. You want to try to show that? that was known mathematically, not the "stuff of superstition."

There is another side to this. Gambling can also involve cheating, such as loaded dice. In this case, we can add weight to certain sides so they will appear more often. The DNA does not uniformly change along its entire length in a random way. Some areas of the DNA is loaded to these side appear more often. Other genes are more highly conservative, with these mutating with less frequency. This is loaded dice that uses the weight of free energy.

By superstition I meant that random allows anything to be possible since there is a finite possibility for selling anything. This allows fairies and pixies since these can randomly appear even in violation of cause and effect. The DNA has loaded dice based on cause and effect called free energy. The random or entropy is restricted to what is needed to minimize free energy.

... It's fundamental to math and science, including thermo. ...That is a good point. Perhaps even stronger than you know. I am almost certain ALL of thermodynamics follows from the Ergodic theorem, probability (statistics of random processes) and possibly conservation of energy (but that is assumed in the ergodic theorem)

... I am looking beyond the DNA so it does not look as random to me. ...Yes, as I noted earlier, you need to tear down "random" before there can be "intelligent design."

Be more honest - don't throw out a lot of nonsense that you don't even understand as there is no sense in it such as: brains being in love "optimize the release of free energy and lowers their combined entropy." etc.

I.e. just honestly say you believe in ID or one of the religions.

Let me prove that changes on the DNA are not exactly under random. If we took a six sided dice and threw it, each side has equal probability, such that over time each side will appear in the same proportions. If changes on the DNA were completely random, each base pair and/or each gene would have the same odds to mutate. Therefore, if it was random no aspects of the DNA, would be more likely to mutate, than a six sided dice will prefer only certain sides.

Correct me if I am wrong. Don't certain aspects of the DNA mutate faster than other aspects. While certain aspects are more conservative. This is not random relative to the entire DNA. If the DNA were dice, the DNA dice would be loaded. I told you what the weight is that is loading the DNA; free energy.

I suppose we can narrow our point of observation and treat the narrow set of genes that do mutate, more often, as doing so in a random way. This will allow us to use the black box so we don't have to think why is the entire DNA is not in the scope of this assumption. The dice are loaded but the politics needs to deny this.

.The misunderstanding that constantly follows me is just because I think in terms of free energy does not mean i don't believe in evolution. I just don't fully except everything in the current explanation for evolution because certain things violate free energy such as the random DNA.

What tends to happen is if you don't fully believe the dogma of evolution, lock, stock and barrel, you are automatically lumped into creationisms. This is a political trick or smoke screen to banish one if they point out flaws in the dogma. This is how you discredit truth to protect dogma.

The DNA does not mutate uniformly, so it cannot be completely random. Some areas of the DNA changes much faster than others. The dice is loaded. Evolution, as is, has been playing with loaded dice calling it a fair game. I don't think it is cheating, but more like they just haven't been smart enough to recognize the dice were loaded, in a world considered random to them.

I have no problem with Darwin, since he points to a consistent outcome called natural selection. He didn't know how to explain this consistency in terms of laws of science, but left it nebulous but intuitive.

You need to extend the concept of efficiency to more than just biochemistry. The tail of the peacock has an impact on the female at the level of the brain; appeal. The brain is at the top of the hierarchy in terms of the animals overall control system. Optimization changes in the brain can lead to overall system efficiencies.

And can lead to extinction when the environment changes. Which from an evolutionary standpoint is the opposite of efficiency. Again, evolution does not give a shit about overall system efficiency. It only cares about reproduction.


The idea of those traits preserved and amplified does not explain where the energy and entropy comes from to do this?

Nope. Energy comes from sunlight, which is used directly by plants and indirectly by animals. The only exceptions are a very few extremophiles that can use temperature differentials and dissolved minerals to generate energy.


It relies on a nebulous version of energy in the ethereal world of chaos. I am trying to get past that subjective veil.

Word salad.


There are parts of the DNA that are conserved and parts that are more subject to change during DNA duplication. This, by itself is not implicit of random.

Correct. DNA replication is not random. MUTATION is random. Most of those mutations destroy the cell or render it incapable of reproducing. Thus the only DNA changes that are conserved are the very rare ones that allow the cell to survive.


There is no need to change that which is already optimized.

Mutation doesn't care. It changes DNA anyway. If the new organism is less optimized it dies.


How the DNA know which is which so it can restrict some genes more than others?

It doesn't. We just see the results of the "good" changes more than the results of the "bad" changes.


It has to do with free energy and that which is more or less favorable for entropy.

DNA could care less about free energy.

Let me prove that changes on the DNA are not exactly under random. If we took a six sided dice and threw it, each side has equal probability, such that over time each side will appear in the same proportions. If changes on the DNA were completely random, each base pair and/or each gene would have the same odds to mutate. Therefore, if it was random no aspects of the DNA, would be more likely to mutate, than a six sided dice will prefer only certain sides. Correct me if I am wrong.

You are wrong. The changes are random but the changes we OBSERVE are definitely not - because they have been filtered. The more deadly changes have already been removed.

Let's take your example. I give you 500 boxes, each carefully handled so as to not disturb the contents. In each box is a dice that has been rolled. You open them all and see approximately 100 dice that have rolled to 1. Approximately 100 have rolled to 2, 100 to 3, 100 to 4, and 100 to 5. None have rolled to 6. You might then conclude "these dice are not random! They never roll a 6."

Then I reveal that I have removed all the boxes that rolled a 6 before giving them to you, and that there were about 100 of them. Would you change your mind?

... If changes on the DNA were completely random, each base pair and/or each gene would have the same odds to mutate. ... Correct me if I am wrong.No one is claiming random means all parts of the DNA suffer equal probability of being changed.
... Don't certain aspects of the DNA mutate faster than other aspects. While certain aspects are more conservative. This is not random relative to the entire DNA. true.
... If the DNA were dice, the DNA dice would be loaded. I told you what the weight is that is loading the DNA; free energy.No "free energy" which you need to define in this context, would not be important compared to the local structure. Loaded dice tend to favor some result over others - random DNA changes is not doing that. It is more about what part of the DNA is changed not what will be the favored result.


... The misunderstanding that constantly follows me is just because I think in terms of free energy OK -define what you are speaking of by "free energy" (Or is it some buzz words you read in a thermo book where perhaps constant temperature or pressure were required for the definition?). You speak of free energy changes in the brain when one falls in love, etc. - let see you tell how many ergs that is or how measured or even how to know if it goes up or down (without circular reasoning to fit it into your ideas).

The DNA does not mutate uniformly, so it cannot be completely random. Some areas of the DNA changes much faster than others. The dice is loaded.


The uniform distribution is but one of a veritable plethora of random distributions. Besides, why not expect a normal distribution, since that would be, after all, normal. :cool:



What tends to happen is if you don't fully believe the dogma of evolution, lock, stock and barrel, you are automatically lumped into creationisms. This is a political trick or smoke screen to banish one if they point out flaws in the dogma. This is how you discredit truth to protect dogma.


Since creationism typically denies all kinds of facts, evidence and human discovery, its anti-evolutionary stance, including some of the points you rely on, are generally regarded as false dogma by both religious and scientific communities. You may feel tricked or banished or sense smoke, but until you come to grips with what science is teaching, which renders your premises invalid, you will probably never understand how or why you (and similarly situated folks) are regarded as political tricksters blowing smoke.

I could help you understand if you are interested, but I also understand you may not be receptive to my help.




I have no problem with Darwin, since he points to a consistent outcome called natural selection. He didn't know how to explain this consistency in terms of laws of science, but left it nebulous but intuitive.


If by "law" you mean "entropy", then Darwin is correct in ignoring it, since it only applies to closed systems. I can help you understand your error in stating this if you wish.

If you look at other candidate solvents for life, such as alcohol, if we burned them in O2, water will be one of the final products of this combustion along with CO2. What that means is the potential between energy rich cellular components and water is higher than any other solvent. Water gives the best bang for the buck.

If we used an alcohol for life, the alcohol would be the lowest energy state we could create in that cell. If we exceeded that alcohol state, we would start to burn the cell's solvent as fuel. With water, we can burn an alcohol or any other solvent, all the way down to CO2 and water and gain far more energy. Water is a very stable bottom state in terms of the cell's energy economy; cell can't burn it.

There is another consideration with water and the organics of life, which can be understood with a simple example. If we mix water and oil, and shake these, they will separate out into two layers with oil on top. This will lower the free energy of the water-oil system; lowers the surface tension. Life is composed of organics. The presence of water will result in a slight push of the organics away from the water, toward other organics, due to various amounts of surface tension This constant push helps combine organic things in water. Organic solvents would do the opposite and have a pull that will slightly separate organics more into solution.

For example, If we put phospholipids in water, the water pushes this into a bi-layer membrane, fully assembled and ready to go for step two. This is like oil and water separating out but with charged oil via phosphate. If there were other organic things in the water, the water will push them into the membrane. Now we are ready for step three. Organic solvents are not quite as strict as water so step two and three would form much slower.

Water is held together with hydrogen bonding. This is also the most important secondary bonding force in life. The DNA double helix uses hydrogen bonding. The organics defining DNA, as they evolved, had to conform to the free energy constraints within water. The inclusion of hydrogen bonding in the DNA, is sort of like the old saying, if you can't beat them (water) join them.

Water is tough and strict and not to be taken lightly by the organics. It can also self ionize and use that to make sure the organics conform via chemical changes. A different solvent would push the genetic material to evolve a different bonding strategy to define lower free energy in that solvent. This minimal energy strategy may not be as good as hydrogen bonds, since these are the strongest secondary bonds used by life. The genetic material could have a harder time be a consistent template with weaker organic template bindings.

Besides also that, water is the second most abundant molecule in the universe, only behind H2, with is number one. The energy difference between H2 and H20 just so happens to define the limits of all the energy states of life. It was meant to be.

Here is one possible scenario. Since the person can drink water in the form of fruit juices, but can't use plain water, this suggests the skin, like the fruit juice water, is slightly acidic, since fruit juice tend to have an acidic pH.

Tap water is neutral to slightly alkaline due to water hardness (minerals in water). Maybe the difference in pH, between acid skin and neutral water, when the two neutralize, will cause a slight energy output. The skin;s nerve endings may be sensitive to this pH input (like warm or cold) causing an amplified sensory and feedback reaction in the brain.

One way to test this theory and gather data is to put fruit juice on the skin to see the reaction. Next, dilute the juice with water, in several stages, to slowly raise the pH, until they start to feel something. This will give a sensory pH threshold. Then they can adjust bathing water pH to be able to use water.

Here is one possible scenario. Since the person can drink water in the form of fruit juices, but can't use plain water, this suggests the skin, like the fruit juice water, is slightly acidic, since fruit juice tend to have an acidic pH.

Tap water is neutral to slightly alkaline due to water hardness (minerals in water). Maybe the difference in pH, between acid skin and neutral water, when the two neutralize, will cause a slight energy output. The skin;s nerve endings may be sensitive to this pH input (like warm or cold) causing an amplified sensory and feedback reaction in the brain.

One way to test this theory and gather data is to put fruit juice on the skin to see the reaction. Next, dilute the juice with water, in several stages, to slowly raise the pH, until they start to feel something. This will give a sensory pH threshold. Then they can adjust bathing water pH to be able to use water.

You do realize that in this entire post you did not use the term entropy. You might want to go back and amend the post.;)

Entropy would be behind the generic change that made this sensory feedback connection. It is also behind differences in pH. Acids have extra H+, which are very mobile in water. These H+ is a source of higher entropy in acids. If we neutralize the acid, the entropy of H+ falls, releasing energy.

Entropy would be behind the generic change that made this sensory feedback connection. It is also behind differences in pH. Acids have extra H+, which are very mobile in water. These H+ is a source of higher entropy in acids. If we neutralize the acid, the entropy of H+ falls, releasing energy.

Whew... My equilibrium has been restored, as well as my faith in the pseudo-scientific method.:)

There is a phenomena called cooperative hydrogen bonding, which not only occurs within water, but also within bio-materials and within composites of water and bio-materials. What cooperative hydrogen bonding essentially is, is the team is stronger than the sum of its parts.

For example, say we had ten hydrogen bonds in a cooperative, the cooperative acts like a team which makes all the hydrogen bonds stronger. The way this teams acts is the cooperative will shift resources to make sure there is no breech in the cooperative. This makes normally weaker hydrogen bonds (individuals) have the strength of the team.

This team strength is typically true, only for breaking the first hydrogen bond somewhere along the cooperative. Once the first hydrogen bond is broken, the cooperative breaks up and the superman bonds of the team go back to normal individual Clark Kent bonds.

I suppose the transition into cooperatives, because of their stability, means there is energy given off during formation. It is almost the hydrogen bonding version of resonance. It takes a strong force to break the cooperative, such as an enzyme. The breaking of the corporative can result in a large increase in molecular entropy. It might be possible for sensory system to pick up one or both of these effects and then feedback an overreaction.

The DNA double helix forms cooperative hydrogen bonds. The unzipping enzymes are used to break that first team bond, then unzipping is easy as the individuals leave the team, up to the stop codon cooperative.

Cancer represents a state of heightened entropy compared to normal cells. Cancer cells have more degrees of random freedom compared to normal differentiated cells. Cancer treatments, which try to disrupt cancer, do so by a further increasing cancer entropy; dissociation all the way to death. However, this often causes an entropy increase in normal cells leading to mutations and birth defects in future generations.

There is another approach, which addresses cancer treatment in the opposite way. Since cancer cells define higher entropy than normal cells, theoretically, if we took a "lower the entropy of cancer approach", this would theoretically change active cancer into an inert state, while doing little or no harm to healthy cells.

In radiation treatment, the radiation impacts the DNA of both cancer and healthy cells. The healthy cells can repair the damage better, since they exists at lower entropy; try to move back to equilibrium order. The cancer, being at higher entropy, favors disorder and can't shift equilibrium in the needed direction.

Both affects is done via configurational equilibria, where the organic configurations within the cell or cancer define a state of dynamic equilibrium. The idea would be to alter this equilibrium in cancer in the direction of normal cells. Cancer which disappears on its own, tends to go backwards into the order of the body.

Here is how I look at this. The human body is a complex organic machine which loses efficiency when we get cancer. The loss of efficiency means more energy is lost into entropy, such as cancer. The growing cancer gains entropy as the body lowers efficiency making more wasted energy available for the cancer entropy. We need to shift the balance back the other way into less entropy.

Complexity is often associated with entropy. Entropy, in turn, is also associated with inefficiencies, when it comes to work cycles. Irreduceable complexity is the minimal complexity associated with maximum efficiency; minimal entropy due to efficiency=less complexity.

In other words, if efficiency is high, entropy will be low since most of the energy goes into work and not entropy. Based on this low entropy, there will still be entropy= complexity, but the minimal amount of entropy=complexity needed to balance the level of efficiency.

This push toward efficiency, which is part of evolution, can not be random, since random would to maximize entropy and complexity and try to lower efficiencies. The current model of evolution is only half baked since it does not take into account the efficiencies that are globally evolving in all aspects of life; lowers complexity=entropy (lean mean cell machine)

The push toward lowered entropy=higher efficiency to produce irreduceabe complexity (minimal complexity), is lumped into natural selection. This is useful but does explain the chemical mechanism and how this impacts even the DNA. The result of this deficit are subjective false positives when it comes to the existing theory.

The push toward lowered entropy=higher efficiency to produce irreduceabe complexity (minimal complexity), is lumped into natural selection.

Only in your mind. Natural selection could care less about entropy since the earth has an absurdly large excess of energy in the form of sunlight.

Animals evloved to eat grass which has hardly any nutritional value - very inefficient - so they have to eat huge amounts. It may be ineffient but since there is so much grass due to the outside energy from the sun why not utilize it?


This is useful but does explain the chemical mechanism and how this impacts even the DNA.

Entropy does not explain "the chemical mechanism and how this impacts even the DNA" because it has essentially irrelevent to the process.


The result of this deficit are subjective false positives when it comes to the existing theory.

There is no problem, other than your complete confusion on what entropy is and why it could have any affect on life in an open system like earth.

That which evolves and survives isn't always the most efficient. It just is the one that reproduces and passes on those genes. There's plenty of examples of inefficiencies in life forms...it's another reason not to believe in the idea of a great designer. Unless it was design by committee.

Complexity has a connection to entropy with increasing entropy equating to increasing complexity. Entropy also has a connection to work cycles, with entropy associated with inefficiencies and the irretrievable energy that is lost. Entropy needs energy to increase. In work cycles, energy is partially converted to work and therefore not available for entropy. Entropy will only get the wasted heat energy due to ineffiency. As cellular efficiency increases, entropy falls and therefore complexity decreases relative to states of lower efficiency. It is simple math.

If we add this together, as life increases efficiency and therefore entropy lowers, (more energy into work and less into entropy), entropy=complexity lowers into irreducible complexity. It can still be complex but not as wasteful complexity, like if the system was more inefficient.

For example, the US government is very complex with a lot of redundancy. If we increased its efficiency we would lower complexity by removing the redundancy. This is lowering the entropy by placing more and more manpower energy into work efficiencies. This lowering of structural entropy into irreducible complexity is an aspect of evolution. There is a logical reason of this.

Cells are very efficient. If we drew a curve of cellular efficiency as a function of evolutionary time scale we would see a trend moving toward higher efficiency and less wasted energy left over for high entropy=complexity. Even the DNA reflects this with the evolution of proof-reading enzymes to make sure there is lowered DNA entropy to reflect the higher cellular efficiencies.

The current model of evolution lumps this into natural selection without any chemical mechanism that can show how this relates to the DNA.

That which evolves and survives isn't always the most efficient. It just is the one that reproduces and passes on those genes.

Ding Ding Ding, correct answer.

You can learn this wellwisher, I know you can, it is not that difficult....

There is no problem, other than your complete confusion on what entropy is and why it could have any affect on life in an open system like earth.

If you could not control the entropy, within aspects of an open system, you could never make machines more efficient. An open system, in your opinion, would make it impossible to control the local entropy. This is done all the time. The MPG of cars has gotten better in this open earth system with waste energy=entropy going down. An engineer does this for a living. A biologists assumes random everything therefore throwing dice to engineer a car to be more efficient might appear impossible. That is not how it is done. There is a logic to it.

The cell is very efficient. If we assume 85% efficient, then only 15% of its energy goes into entropy. The other 85% percent goes into work. Cells were not always this efficient. If we assume starting without full cells the efficiency started close to zero.To gain cellular efficiency from 5% to 85%, cell entropy had to fall in the open system earth. It is not magic but simple math.

With car efficiency, to get better MPG, we need a logic path. You can't just throw the dice hoping this will happen randomly. To do this for thousands of enzymes in billions of cells you need a plan. Like Origin said, the open system wants to go the other way so random will not work. Life has a plan.

Life has a plan.

Apparently that plan included the deprivation of your ability to read, understand and draw inferences from any of thousands of technical books and articles on science.

Apparently the plan was for you to walk right past the mountains of evidence that would bury you if you tried to even unturn a single stone.

Apparently the plan was for you to wander aimlessly in the desert of your own confusion, ranting about your insane imagined personal view of reality.

Was that a plan imposed on you, or do you also do the planning?

... To gain cellular efficiency from 5% to 85%, cell entropy had to fall in the open system earth. It is not magic but simple math. ...entropy had no causal effect here. Yes during times when food was limited, more efficient systems were Darwinian selected.

One can note that may have lowered entropy, for living system, just as one can note that firetrucks are often found near fires.

Fire truck don´t CAUSE fires, ENTROPY REDUCTION does not CAUSE OR GUIDE evolution. Both are consequences, not causes.

To think otherwise one must be very ignorate of how the world works.

Fire truck don´t CAUSE fires, ENTROPY REDUCTION does not CAUSE OR GUIDE evolution. Both are consequences, not causes. To think otherwise one must be very ignorate of how the world works.

When your only tool is a hammer, all problems look like nails. (Or more accurately, when your only tool is entropy, all problems look like basic thermo.)

When your only tool is a hammer, all problems look like nails. (Or more accurately, when your only tool is entropy, all problems look like basic thermo.)

Yes but in this case he's trying to pull out what's been nailed down, and his hammer has no claw, since he never closes the system, in fact, he never has a system at all, and he's unable to connect ideas like heat with ideas like Natural Selection, because, of course, there is no connection...which is of course exactly what you mean by having only one tool. It brings to mind a child hammering away innocently at anything that he can reach. The difference is that wellwisher is obviously an adult--just one that prefers to engage the world as of we are all children. What an odd bird.

I understand the 19th century theory of natural selection put forth by Darwin. I also respect this accomplishment. It offered a humanistic explanation of the process of change observed in life. However, it did not address questions like what is the physical basis for natural selection? Darwin's theory appeared before physical chemistry and thermodynamics were developed. It is a toy hammer. If that is all you got I need to treat you like children.

Explain to to me the logic behind natural selection using hard science. I am not looking for recitation of this toy hammer tradition as though this is root science like a natural law. Explain this in terms of chemistry or physics, since these underly such phenomena on the earth.

I stick to entropy because natural selection has no mechanism based in science. Do sprites cause this or does mother natural do it?

As far as an open system, don't cells limit free movement into and out of the cell via transport proteins? Why is the cell avoiding the open environment criterion and reducing the open amount of possible entropy? What was the mechanism for this, without using 19th century humanism?

For the experts in entropy, let me show you something new. This is important to life since it indirectly explains one of the whys of natural selection. I have no problem with natural selection other than it is not a law of nature. It is a beginning or toy hammer, but not the end. If Darwin has formed his theory 100 years later he would have taken ti to the next step.

I will begin with oil and water in a beaker. The oil floats on top of the water forming two phases. Next, I will add energy to increase the entropy, through agitation. The increase in entropy will be reflected by the increased complexity and increase in information needed to describe the system. We will go from two phases to thousands of little water and oil bubbles randomly floating in various stages of collision and breaking.

Although I have added energy and increased entropy, I went to far for this system and made too much entropy. What will happen is the system will move toward less entropy, less complexity, defined by less information, as the bubbles combine and ultimately reforming the simple two layer system.

The physics system has an entropy limit due to surface tension between water and oil. I can increase it, but this will not remain stable but will reverse back to the system entropy limit. This is a natural selection.

I will stop so you can digest that.

I understand the 19th century theory of natural selection put forth by Darwin. I also respect this accomplishment.


And now you will equivocate:


It offered a humanistic explanation of the process of change observed in life.

And thus my point is proven: you address your readers like children.




However,


This is the conjunction of equivocation


it did not address questions like what is the physical basis for natural selection?

You are dead wrong. Mutation is physical. Competition for resources is physical. Selection is physical.


Darwin's theory appeared before physical chemistry and thermodynamics were developed.

Bullhonkey. Re-read your history.


It is a toy hammer. If that is all you got I need to treat you like children.


If that was worthy of something I would call it patronizing. Unfortunately you don't even make it through the first wicket.


Explain to to me the logic behind natural selection using hard science.


Are you kidding me?

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_25

http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/globalchange1/current/lectures/selection/selection.html

http://anthro.palomar.edu/evolve/evolve_2.htm

That's all you get for now. I've got millions more. You probably won't read them anyway. You're punking us, aren't you?


I am not looking for recitation of this toy hammer tradition as though this is root science like a natural law.

You're not looking for the hard science, as presented in university science courses? Then it's not science, and you're just trolling.


Explain this in terms of chemistry or physics, since these underly such phenomena on the earth.

No, you said hard science. That's all you get, nothing more, no "my way or the highway". You have to bite the bullet and go with hard science.


I stick to entropy because natural selection has no mechanism based in science. Do sprites cause this or does mother natural do it?


Right. Hard science equals sprites. Got that.


As far as an open system, don't cells limit free movement into and out of the cell via transport proteins?

Are you finally going to acknowledge you error in treating entropy outside of a closed system? Makes me practically want to get down on my knees and thank the Lord.


Why is the cell avoiding the open environment criterion and reducing the open amount of possible entropy?

You have to be freaking kidding me. You aren't by any chance taking Thorazine, are you? If so, forgive me, for you know not what you do. Really, dude, that has to be the CRAZIEST thing you have said so far.

YOU ARE ERRONEOUSLY APPLYING A THERMODYNAMIC PRINCIPLE TO AN OPEN SYSTEM. THE PRINCIPLE IS INVALID IN AN OPEN SYSTEM. YOU HAVE TO CALCULATE THE TOTAL EXCHANGES ACROSS THE BOUNDARY THAT ENCLOSES THE SYSTEM. READ AND UNDERSTAND ANY INTRODUCTORY STATEMENT ABOUT ENTROPY TO CORRECT YOUR ERROR.



What was the mechanism for this, without using 19th century humanism?

Give me that hammer before you hurt someone. Now go read.

For the experts in entropy,

This from the guy who leaves the gate valve open when measuring pressure.



let me show you something new.


which 100 people have already told me is wrong, and which is diametrically opposite of all literature and teaching in science. Millions of experts need to sit down and shut up, because here's the Big Answer.



This is important to life since it indirectly explains one of the whys of natural selection.

In case any one had any doubt that DNA and the struggle for survival were in any way suspect.



I have no problem with natural selection other than it is not a law of nature.

He's a lawman! He wants a property deed! None around? He's going to stake a claim!



It is a beginning or toy hammer, but not the end. If Darwin has formed his theory 100 years later he would have taken ti to the next step.

Translation: Darwin waited 30 years to publish, fearing the nitwits that couldn't understand the simplest ideas of a naturalist. But I know he would have come my way. And so would millions of scientists who will someday understand me, good citizens of Athens, when I awaken them to their folly.



I will begin with oil and water in a beaker.

Which has NOTHING TO DO WITH BIOLOGY but who cares? I'm talking now.



The oil floats on top of the water forming two phases. Next, I will add energy to increase the entropy, through agitation. The increase in entropy will be reflected by the increased complexity and increase in information needed to describe the system. We will go from two phases to thousands of little water and oil bubbles randomly floating in various stages of collision and breaking.

Although I have added energy and increased entropy, I went to far for this system and made too much entropy. What will happen is the system will move toward less entropy, less complexity, defined by less information, as the bubbles combine and ultimately reforming the simple two layer system.

The physics system has an entropy limit due to surface tension between water and oil. I can increase it, but this will not remain stable but will reverse back to the system entropy limit.

Translation: all of my ideas about evolution came from the science hints in the back of a comic book.



This is a natural selection.


*POOF* and the wizard is gone in thick cloud of greasy black smoke. But wait! An axe is thrown at you! There is an anrgy elf in the room with you! You run, dropping your lamp, setting the Hall of the Mountain King ablaze! There is no escape. You wave your rod, holler PLUGH! but nothing!

Then you wake up, having fallen asleep not at your GameBoy, but at - yes, boys and girls - the noble hall of SciForums, home of all things science, and, MUCH MUCH MORE!



I will stop so you can digest that.

*gag*

**bwaaarf***

YOU ARE ERRONEOUSLY APPLYING A THERMODYNAMIC PRINCIPLE TO AN OPEN SYSTEM. THE PRINCIPLE IS INVALID IN AN OPEN SYSTEM. YOU HAVE TO CALCULATE THE TOTAL EXCHANGES ACROSS THE BOUNDARY THAT ENCLOSES THE SYSTEM. READ AND UNDERSTAND ANY INTRODUCTORY STATEMENT ABOUT ENTROPY TO CORRECT YOUR ERROR.

I hear rhetoric but I still don't hear any mechanism. Why is that? The reason is there is none. This smoke is no substitute for real science.

Evolution has two aspects which are being merged and confused. The first is the genetic aspect, which is well developed science. The other aspect is natural selection which is a toy hammer, where sound rational thinking is replaced by conformity to dogma.

Let me demonstrate the dogma of natural selection with an example. Say we start with a group of ten male animals competing for reproduction. After the competition natural selection results in the strongest animal doing the deed. This is just a basic example of say deer.

If we look in terms of the future complexity or information, the possible genetic information that is passed forward to the offspring has been reduced to roughly 10% by natural selection, since only 1 or 10 gets to breed. There is a loss of entropy/complexity and information into the future. Natural selection, by means of its process of "elimination", reduces the information and entropy with respect to the future.

Again there are two things, genetics diversity and natural selection. The genetic aspect increases entropy (10 competitors), while natural selection skinnies this down to 10% in the above example. This eliminates 90% of the theoretical future entropy and is therefore 90% efficient in lowering future entropy.

I used the water and oil example because it parallels natural selection or rather natural selection parallel the basic potentials in the water/oil. The genetic aspects is like the agitator which increases the entropy of the oil/water to form an emulsion with more information and more complexity. Natural selection is breaking the bubbles until we are down to two phases. This makes the toy hammer more like a older child's metal hammer. It is hard to go to adult hammer when the basics are beyond an entire branch of science.

The irony is Evolutionary science will probably still deny truth in an attempt to perpetuate its myth using the ever predictable and boring PC smear approach based on alternate reality. Since I figured this out that makes me the smartest person, in evolution theory history, besides Darwin. This is why I treat the naive who rudely protect the irrational traditions, as children.

As examples of the dominate role of natural selection and unimportant role of entropy consider the leopard and zebra – both have coats of mixed colors – a higher entropy state than uniform color.

It is survival and mating that are important, not lower entropy.

But don´t let "ugly facts" destroy your "beautiful theory" - keep your non-scientific beliefs.

To quote myself


The irony is Evolutionary science will probably still deny truth in an attempt to perpetuate its myth using the ever predictable and boring PC smear approach based on alternate reality. .... This is why I treat the naive who rudely protect the irrational traditions, as children.

Do the math. We start with a herd of zebra. In the ideal world of evolutionary entropy all would breed assuring maximum genetic entropy is passed forward. But natural selection will reduce this to a fraction of those genes. Do the math instead of get bogged town in humanism.

In my example, we start with ten and natural selection picks one, reducing theoretical information (if all could breed) to 10% entropy=complexity=information. This loss of entropy=complexity=information leads to efficiency of about 90% but we still have 10% entropy.

This 10% can still lead to complexity=information and entropy, but only 10% of the original 100%, since 90% of the original genes are lost forever.

The slow boat of evolution is because although the DNA can generate mutations and diversity, this level of entropy does not remain. Natural selection will reduce it to a small fraction. Darwin would have figured this out if the concept of entropy had been around in his day. It came after him with me able to figure it out and honor the teacher by exceeding him.

I understand the 19th century theory of natural selection put forth by Darwin. I also respect this accomplishment. It offered a humanistic explanation of the process of change observed in life.

It is not a humanistic approach. Indeed it has nothing to do with human values or concerns. This is often misunderstood by creationists who feel that evolution "imposes a secular view of the world on people" or something. It does no such thing. It merely explains how organisms evolve.


However, it did not address questions like what is the physical basis for natural selection?

Simple. Death. Organisms that are selected against die and do not propagate their genome.


Darwin's theory appeared before physical chemistry and thermodynamics were developed.

Given that it's still valid, that is an excellent argument that evolution requires neither physical chemistry nor thermodynamics to be valid.


I stick to entropy because natural selection has no mechanism based in science. Do sprites cause this or does mother natural do it?

There is no "mother natural" nor are their sprites. It is simple selection.

If you'd like to learn more about it, google it and pay particular attention to genetic algorithms that use it. There are a great many out there. (And if you contact the scientists who work on it and claim that "there's no basis for selection in science" you'll probably learn more than you ever cared to know about the science behind it.)

Some other terms you might want to use in a Google search about selection:

stochastic universal sampling
tournament selection
truncation selection.


As far as an open system, don't cells limit free movement into and out of the cell via transport proteins? Why is the cell avoiding the open environment criterion and reducing the open amount of possible entropy?

Because cells that remain open to the environment cannot maintain homeostasis, and thus die. This removes them from breeding populations, and their genomes are lost.

doesn't cells increase entropy , since it breaks down "food" which is ordered

so the importance of order and entropy to the cell is important for life to exist

I hear rhetoric but I still don't hear any mechanism.

All you hear is the sound of your own voice. You claim to be taking a known parameter, entropy, and applying it in a useful manner, but you are violating the fundamental principle that entropy is a measure of TOTAL order, and so this foolish nonsense lives on in your mind because you think you are some kind of prima donna with a magic bullet that is going to revolutionize the world. But it's just a dumb lame excuse for you to vent, nothing more. You think you are immune from error, while you sit on a mountain of error. All because you refuse to listen. You refuse to read, understand and learn. That should be an alarm for you by itself. But you've turned off the alarm system long ago. Your posh little castle is lying in a pile of ashes and you're still gloating about how quaint and comfy it is.


Why is that? The reason is there is none. This smoke is no substitute for real science.

You wouldn't know real science if a book on thermodynamics fell off the shelf and hit you in the head. So far you are the quintessential example of pseudoscience.


Evolution has two aspects which are being merged and confused.
By you alone, no typical scientist is confused about it at all


The first is the genetic aspect, which is well developed science.
Do you actually know any of the principles of genetics? Can you describe what Gregor Mendel learned about it, how he set out to explore the question, and why? This is freshman material, wellwisher. You're talking to people who took these courses already. They see you refusing to even open the book. Hasn't that notion gotten through to you yet? You have to learn before you can teach.


The other aspect is natural selection which is a toy hammer, where sound rational thinking is replaced by conformity to dogma.

Here we go with the rant. Always substitute rant when lacking in fundamental principles. wellwisher's 1st law of thermodynamics.


Let me demonstrate the dogma of natural selection with an example.
Fallacy of implied conclusion: dogma.

wellwisher's 2nd law of thermo: grind the gears and rave on using an utterly inane invented parable that is supposed to model an analogy, but it never does:



Say we start with a group of ten male animals competing for reproduction. After the competition natural selection results in the strongest animal doing the deed. This is just a basic example of say deer.

If we look in terms of the future complexity or information, the possible genetic information that is passed forward to the offspring has been reduced to roughly 10% by natural selection, since only 1 or 10 gets to breed. There is a loss of entropy/complexity and information into the future. Natural selection, by means of its process of "elimination", reduces the information and entropy with respect to the future.

Again there are two things, genetics diversity and natural selection. The genetic aspect increases entropy (10 competitors), while natural selection skinnies this down to 10% in the above example. This eliminates 90% of the theoretical future entropy and is therefore 90% efficient in lowering future entropy.

I used the water and oil example because it parallels natural selection or rather natural selection parallel the basic potentials in the water/oil. The genetic aspects is like the agitator which increases the entropy of the oil/water to form an emulsion with more information and more complexity. Natural selection is breaking the bubbles until we are down to two phases. This makes the toy hammer more like a older child's metal hammer. It is hard to go to adult hammer when the basics are beyond an entire branch of science.

The irony is Evolutionary science will probably still deny truth in an attempt to perpetuate its myth using the ever predictable and boring PC smear approach based on alternate reality. Since I figured this out that makes me the smartest person, in evolution theory history, besides Darwin. This is why I treat the naive who rudely protect the irrational traditions, as children.

And that's it. Not one shred of science.

doesn't cells increase entropy , since it breaks down "food" which is ordered

OK this is a valid, because you pose it as a question. And see how that question is going to lead to what wellwisher is avoiding. Because the amino acids taken in will be reassembled to make cell proteins, which may or may not be considered order - it's too complex to say, without going through a detailed analysis. The glucose will be metabolized, so that's a definite breakdown in order. So you're looking at this from the objective point of view, by merely asking "what's going on", whereas wellwisher is ASSUMING he already knows what's going on, so he's going to invent a "science" that proves it.

But your statement could teach him how to think critically, if he would only listen to you. But he won't. He's got his mind made up, he's really just here to preach.

I for one, river, appreciate you comment. It shows insight.

so the importance of order and entropy to the cell is important for life to exist

I think so, because you are talking about biochemical reactions, so entropy analysis applies at that level, but I also think only a very careful analysis can assay the total entropy as I said above.

As long as we are talking about cells, there is hope in reaching some idea about entropy. Perhaps we could move on to talk about tissues, then organs, and eventually an entire creature. Imagine the complexity of that task!

And still we haven't arrived at the point where they undergo cell mutation, produce variation in the offspring, and then some of the offspring will not survive because they are not as well adapted as others.

This is where the entropy analysis stretches to the point of irrelevance. So wellwisher's formula is to throw all science out the door and tell us that Darwin was wrong, or Darwin was a humanist, something totally irrelevant to Darwin's observations (which wellwisher cannot repeat even until this day)...

What kind of person walks into a carefully constructed city, built over 150 years by hard working specialists, and tears it down in 2 minutes with some crazed idea that it has no right to exist because he says so?

So I would listen to anything you have to say because you are not imposing your invented ideas onto the problem.

I wonder if he can learn from you, since I have offered to teach him and he ignores me.

doesn't cells increase entropy , since it breaks down "food" which is ordered

Sort of. At a system level (i.e. the container that contains both cells and food) entropy goes up. At the cellular level entropy goes DOWN. The cell uses the energy in the food to create new (ordered) proteins, other cells etc thus reducing its overall entropy.

“ Originally Posted by river
so the importance of order and entropy to the cell is important for life to exist


I think so, because you are talking about biochemical reactions, so entropy analysis applies at that level, but I also think only a very careful analysis can assay the total entropy as I said above. As long as we are talking about cells, there is hope in reaching some idea about entropy. Perhaps we could move on to talk about tissues, then organs, and eventually an entire creature. Imagine the complexity of that task! And still we haven't arrived at the point where they undergo cell mutation, produce variation in the offspring, and then some of the offspring will not survive because they are not as well adapted as others. This is where the entropy analysis stretches to the point of irrelevance. So wellwisher's formula is to throw all science out the door and tell us that Darwin was wrong, or Darwin was a humanist, something totally irrelevant to Darwin's observations (which wellwisher cannot repeat even until this day)... What kind of person walks into a carefully constructed city, built over 150 years by hard working specialists, and tears it down in 2 minutes with some crazed idea that it has no right to exist because he says so? So I would listen to anything you have to say because you are not imposing your invented ideas onto the problem. I wonder if he can learn from you, since I have offered to teach him and he ignores me.

yeah found that Darwin isn't so much wrong , its just that any change in any life form is quicker or faster than he assumed

for instance I found out awhile ago that silicon valley in California has a problem with Autistic childern

which is caused they think by having parents that are both mathematical thinkers , sort of withdrawn from life , the without

I would think that this is a case of evolution , in fast forward

the genes very quickly changed because of the parents disposition

thoughts

Sort of. At a system level (i.e. the container that contains both cells and food) entropy goes up. At the cellular level entropy goes DOWN. The cell uses the energy in the food to create new (ordered) proteins, other cells etc thus reducing its overall entropy.

See that's the whole point. None of this can be simplified into a Grand Unified Theory of Everything, as wellwisher wants to to be. Imagine the complexity of the task, taking just those two examples of a system boundary and trying to actually evaluate how much energy was gained or lost, then moving the boundary back and forth in scale, trying to make sense out of all of the interdependencies. It would be a monumental task, even for one cell type. Then you would need all kinds of labwork to try to grasp the energy use of organelles, or something really crazy, like how to measure the "order" in protein synthesis, as if you could somehow attach an energy rating to that. (I guess you could add up all the bond energies accumulated by stacking the amino acids together, minus the total energy expended in the ribosome).

And this isn't even a start, because you have countless cell types, tissues, organs and systems, etc. So it would be unfathomably complex. That's not to say that experts won't set out on ventures resembling this, it's just crazy to think that anyone would do so just to prove to denialists that evolution is the real deal.

As you note, entropy of a cell can be studied. But to connect this to evolution as wellwisher thinks it connects? No way.

This is very similar to electrons filling atomic orbitals. If we started with a stripped oxygen atom, and introduce electrons, the first electrons will fill the lowest energy state or 1S orbital and then work their way to higher and higher energy up to 2P.

In the case of life, the easiest adaption is done first (inner eco-orbitals) and then the higher energy eco-orbitals (harder) will fill in next. The advantage is natural selection maintains higher genetic entropy.

Entropy needs energy to increase, so filling in higher and higher energy eco-orbitals allows the background energy to remain higher so it can support higher genetic entropy (more diversity).

Relative to atoms, the diversity of chemistry is based on the outer most electrons. These electrons exist at the highest relative energy, compared to the very stable inner electrons. The outer electrons offer the most energy for entropy, allowing extreme diversify in chemistry. Inner electrons don't form much in the way of diversify since energy is too low to support much in the way of entropy.

Life is interesting since it forms the most diversity within chemistry. This has to do with even higher energy levels. Trees for example, form wood full of electron energy in reduced materials. This would minimize energy if it was CO2 and H2O. But as CO2 and H2O, the energy is too low for the entropy needed for adaptive radial diversity. We need to increase the energy of the electrons back to reduced materials so there is more potential energy for the entropy of radial diversity.

This is why cells, if you burnt their structures in a calorimeter, will give off a lot of energy. They need that potential energy for higher energy internal eco-orbitals. But since the energy of the universe needs to move in the direction of lower energy, there is a push lower energy and entropy; efficiency.

Life, by growing, increases its amount of stored energy value. The tree adds more and more wood as it grows. We can burn the tree as a function of growth to show this increasing energy value. Humans will add muscle and fat as we grow, which both have caloric value; energy value. Inanimate systems in the universe, based on energy and force typically move from higher to lower energy. Life builds up energy value as it grows, causing it to go in the opposite direction of inanimate matter.

As an analogy, say we had water in a storage tank, connected by a pipe to the lake below. The universal potentials will naturally go from higher to lower energy, or the water will flow from the tank toward the lower level lake due to gravity. Life does the opposite. As life grows, it would be like water being pumping up into the tank, from the lake, causing the tank level to rise; gaining potential energy.

Since life acts within the universe (not in isolation) both the effects occur at the same time, as life interacts and grows within the universe. In the above analogy, life is pumping water uphill into the tank. At the same time, the universe is trying to let the water flow out of the tank toward lower energy. When we reach maximum growth size there is a balance of the two. The tank reaches steady state.

The cells build and store energy, while also grinding down food materials to lowest energy; water and CO2. The energy extracted from digestion is used to synthesize materials and push the cell up the energy hill. Instead of a tank, picture life as a water fountain that is pumping water. The universe is like gravity which pulls it back to earth. The fountain appears animated due to this dual action.

Beside energy the fountain of life also makes use of entropy. Life acting within the universe is also a fountain of increasing and decreasing entropy. For example, the DNA will increase entropy via mutations. This is the universal push up the entropy fountain. Natural selection, common to life, weeds out all this genetic entropy and choses only a fraction; best. This loss of genetic entropy is connected to life pulling the entropy down the fountain.

The average modern cell is about 85% efficient. This means the ratio of theoretical entropy (universe acting) is about 15%. The 85% efficiency is used for work cycles to gain energy and lower entropy. Within the 15% universal share there is a push toward increasing complexity such as at the DNA.

If plotted the cell as a function of energy and entropy, we would get something similar to a graph where X (energy) and Y (entropy) goes from plus to minus values. What you do next, is place aspect of the cell within this grid based on their local energy and entropy balances. There are four quadrants the cell. For example, the mitochondria are in the quadrant of negative energy and positive entropy.

We have one cell, composed on many parts, doing what appears to be four separate things at one time, but all coordinated. The complexity and balance of this is what we call the life force.

We have one cell, composed on many parts, doing what appears to be four separate things at one time, but all coordinated. The complexity and balance of this is what we call the life force.

This is likely true. Ironically it relates to one of my current projects.

The blood vessels in the human body, or all vascular system driven animate life for that manner, are composed of millions of directional and check valves. These valves keep the blood flowing in one direction void of any reverse surges. We know electrical impulses are part of the animation process, still the topic question is answered by another question: Are chemical bonds formed and maintained by the strong or weak electromagnetic forces? ;)

Beside energy the fountain of life also makes use of entropy. Life acting within the universe is also a fountain of increasing and decreasing entropy. For example, the DNA will increase entropy via mutations. This is the universal push up the entropy fountain. Natural selection, common to life, weeds out all this genetic entropy and choses only a fraction; best. This loss of genetic entropy is connected to life pulling the entropy down the fountain. Evolution is not about weeding out highly entropy genetic patterns. A mutation can be beneficial or not independent of the complexity of its gene encoding. It might be entropically favourable to replace some of my junk DNA with the genes for gills but it would serve me no evolutionary advantage at the moment. What if gills have a lower entropy in terms of DNA coding than lungs? Does that mean it'd be an evolutionary advantage for humans to have gills rather than lungs? Of course not, it doesn't help us survive in our niche.

Besides, while entropy is a rough and ready measure of complexity and has its place in thermodynamics, it has serious short falls when it comes to being a good complexity measure. For example, it is permutation invariant. If someone took your DNA and rearranged it, without adding or removing a single letter, your DNA's entropy wouldn't change but clearly it would have massive effects on you. The simplest mutation is to just swap two letters in DNA coding, but it has no effect on entropy.

Are chemical bonds formed and maintained by the strong or weak electromagnetic forces?

Life's enzymatic animation is based on the weaker secondary bonding forces, the most of important of which is hydrogen bonding. The hydrogen bonding in liquid water, although a weaker secondary bonding force, can nevertheless add up to break the stronger covalent bonding to form the pH effect. Sort of a bunch of ants carry off a beetle.

Life does a similar thing, using secondary bonding to coordinate a enzyme to break or form stronger covalent bonds within other molecules.

There is an EM trick to this, which is special to hydrogen bonding. Hydrogen bonding can form cooperative hydrogen bonding with a group of hydrogen bonding moieties. Cooperative hydrogen bonding allows the team to be stronger than the sum of the parts. Any member of the cooperative is like mini-hercules, until the first bond of the cooperative breaks. Then it is everyone man for himself. This increase of entropy absorbs energy and helps to tug reactions up the activation energy hill.

The second law of thermodynamics states that in general the total entropy of any system will not decrease other than by increasing the entropy of some other system. Hence, in a system isolated from its environment, the entropy of that system will tend not to decrease. It follows that heat will not flow from a colder body to a hotter body without the application of work (the imposition of order) to the colder body.

One mistake made with biological entropy is to ignore work cycles when it comes to life and enzymes. Entropy is maximized when work is not being applied but will decrease if there are work cycles present.

For example, say I had a gallon of gas and all the air needed to burn it to H2O and CO2. I burn it as a flame, releasing all the energy, maximizing entropy. We will call this the theoretical maximum entropy.

In the next scenario, I burn a similar gallon of gas, in an engine that is 85% efficient. The engine performs a work cycle. In this case, the entropy will still increase, but at only 15% of its theoretical maximum. The 85% efficiency uses the energy, earmarked for entropy, in another way.

For example, our engine and work cycle is being used run a heat pump that will take heat/energy from the outside cold air and pump that energy into a warm house. I can use work to move energy from cold to hot causing 85% of the theoretical entropy to move in the wrong direction. This is engineering 101.

Enzymes are like little nano-machines that can perform work. Reactions that would not occur on their own, at a given set of conditions; would be the wrong direction for reaction entropy, can be made to occur at high reaction rates by enzymes. It like the heat pump using work to move heat from cold to hot. We can use enzymes to build high energy molecules which prefer to move to lower energy.

If a cell is 85% efficient then 85% of the energy goes to work. This work can heat from cold to hot or reverse spontaneous reactions, so they go in the wrong direction compared to no work being applied. There will still be 15% entropy that can be used for increasing complexity.

Natural selection only selects a fraction of all possible genes. If the earth was infinite in size and all life ever born had room to live, grow and procreate this would give the theory maximum entropy. Natural selection will skinny this theoretical maximum entropy down to a tiny fraction. This natural work cycle, called natural selection reduces entropy to a tiny fraction.

The difference between an engineering POV and the biological consensus is I normalize entropy to the theoretical maximum. This allows me to see the loss of entropy due to work cycles. The biology consensus, does not normalize but only sees the incremental increase of entropy. If you ignore normalization there is no need to consider order or work. You fixate on just the random 15% which is not as random as currently assumed.

For example, say we have a machine that does a work cycle. The 15% theoretical maximum entropy, which still remains, is due to gear fraction. That work cycle is defining how entropy is being expressed. Entropy will not randomly appear as gases diffusing away. There is an order even in the entropy. If we stopped the work cycle, the 15% entropy also stops.

An analogy is the diffusion of a gas into an open space will absorb energy and increase entropy. I can put baffles in the same room and let the gas out. Now the entropy moves around the baffles. There is now predictable order in the apparent randomness of the entropy.

One mistake made with biological entropy is to ignore work cycles when it comes to life and enzymes.

The biggest mistake though, is to not be able to realize that the earth is not a closed system and to go arm waving into the land of pseudo-science.:rolleyes:

The wild card that biology overlooks are work cycles. Heat in the universe will spontaneously go from hot to cold.

However if we apply a work cycle this can go the other way. For example, if you went to your refrigerator/freezer, feel the heat coming out the back or bottom of the unit. We are taking heat from the cold freezer to make it even colder. The inside of the freezing, by losing all its heat to the warmer outside, also takes heat away from the entropy that was in the thawed food, as it begins to freeze into solid order.

If we unplug the refrigerator, then the natural flow of entropy would return. Now heat moves, like expect, from hot to cold, since there is no work cycle reversing this.

I assume enzymes operate work cycles thereby allowing a high level of cellular efficiency. Biology assumes only random because there are no work cycles therefore heat can only flow from hot to cold and refrigerators cannot exist nor can food freeze in the summer.

The wild card that biology overlooks are work cycles. Heat in the universe will spontaneously go from hot to cold.

That is correct.


However if we apply a work cycle this can go the other way. For example, if you went to your refrigerator/freezer, feel the heat coming out the back or bottom of the unit.

Nope, you are wrong. Heat is still going from hot to cold. Do you know how a regrigeration cycle works.


We are taking heat from the cold freezer to make it even colder. The inside of the freezing, by losing all its heat to the warmer outside, also takes heat away from the entropy that was in the thawed food, as it begins to freeze into solid order.

"Takes heat away from the entropy" that is pretty funny. I wonder if you are ever going to figure out what this mysterious entropy is.


If we unplug the refrigerator, then the natural flow of entropy would return. Now heat moves, like expect, from hot to cold, since there is no work cycle reversing this.

It was never reversed - the heat always moved from hot to cold - you are really quite amazing. You speak with such authroity and confidence even when you are completely wrong.


I assume enzymes operate work cycles thereby allowing a high level of cellular efficiency. Biology assumes only random because there are no work cycles therefore heat can only flow from hot to cold and refrigerators cannot exist nor can food freeze in the summer.

So you have proven you do not understand refrigerations cycle, entropy and biology - it's a goddamn trifecta of confusion! Bravo!

See that's the whole point. None of this can be simplified into a Grand Unified Theory of Everything, as wellwisher wants to to be.

I agree. As I mentioned earlier, his favorite tool is a hammer and therefore everything looks like a nail to him.

We all do this at some point in our learning. When I first learned about gravitation and the Bohr model of the atom I thought "this is so cool! This one concept - gravitation - explains everything! It explains the orbits of the planets around massive stars and the orbits of the electrons around the massive nucleus. Once you understand gravitation you understand everything!"

That was, of course, a very simplistic way of looking at things. But when you're 13, even incorrect models can teach you _something_ about physics. It wasn't until age 17 that I learned about valence shells and the implications that quantum mechanics has for atomic structure. And honestly the Bohr model is so simple and elegant that I can see someone wanting to hang on to a simple model that seems to explain everything.


As you note, entropy of a cell can be studied. But to connect this to evolution as wellwisher thinks it connects? No way.

Well, on the plus side, it's great that he's thinking about it.

Well, on the plus side, it's great that he's thinking about it.

That was very generous of you!:D;)

“
We are taking heat from the cold freezer to make it even colder. The inside of the freezing, by losing all its heat to the warmer outside, also takes heat away from the entropy that was in the thawed food, as it begins to freeze into solid order.
”
"Takes heat away from the entropy" that is pretty funny. I wonder if you are ever going to figure out what this mysterious entropy is.

Obviously you don't understand engineering or physical chemistry. The smoke screen that you and others are setting up makes no sense. What are you so afraid of? Below is link to show you the math needed to calculate the loss of entropy when water freezes.

http://pruffle.mit.edu/3.00/Lecture_14_web/node4.html

I am patient and can dumb down until you can understand.

Obviously you don't understand engineering or physical chemistry. The smoke screen that you and others are setting up makes no sense. What are you so afraid of? Below is link to show you the math needed to calculate the loss of entropy when water freezes.

http://pruffle.mit.edu/3.00/Lecture_14_web/node4.html

I am patient and can dumb down until you can understand.

I don't believe you can dumb down any more than you have. Your belief that a refrigerator cause heat to flow from cold to hot is proof enough

No one ever said there is no entropy change with phase changes. Where did that come from?

You said that a freezer 'takes heat away from entropy', which makes no sense, and shows you don't have a grasp on what entropy is.

No one ever said there is no entropy change with phase changes. Where did that come from?

I said the freezer will lower the entropy of thawed food as the food freezes. The water in the food is turning to ice and entropy is lowering.


You said that a freezer 'takes heat away from entropy', which makes no sense, and shows you don't have a grasp on what entropy is.

Entropy needs energy to increase. This is why it is often connected to irretrievable heat. Based on energy conservation, if the entropy decreases the energy, that had been within the lost entropy, is released.

If I freeze water, I take energy away from the water. This energy comes partially from entropy decrease. The conservation of energy is why work cycles can lower entropy.

Work cycles can lower the theoretical entropy but removing the energy that would go into entropy.

I said the freezer will lower the entropy of thawed food as the food freezes. The water in the food is turning to ice and entropy is lowering.

No one disputed that as far as I know.


Entropy needs energy to increase.

That is like saying temperature needs heat. Or saying Potential Energy needs energy. I mean WTF?


This is why it is often connected to irretrievable heat. Entropy is not connected with irretrievable heat, entropy IS irretrievable heat (energy).


Based on energy conservation, if the entropy decreases the energy, that had been within the lost entropy, is released.

Entropy does not decrease the energy - entropy IS the energy that is lost.


If I freeze water, I take energy away from the water. This energy comes partially from entropy decrease.

No, the entropy IS the energy that is removed.


The conservation of energy is why work cycles can lower entropy.

Nope

Look at it this way; we have a name for the energy that is lost in the form of irretrevable energy, the name of this energy is entropy.

Have you figured out yet how that refrigeration cycle works?

Entropy does not decrease the energy - entropy IS the energy that is lost.

Entropy being energy, is analogous to saying matter is energy. I suppose we could do it that way but that causes us to lose clarity. We normally separate matter and energy into two distant things. Biology is not normally based on just energy considerations even if E=MC2. It is easier to treat matter and entropy as separate, but connected to energy.

Maybe an easier way to see entropy is to start with matter in a solid state. We will add energy to the matter. This cause changes in states and properties of the matter as a function of the energy added. These energy changes within atoms and the entire system have a connection to the system entropy.

Entropy measures the changes from the status quo as we add each increment of energy. Say we take this all the way to a gas. The translation, rotation and vibration of atoms and their collisions all reflect entropy. Entropy is like the amount of freedom of expressions within the mass/energy, but it will require energy to achieve that full entropy freedom.


Have you figured out yet how that refrigeration cycle works?

As far as the refrigerator, it has a condenser and an evaporator. The evaporator expands the refrigerant which gets very cold. It gets cold because the lost heat goes into the entropy of the refrigerant expansion. This is actually a good way to see how entropy absorbs energy.

The compressor does the opposite, it gives off heat energy. The work cycle compresses the refrigerant and lowers the entropy of the refrigerant so its heat energy is released. What the expansion gained when it absorbed energy the compressor will release. Now the refrigerant entropy is low for another expansion where it can increase entropy and absorb energy again.

When I was talking about the fridge, I was only concerned with the inside of the freezer and the outside of the refrigerator. If we draw a black box, like we do with statistical models, the inside gets colder and outside hotter. The flow of heat in this black box is from the cold inside to warm outside.

Entropy being energy, is analogous to saying matter is energy.No it isn't.

Thermodynamic entropy has units of energy per degree of temperature. Entropy doesn't even have the same units as energy. (Not even!)

Entropy describes, roughly, the freedom a particle has to move around randomly. As a gas expands its entropy increases because, roughly speaking, each particle has more freedom of movement.
A compressed gas has a lower entropy than an expanded gas because all the particles are restricted, their collective mean free path statistics are smaller than for an expanded gas.

If you consider what can be known about the particles, this corresponds to how much work they can (or can't) do. There is a close correspondence between what can be known about any particle and the run-length of an algorithm. In an informational sense, each particle is like a program whose "runtime" is like the volume a particle moves through (roughly speaking).

I didn't want to get bogged down splitting hairs. The Gibbs free energy equation is
G=H-TS. If we solve for S (entropy) the units of S is energy/mole/T. With mass and energy or E=MC2, mass is energy/t2/d2. These are sort of analogous in the loose sense there is a connection to energy.

I didn't want to get bogged down splitting hairs. The Gibbs free energy equation is
G=H-TS. If we solve for S (entropy) the units of S is energy/mole/T.

BZZZT!

G=H-TS
S=\frac{H-G}{T}

Enthalpy is measured in Joules.
Gibbs free energy is measured in Joules.
Temperature is measured in Kelvins.

So we have:
S=\frac{Joules - Joules}{kelvin}
Which gives us the units for Entropy as J/K or Joules per Kelvin.
Which, as it happens is the SI units for Entropy.

I'm sure if I looked hard I could site an IUPAC definition if you think it would help convince you?


With mass and energy or E=MC2, mass is energy/t2/d2. These are sort of analogous in the loose sense there is a connection to energy.
Again, we have:
M=\frac{E}{C^2}
Which, on the face of it seems to indicate what you're suggesting.

HOWEVER.

Remember: K_e=\frac{1}{2}mv^2
m is kg, v is m/s which gives us as the units for energy kg.m^2.s^{-2}, which we give the symbol J (never forget, Joules are a derived unit).

Substituting that back into the previous equation, we find out that we started with:
\frac{J}{m^2.s^{-2}}
But once we realize the above we have:
\frac{kg.m^2.s^{-2}}{m^2.s^{-2}}
Which unfortunately for you is just kg.

Does the entropy have anything with the organsim's death? If that's true how come there are species that can actually cheat death and resist death for thousands of years?
How come jellyfish Turritopsis nutricula seems to be biologically immortal?
If entropy really works in an organism, it would mean, that it would prevail, meaning there should be no organism biologically immortal, but yet some of the species manage to prevail thousands of years. It just doesn't make any sense to me.
I hope there is someone here who actually understands entropy in organism and how it works, I sure don't understand it fully.

I hope there is someone here who actually understands entropy in organism and how it works, I sure don't understand it fully.

The foundation for this discussion begins with understanding biological thermodynamics. Here are is a presentation and study guide, in case you're interested:

https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http%3A%2F%2Fcasegroup.rutgers.edu%2Fln otes%2FThermodynamics_lecture.pdf

https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http%3A%2F%2Fcatdir.loc.gov%2Fcatdir%2F samples%2Fcam031%2F00031272.pdf

The foundation for this discussion begins with understanding biological thermodynamics. Here are is a presentation and study guide, in case you're interested:

https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http%3A%2F%2Fcasegroup.rutgers.edu%2Fln otes%2FThermodynamics_lecture.pdf

https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http%3A%2F%2Fcatdir.loc.gov%2Fcatdir%2F samples%2Fcam031%2F00031272.pdf

The links aren't working for me. Could be my work firewall.

The foundation for this discussion begins with understanding biological thermodynamics. Here are is a presentation and study guide, in case you're interested:

https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http%3A%2F%2Fcasegroup.rutgers.edu%2Fln otes%2FThermodynamics_lecture.pdf

https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http%3A%2F%2Fcatdir.loc.gov%2Fcatdir%2F samples%2Fcam031%2F00031272.pdf

Big thanks, links work for me.

Does the entropy have anything with the organsim's death? If that's true how come there are species that can actually cheat death and resist death for thousands of years? How come jellyfish Turritopsis nutricula seems to be biologically immortal?

If a living organism dies and therefore all its structures and molecules, decompose, and atoms are oxidized, so they return to simpler states, this is the direction of increasing entropy and lowering energy. This will happen spontaneously over time since it is driven by the spontaneous direction of energy and entropy.

If we played this in time-lapse photography, backwards, such as with a video recording, going from dust and simple gases, back into the living organism, what we get is the opposite, or the direction of lowering entropy and increasing structural energy.

This reversal could not happen spontaneously, since by gaining energy and lowering entropy it would move in the wrong directions in terms of the spontaneous direction of energy and entropy.

If we go back to life, but before death, to avoid death it needs to find a way to prevent the spontaneous direction of energy and entropy. Or it needs to lower entropy and increase energy as fast as the spontaneous direction for energy and entropy occurs. This is done with biological work cycles.

... to avoid death life needs to find a way to prevent the spontaneous direction of energy and entropy. Or it needs to lower entropy and increase energy as fast as the spontaneous direction for energy and entropy occurs. This is done with biological work cycles.Yes. it is very impressive how evolution working by selection has constructed over millions of years the complex life forms that can do this (without the slightest knowledge of entropy or even entropy being in anyway their unknown guide).

This digression was useful, because the concept of entropy can become very nebulous since it has many meanings and situations, often leading to confusion. It can be defined as the inefficiency within works cycles, in terms of statistical or quantum mechanics, in terms of free energy, in terms of complexity, in terms of loss within data and information transfer, in terms of randomness, etc. There are even more definitions than this.

As a way to simplify this confusing concept of entropy, so it is like a compact Swiss army knife instead of a truck load of supplies, I like to think in terms of the concept, degrees of freedom. This term should not to be confused with the same term used to describe the rotational, vibrational and translational energy levels of gases, although these states are only a few of the many degrees of freedom defined by entropy.

In a more general sense, the concept of degrees of freedom define all the changes of state from a given status quo. This is very open and can include all the above, at the same time. This allows one to compare whether entropy decreases or increases, from any given status quo, based on how the degrees of freedom change. If we start with a gas under given conditions of standard pressure and temperature, if we lower the volume (also remove the generated heat back to constant pressure and temperature) there is a loss of freedom therefore entropy goes down. Randomness also decreases, within this loss in the freedom.

In the case of evolution, as life becomes more complex, there are more degrees of freedom for life’s expression, so complexity increases entropy. If we transmit information to the moon and there is loss, this adds a secondary noise stream (more freedom) to the information, so entropy increases. If we compress a raw picture image into a JPEG, there is data loss from the status quo, or the degrees of freedom have falling and entropy decreased. The JPEG is less complex, than the raw image, thereby saving storage space. The same analysis, or degrees of freedom, can be applied to the cell as a whole or in part.

The second law, about entropy, states that the entropy of the universe needs to increase. This law is based on the net total. It does not mean it is not possible to decrease entropy, on the local scale. This can occur, as long as there is an increase in entropy elsewhere. For example, although a JPEG lowers entropy compared to the raw image, in the bigger picture this causes entropy to increase elsewhere. If you blow up the JPEG image, it starts to break down detail faster than the raw image, causing mental confusion or entropy in the mind. One may asks is that a bird or bug; more fuzzy degrees of freedom.

When we apply entropy or degrees of freedom to the cell, there can be zones of lowering entropy. However, this needs to be balanced by zones of higher entropy. Even if a cell’s net lowers its structural entropy, due to the order within its structures (less freedom than randomness and chaos) there needs to be higher entropy somewhere to balance this out. This is useful because one can focus on one aspect of the cell and infer connected aspects based on cause and effect. The loss of entropy defined by the JPEG is what is causing the enlargement confusion within the mind, with this confusion being a secondary or spin off effect from the JPEG cause. We did not invent JPEG because of enlargement confusion. If resulted from it.

When looking at a cell, I like to begin the entropy balance at the cell membrane where cationic pumping is occurring. This is because of the high amount of cellular energy being devoted to this. This is tops in the cell. This energy is used to drive enzymatic work cycles which are designed to lower the cationic entropy (segregation means less freedom to mingle). This is our JPEG analogy. Now we need to find the related increases within the cellular entropy (confusion; more degrees of freedom), which will result and which are needed to balance this out. This is cause and effect.

The links aren't working for me. Could be my work firewall.

Sorry, I lost track of this thread....

Son of a gun. You're right, I failed to notice I was defaulting to google docs as my PDF viewer. Here are the actual URLs:

Here is the link to the tutorial article-

http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/~jw/CellularThermodynamics.pdf

and here is the link to the other tutorial in slide format-

casegroup.rutgers.edu/lnotes/Thermodynamics_lecture.pdf

Either or both of these would help debug this dialogue.

Here is a quote from the second link:


The total entropy of a system and its surroundings always increases for a spontaneous process

This quote applies to a spontaneous process, but not a process that will not occur spontaneously. For example, sodium and potassium ions would not spontaneously segregate on two separated sides of a membrane. However, if this state was induced by enzymatic work, these cations would spontaneously try to desegregate and equilibrate on both sides of the membrane. That is the direction of higher entropy. Segregation is not spontaneous and reflects lowering entropy.

Energy will spontaneously flow from higher to lower energy. However, going from ionic equilibrium on both sides of the membrane into cationic segregation is the direction of lower to higher energy. This cannot occur spontaneously, but requires work. In both cases, enzyme work cycles are responsible.

When dealing with entropy and energy, the main thing you need to remember is entropy can only increase if there is energy. This is usually provided by energy going from higher to lower potential. By definition, at absolute zero, since there is no heat energy, entropy is defined as zero. As we add energy and the temperature rises the entropy increase is reflected in new degrees of freedom.

My goal with energy and entropy is not quantitative, Rather my goal is qualitative. I am only interested in either up or down. This up-down direction allows a Swiss Army knife simplification that would not be kosher if the goal was quantitative. With up or down and a little logic we can make some interesting connections. This is a good way to test some basic assumptions of life.

An interesting, but very important entropy consideration, that is on the entropy swiss army knife is connected to randomness. Randomness is another aspect of entropy (degrees of freedom), which like all forms of entropy requires energy. To give an example, say we started with a perfect diamond, which any girl would love to have. You can wait and watch, but nothing random will spontaneously happen to the internal structure of the diamond. The reason is the C-C bonds are strong and the amount of energy needed to change the status quo is much higher than found at ambient conditions. Random will lack the energy. We may need to heat to 2000C to start getting enough energy for a tiny amount of random to begin.

Say we start with water vapor or steam. The entropy and the randomness can be modeled with statistical mechanics. If we take away heat, we will take away some of the energy that is needed for entropy and randomness. If remove energy all the way to ice, then the only randomness that might be left will be built into the ice (defects). But all dynamic randomness will be gone. It lacks the energy to be random in a dynamic sense. We can tweak randomness.

Here is a quote from the second link:

The total entropy of a system and its surroundings always increases for a spontaneous process
This quote applies to a spontaneous process, but not a process that will not occur spontaneously. For example, sodium and potassium ions would not spontaneously segregate on two separated sides of a membrane. However, if this state was induced by enzymatic work, these cations would spontaneously try to desegregate and equilibrate on both sides of the membrane.


You're assuming enzymes appear out of thin air. They don't, they are manufactured, by using energy. This is why it is important to always remember what we mean by a closed system. You have to account for ALL the energy, and once you have done that, you have a proper boundary for measuring entropy. Look at slide 5:


The total energy of a system and its surroundings is constant
When enzymes appear out of thin air, the total energy is not conserved and you violate the First Law. This makes your entropy analysis invalid. Anyone can leave out part of a system and claim its entropy increases. I can leave out the gas in my tank and bring the exact same argument that my engine violates the 2nd Law.


In any physical or chemical change, the total amount of energy in the universe remains constant, although the form of the energy may change.

And here's another pitfall. You have to be careful not to leave out the transformations between chemical, mechanical, thermal, electric and all the other ways in which energy can be converted. You also have to remember that all of your predictions will tend to be theoretical, because you are forgetting how many ways that things don't happen ideally. So right off the bat you're losing all the energy contributions from the phenomena you ignored.


That is the direction of higher entropy. Segregation is not spontaneous and reflects lowering entropy.


Only you made it that way by bringing enzymes in, as if they are free. They're not; they cost energy to make and use.


Energy will spontaneously flow from higher to lower energy. However, going from ionic equilibrium on both sides of the membrane into cationic segregation is the direction of lower to higher energy. This cannot occur spontaneously, but requires work. In both cases, enzyme work cycles are responsible.

Be careful, they are just lysing chemical bonds. Before jumping to conclusions, you should at least go to some representative enzymatic reaction, and account for the energy changes you believe are free.


When dealing with entropy and energy, the main thing you need to remember is entropy can only increase if there is energy.

And that's why you need a proper diagram of the system you are putting a boundary across, to be sure you haven't left any gains or losses out of the TOTAL that must be conserved under the 1st Law. Because, if you have positive entropy it means you haven't drawn the boundary properly. How many times are we going to go back over this? :wallbang:


This is usually provided by energy going from higher to lower potential.

At some boundary which you avoid. Otherwise you can violate the 1st Law and of course as equally violate the 2nd Law.


By definition, at absolute zero, since there is no heat energy, entropy is defined as zero. As we add energy and the temperature rises the entropy increase is reflected in new degrees of freedom.

Except of course energy has many forms. A dead battery at room temperature, that is charged and allowed to cool down, stores energy, without heat. It's merely in the form of accumulated charge. Similarly, fuel stores chemical energy. Any there are numerous other forms and countless examples. So be careful restricting everything to heat, although it is an important consideration.


My goal with energy and entropy is not quantitative, Rather my goal is qualitative.

This statement is one of your core fallacies. You can't qualify the 1st or 2nd Law without first quantifying the total energy, summing it to zero, and then, when you are finished, you will see that the entropy increases. And you have to account for ALL sources and sinks, or your entropy number is bogus - pure invention, nothing more.


I am only interested in either up or down. This up-down direction allows a Swiss Army knife simplification that would not be kosher if the goal was quantitative. With up or down and a little logic we can make some interesting connections. This is a good way to test some basic assumptions of life.

It's a good way to violate the 1st Law on your way to violating the 2nd Law, which appears to be your goal. This is why this kind of thinking is called pseudo science. It appears (to naive lay people - in church, for example) to be true. But it's not true. It's false. Pseudo means false. Pseudo science means false science. All you have proved is that you can convince anyone (especially those seeking the same confirmation) of anything.


An interesting, but very important entropy consideration, that is on the entropy swiss army knife is connected to randomness. Randomness is another aspect of entropy (degrees of freedom), which like all forms of entropy requires energy.

Brownian motion is increased by added energy. The probability distribution does not change, only the rate of random collisions changes. They are not the same. This is another problem with trying to be qualitative. You need to nail down what you mean by randomness in a reaction, before you can try to treat it as a producer or consumer of energy. Besides, you have failed to be qualitative as soon as you ignored the TOTAL sources and sinks in the system you think you are analyzing.


To give an example, say we started with a perfect diamond, which any girl would love to have.

Geez.


You can wait and watch, but nothing random will spontaneously happen to the internal structure of the diamond.
If that were true, a diamond would be at absolute zero, so no, the atoms are shaking. They have kinetic energy, and you can prove this simply be raising and lowering it by heating or cooling the diamond.


The reason is the C-C bonds are strong and the amount of energy needed to change the status quo is much higher than found at ambient conditions.


We haven't even begin to speak about bond energy, which fundamental is you pretend to apply the 1st and 2nd Law to a chmeical reaction.
I notice we left biological thermodynamics in the dust, back at slide 1 or 2. Here you want to give a qualitative but not quantitative explanation for a crystal lattice, which is going to lead to a false conclusion, because you are doing this to avoide the 1st and 2nd Laws of thermodynamics. Pseudoscience.


Random will lack the energy.

Nope. Au contraire. Motion and energy are intimately related. Randomness speaks to the probability of something you define, such as the odds that particle A collides with particle B. All you're doing here is raking probability theory over the same coals you raked thermodynamics over. Just as your failure to use a proper boundary in thermo, her you are not bounding what you mean by a process. You need to define what processes are taking place. Otherwise, you yourself are the randomness, nothing more.


We may need to heat to 2000C to start getting enough energy for a tiny amount of random to begin.

Random doesn't have an "amount" because it's an adjective, not a noun. just as you can have three socks or green socks, but not three green, you can have random or particles or massive particles, but you can't have massive random. This again speaks to your errors in qualitative not quantitative, although here you are in reverse, trying to assign quantity to "random", which is a quality. Pseudoscience.


Say we start with water vapor or steam. The entropy and the randomness can be modeled with statistical mechanics.

But you can't do that qualitatively. Besides, you aren't even attempting to qualify what kind of process you're talking about.


If we take away heat, we will take away some of the energy that is needed for entropy and randomness.

No, the collisions will continue to occur randomly. You have only reduced the number of undefined time-dependent processes per second. So what?


If remove energy all the way to ice, then the only randomness that might be left will be built into the ice (defects).

What? That's crazy. The final position of each molecule in the crystal is what's randomized. Here you go again zoning out with
qualitative not quantitative. You are jumping to conclusions by skipping the science.


But all dynamic randomness will be gone. It lacks the energy to be random in a dynamic sense.

Hopefully you now understand why this statement is false.


We can tweak randomness.
Meaning: I can tweak anything, because I reject science, even though I pretend to apply it, as an actor in a movie imitating the words of a scientist, but only according to a script, and without "doing any work" as you might say. (It's very anti-entropic).

So far all you have proved is that you know how to generate pseudoscience.

So? :shrug:

Let's talk about cell entropy, at some elementary level. I'll come back later and see if I can "tweak" your brain!:D

One other, perhaps relevant, point: a cell in equilibrium with its environment is dead.

Life seems to be a process that allows cells to maintain a non-equilibrium with the same environment. This appears to be because cells can store energy (even if it costs energy, which if course, it does).

It seems reasonable to assume that life has evolved processes which store energy at a minimal cost.

The connection between energy, entropy and randomness is important to life, since by regulating local and bulk energy, life can regulate and direct entropy and randomness. To better explain this, consider a typical chemical reaction. Before the reaction can proceed, the reactants need to climb an activation energy hill as shown below:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/56/Enzyme_activation_energy.png

Because of the activation energy hill, there are energy restriction placed on the spontaneous expression of entropy and randomness into products. For example, wood burns. However, you will never see trees spontaneously combust in a random way. This is because entropy and random lacks the energy needed to climb the activation energy hill.

Say we took a match to ignite the wood. This causes the molecules within the local wood to climb the activation energy hill. Since burning wood is exothermic the resultant reaction gives off more energy than was required to climb the activation energy hill. This can provide the needed energy for spontaneous movement into increasing entropy and randomness causing the fire to spread and burn.

There is a local restriction to this entropy and randomness. Trees far away will not suddenly spontaneously burst into flames in a random way. The reason is the activation energy is localized near the flame, restricting randomness only to there.

Let us change the scenario and make the wood wet by adding water. The wet wood won’t burn quite as well using the match. The entropy and randomness at the burn is limited, compared to the above, because the water is absorbing the energy needed for additional activation energy, thereby removing the energy needed for the chain reaction combustion related entropy/random. There will be an increase in entropy/random in the water, but this is not self amplifying. In the above scenarios water was used to regulate the organic entropy and randomness compared to the dehydrated scenario. Life takes advantage of this.

Let us now look at an enzymatic reaction(image above). Enzymes act as catalysts, allowing chemical reactions to proceed, which may not proceed spontaneously. Under normal conditions there is not enough energy for entropy/random to spontaneously climb the activation energy hill. If we add the enzyme this becomes sort of possible.

An enzyme works via a lock and key arrangement, which is very specific to reactant and products, and is able to lower the activation energy so difficult reactions can proceed even with low background energy conditions that preclude spontaneous reactions. The enzyme, by being very specific, offers a path available for entropy (a new degree of freedom) but this path is not available for randomness (very specific). Life can create this interesting dissection of entropy, removing the degrees of freedom which are defined by randomness. This conserves energy.

One other, perhaps relevant, point: a cell in equilibrium with its environment is dead.

Life seems to be a process that allows cells to maintain a non-equilibrium with the same environment. This appears to be because cells can store energy (even if it costs energy, which if course, it does).

It seems reasonable to assume that life has evolved processes which store energy at a minimal cost.

I see your point. It could also apply to the earth's biosphere in general, never reaching widespread equilibrium, a "living environment" in which the velocities, temperatures and pressures of fundamental chemicals like air and water are always in a state of flux.

If a living organism dies and therefore all its structures and molecules, decompose, and atoms are oxidized, so they return to simpler states, this is the direction of increasing entropy and lowering energy. This will happen spontaneously over time since it is driven by the spontaneous direction of energy and entropy.

If we played this in time-lapse photography, backwards, such as with a video recording, going from dust and simple gases, back into the living organism, what we get is the opposite, or the direction of lowering entropy and increasing structural energy.

This reversal could not happen spontaneously, since by gaining energy and lowering entropy it would move in the wrong directions in terms of the spontaneous direction of energy and entropy.

If we go back to life, but before death, to avoid death it needs to find a way to prevent the spontaneous direction of energy and entropy. Or it needs to lower entropy and increase energy as fast as the spontaneous direction for energy and entropy occurs. This is done with biological work cycles.

But do you really think that an organism can truly be biologically immortal infinitely long life?
I think it can be extremely long lived for tens of thousands of years, but it will eventually die. Nothing can exist that long without a large price.

One other, perhaps relevant, point: a cell in equilibrium with its environment is dead.

Life seems to be a process that allows cells to maintain a non-equilibrium with the same environment. This appears to be because cells can store energy (even if it costs energy, which if course, it does).

It seems reasonable to assume that life has evolved processes which store energy at a minimal cost.

That's true 100%. I asked an bio-physicist several years ago, he explained me exactly this, but with more complex words.

I have one thing to say to entropy, and that is: determinism!

Everything has a set path to travel. No matter where or when it is, it will always take te path of least resistance. If it takes another path, it is artificial.

This means there is a path that we can gauge. If we were to know where it is, what paths lie before it, and how much energy it has put into it, then we should know where it is going, and how fast.

If you were to take a river, it will always fit into the grroves of prior rivers. This means that there is structure.

One other, perhaps relevant, point: a cell in equilibrium with its environment is dead.

It could also be frozen or dehydrated. It can also be a seed. With dehydrated yeast, if you add water, the nonequilibirum state is restored and life reappears.

In the case of thawing frozen yeast, the frozen water had lowered its entropy when it froze into ice. If we melt the ice, heat/energy is absorbed and the entropy increases. This entropy increase in the water, helps the yeast come alive again.

The connection between energy, entropy and randomness is important to life, since by regulating local and bulk energy, life can regulate and direct entropy and randomness.

"Regulate and direct" almost sounds like ... natural selection. Is it possible, after all these months (years?) that you are now beginning to converge at the doorstep of the illustrious Charles Darwin??


To better explain this, consider a typical chemical reaction. Before the reaction can proceed, the reactants need to climb an activation energy hill as shown below:
Remember this, you will need it later:

"the reactants need to climb an activation energy hill
Yes- reactants, not entropy or randomness just reactants.


Because of the activation energy hill, there are energy restriction placed on the spontaneous expression of entropy and randomness into products.

False. Look at the definitions:


Activation energy: The energy required to initiate a reaction.
Entropy: A measure of the amount of energy in a physical system that cannot be used to do work.
Random: A type of circumstance or event that is described by a probability distribution.

Compare the definitions to what you are saying.


For example, wood burns. However, you will never see trees spontaneously combust in a random way.

Trees only very rarely spontaneously combust for the same reason most things rarely spontaneously combust. It's fatal.


This is because entropy and random lacks the energy needed to climb the activation energy hill.

Bogus.

Say we took a match to ignite the wood. This causes the molecules within the local wood to climb the activation energy hill.
Does it matter if the wood is alive or dead...After all we were talking about living cells before you diverged into this...

Since burning wood is exothermic the resultant reaction gives off more energy than was required to climb the activation energy hill.
And where did that energy come from? How do trees get their energy to build cells? Can you identify those sources? This is where you are missing the boat.

This can provide the needed energy for spontaneous movement into increasing entropy and randomness causing the fire to spread and burn.

The randomness of the fuel makes it burn better? That's insane. What happened to the activation energy argument? Right now all that's spreading entropy and randomness is you. Grab a bucket, wellwisher, you're on fire.

There is a local restriction to this entropy and randomness.
Sweet mother of confusion...
:shrug:

Trees far away will not suddenly spontaneously burst into flames in a random way.
It can happen. But this reasoning gets us nowhere.

The reason is the activation energy is localized near the flame
If that were true, we could napalm the whole forest and it would be leafing out the next day.

, restricting randomness only to there.
Are you ever going to tell us what has been randomized (other than your ideas)?

Let us change the scenario and make the wood wet by adding water. The wet wood won’t burn quite as well using the match. The entropy and randomness at the burn is limited, compared to the above, because the water is absorbing the energy needed for additional activation energy, thereby removing the energy needed for the chain reaction combustion related entropy/random. There will be an increase in entropy/random in the water, but this is not self amplifying. In the above scenarios water was used to regulate the organic entropy and randomness compared to the dehydrated scenario. Life takes advantage of this.
Utterly bogus, beyond repair.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch:

Let us now look at an enzymatic reaction(image above). Enzymes act as catalysts, allowing chemical reactions to proceed, which may not proceed spontaneously. Under normal conditions there is not enough energy for entropy/random to spontaneously climb the activation energy hill. If we add the enzyme this becomes sort of possible.
Bogus


An enzyme works via a lock and key arrangement, which is very specific to reactant and products, and is able to lower the activation energy so difficult reactions can proceed even with low background energy conditions that preclude spontaneous reactions. The enzyme, by being very specific, offers a path available for entropy (a new degree of freedom) but this path is not available for randomness (very specific). Life can create this interesting dissection of entropy, removing the degrees of freedom which are defined by randomness.
Bogus, except for your TRUE AND CORRECT statement that enzymes are very specific to reactant and products, which unfortunately, fizzles out when you drag in entropy and randomness as if they are reactants catalyzed by the bonding sites of enzymes.



This conserves energy.
The clouds break, the sun god appears, shining radiantly, and the First Law is preserved.

:shrug:

When do we get to talk about cell thermodynamics?

Evolution is discontinuous because the data evolution is based on is discontinuous due to data being only bits and pieces of the original data. We might be luck to find a T-rex or two, but might not gather the rest of the thousands of critters, within the same ecosystem, at the time.

As an analogy, say I made a circle of popcorn, with each piece touching the adjacent pieces. My theory is this is a continuous circle. With all the data, this theory can be supported. As I wait for people to verify this theory, with the data, days go by and birds start to eat the popcorn. The circle is now fragmented and discontinuous, and is not looking like a circle.

The original continuous circle can no longer be proven with this data, even if it was true. If you insisted on the circle, from that broken data, the truth will be called pseudo-science and your reputation brought to question. As such, if you wish to be taken seriously in the future, I will need to make something up, which better fits this data. I might say I made this figure, with a blind fold on, and it had no definitive pattern. This would fit the data and I could publish. It is easier to go with the consensus.

A better test of evolution would be to collect continuous time data, instead of depend on fragmented data. For example, bacteria are evolving due to the environmental pressures created by antibiotics. We could look at the data, in a more continuous way (one a day), to see if there are continuous but unstable intermediate states in the process of change.

Your analogy is flawed because every piece of popcorn is different than any other in an unrelated way. However, if you could show that popcorns that are adjacent to one another are more related in shape than popcorns that are separated, you could indeed show beyond a reasonable doubt that there was a progression going on.

Your analogy is flawed because every piece of popcorn is different than any other in an unrelated way. However, if you could show that popcorns that are adjacent to one another are more related in shape than popcorns that are separated, you could indeed show beyond a reasonable doubt that there was a progression going on.

I agree with you, but once pieces are missing you still cannot prove continuous even if the circle started that way. The data would still say discontinuous, since you don't have hard data in the missing zones.

But it would be a reasonable hypothesis, given all the other evidence we have of evolution happening in observable populations.

I agree with you, but once pieces are missing you still cannot prove continuous even if the circle started that way. The data would still say discontinuous, since you don't have hard data in the missing zones.

That is a swell argument to allow you to maintain your ignorance. You are right though, no matter how many transition species we find, you can always ask for finer gainularity and due to the nature of fossilization you will never have all of the transition species.

None of that lessens the reality of the evolution, it only allows you to have a piss poor excuse to disbelieve evolution.

The abscence of any number of 'transition species' will never have a negative impact on evolution. Now if find a human fossil with a dinoasur fossil then you got something.

For now the best you can do is to come up with the lack of transitions fossils and your goofy attempts at 'the entropy connection' to convince yourself that the obvious is not real.

Enjoy.:rolleyes:

Here is some very interesting observational data, which is not only useful for my energy/entropy purposes, but also helps challenge some of the assumptions of evolution. This is based on studies where scientists removed the external membrane of cells and found that the naked cells will still partition potassium and sodium ions with potassium ions accumulating within the cell.


Also, in contrast to that written in several undergraduate textbooks, many studies show that cells do not need an intact membrane to function [635]. The ions partition according to their preferred aqueous environment; in particular, the K+ ions partition into the cells. Ion pumps must thus be present for other (perhaps fail-safe) purposes, such as speeding up the partition process after metabolically linked changes in ionic concentration. [

http://www.lsbu.ac.uk/water/cell.html

Let me analyze this data in the context of evolution. If a cell without a membrane can preferentially partition or accumulate potassium ions, even without cationic pumping, did the cationic pumping initially induced an internal global equilibrium internal state, which is now able to reciprocate? (potassium in).

In other words, there are two evolutionary ways to explain this. The first is the simplest. It only requires a few proteins, which form some form of cationic or proton pumping boundary condition. This induction, impacts the inside of the cell, and then causes a long term evolutionary equilibrium type affect within the cell, until the inside of the cell lines up its ducks in a row to forms an equilibrium state that naturally partitions potassium.

The alternate explanation, which is more in line with current evolutionary theory. Thousands of proteins and structures randomly form over time, filtered by natural selection, until the final result is able to partition potassium. It is all random, with no sense of order.

The first only requires a few proteins that can set the internal potential of the cell and then require everything that is evolving within the cell to have to line up its ducks in a row filtering the results. The final result mirrors what the potassium, has always induced and therefore causes the potassium to mirror back. A global potential is not about random but about minimizing random.

In my posts about entropy and the cell I have tried to start with the membrane to show the hierarchy of order via equilibrium, but there is constant distracting foot dragging trying to defend scenario number two.

Let us scale this up, if the membrane potential can induce a global equilibrium allowing potassium partitioning, even without a membrane, does this equilibrium extend all the way to the DNA?

There is a huge excess of energy in the partial system that you are considering. Evolution is not about the most effincient it is about the most likely to reproduce.

You clearly will not acknowledge that becasue that would force you to the clear conclusion that evolution is a fact. I assume this is some sort of religious conviction since I personnally cannot concieve of any other reason to put on such obvious blinders. So why don't you just leave it to "God works in mysterious ways", because your attempts at trying to bring in science to back you up are laughable.

I agree with you, but once pieces are missing you still cannot prove continuous even if the circle started that way. The data would still say discontinuous, since you don't have hard data in the missing zones.

What data? The question of whether evolution is continuous is not a statistical one. It's an elementary observation about nature. Your attempts to muddle the clarity of science doesn't change science one iota. It just establishes your own reticence to learn about nature.

The statement "evolution is continuous" merely says individuals do not appear out of thin air. Your statement "the data would say discontinuous" says "there is data to show creatures appear out of thin air". That statement is utterly bogus. In fact, the only mainstream writing that would suggest that is the Bible, which does not concern itself with statistics or scientific proof one tittle or jot.

The question of whether a fossil is on hand to show the existence of a particular creature is a completely different issue. There are more fossils than any one of us would ever be able to wrap our minds around in a lifetime - in 10 lifetimes - if we were tasked with classifying them all.

I need only show you one example - Neanderthal - to prove that we evolved. It no longer matters which came first or even when. What matters is that the bones of a different human life form have been recovered - and, I might add, at the great expenditure of effort of the scientists who bothered to dedicate themselves to this effort. Isn't that a noble human undertaking in itself? Shouldn't that be enough to quell the persistent anti-science rant? It's a huge discovery, one to be proud of: great achievement. This is another blatant defect of Creation Science: envy. :mad:

Of course, that would require character, to pay tribute to a great contributor to science, wouldn't it? And Creation Science doesn't require character, does it? No, Creation Science only requires an assault on character, beginning with the character of every one of their adherents being reduced to the capacity of a child, unable to open a book - or any of a million sources - to read and discover facts that are as plain as the nose on your face.

From the Neanderthal bones - after the huge advances in DNA PCR technology and a thousand related scientific accomplishments - came the startling news that the Neanderthal genome has been decoded, and surprise: there is a correlation of several percent between us and Neanderthals.

Now what does that say? Several things. It says Evolution is continuous so much so, that when speciation occurs (or even sub-speciation), the groups may diverge in isolation, then cross paths at a later date and interbreed. It says that evolution is continuous forward and backward. It says no living creature springs out of thin air. It says Neanderthal, and about 20 hominids known (either as species or subspecies) were all continuously linked in an evolutionary chain. It says human development proceeds no differently than animal development, or plant development, namely, that all living things struggle for survival, they leave their DNA behind, and once in a while the genome mutates, and a new species arises.

Creation Science is not science. It barely qualifies as pseudoscience, which is just sham science. Creation Science is worse than a sham, it's pretense plus sanctimony, a lie dressed up in Sunday clothes to prey on the minds of the young and impressionable. Creation Science robs people of opportunity, such as when textbooks are denied from schools in southern US states, or when scientific research is interrupted or when the pressing social and economic questions of the day are preempted by the incessant attacks by Creation Science advocates, against noble endeavors like scientific research.

Evolution does not depend on how many human fossils are found. Evolution can take place right beneath out noses. The evolution of drug-resistant microbes is a common example.

But it is ridiculous to argue that humans did not evolve when there have been approximately 500 fossils of evolved humans already unearthed. And it is ridiculous to deny that from these discoveries we find the following fossil evidence of human evolution:


Sahelanthropus tchadensis
Ardipithecus ramidus
Australopithecus anamensis
Australopithecus afarensis
Kenyanthropus platyops
Australopithecus africanus
Australopithecus garhi
Australopithecus sediba
Australopithecus aethiopicus
Australopithecus robustus Australopithecus boisei
Homo habilis
Homo georgicus
Homo erectus
Homo ergaster
Homo antecessor
Homo heidelbergensis
Homo neanderthalensis
Homo floresiensis


and of course Homo sapiens.

To pretend that they don't exist is pure denial.

When I look at fetal development, I see evolutionary layers built upon layers, with the deepest layers common to more primitive life. This suggests that evolution had milestones, which retain traces of these layers, in fetal development. Once a milestone is reached a new layer begins and old is sealed shut.

If the process of evolution was entirely random, there should not be layers since random would erase and not conserve. This does not deny evolution, but supports the assumption of order in evolution. Order would create layers and milestones, while random would erase this. I see layers therefore order.

The simplest way to explain how this is possible is with an observation. Cells with their membranes removed, will still partition sodium and potassium ions and enrich themselves in potassium ions, even though there are no sodium-potassium pumps.

The simplest way to explain this is the cationic pumping, by enriching the cell in potassium, causes a potential in the cell, which induces an equilibrium response in the cell. All the cellular innards adjust to this equilibrium induction. Over the time scales of evolution, the equilibrium induction eventually causes the innards to mirror the membrane potential and the impact of the potassium ions. Once the balance is established, if we remove the membrane, the organic equilibrium remains and potassium will builds up via the mirror. This long term induced order even applies to multicellular, since the same potassium membrane induced equilibrium schema is in effect in all cells.

If we assume this equilibrium induction, even if the DNA results in a new random protein, the equilibrium within the internal protein grid of the cell will have a global constraint. The protein needs to fit in or else it it toast for recycle.

This equilibrium censoring can be modeled with configurational equilibrium. A particular protein, as an integrated molecular shape/surface has a sweet spot in the equilibrium grid. Even new membrane proteins will end in the membrane, because anywhere else is a sour spot relative to equilibrium.

There are cases where proteins will find their sweet spot, but will be transported, using ATP energy, to a non equilibrium place. This is useful for adding energy to the protein, but it needs to be anchored or else it will diffuse to lower toward lower energy. During late cell cycles when the scaffolding protein dissolve, the proteins diffuse toward lower energy in the new grid. Energy and entropy tells it where to go.

I think many people, like myself, see evolution as having a sense of direction. This does not deny evolution, but suggests a different mechanism.

The question I have is, if the bacteria need random genetic changes and natural selection to evolve, how do they initially resist the antibiotic, so the evolutionary process can begin? Doesn't the ability to fight the antibiotic and live long enough to start mutation process, mean they can already deal with it?

As an analogy, I put mustard gas into a room full of people. Some people appear to resist the gas. The theory goes, these then breed so they can evolve the ability to resist the gas? They were already able to fight the antibiotic, out of the blocks, or else they would not be able to live to breed another day. Is this due to real time adaptation followed by a sense of direction so they can do it better? Then they can share horizontally so they brothers have a sense or order and are not at the whim of chance.

Relative to the analogy, if you were resistant to the mustard gas, you don't just throw the dice in the air, and look randomly. Rather common sense says you try to figure out what is helping you, and then work on a solution from there. Once this is done you share horizontally with others.

I think many people, like myself, see evolution as having a sense of direction.

Like many other ideas you have this is incorrect.

Answer the rest of the analysis. Some of the bacteria need to survive the first wave of antibiotics or else there is nobody left to evolve a resistance. This means there are some bacteria with at least a partial resistance out of the blocks. Random does not make sense if you already have a partial answer. This appears to be bias of tradition. forcing a one size fits all.

Answer the rest of the analysis. Some of the bacteria need to survive the first wave of antibiotics or else there is nobody left to evolve a resistance. This means there are some bacteria with at least a partial resistance out of the blocks. Random does not make sense if you already have a partial answer. This appears to be bias of tradition. forcing a one size fits all.

Evolution is not random...mutation is random, and then evolution selects certain traits non-randomly. So the process of evolution has both random and non-random elements, but that is not the same thing (in my mind) as evolution having a "direction."

As you know, resistance is not an all or nothing state. In the "first generation" population of bacteria that gets exposed to a given antibiotic, some will have a partial immunity, but this likely means they have a smaller chance of being killed off than their less resistant counterparts. Let's say the only ones that survive have some degree of resistance, but of those 99% die off (along with 100% of those with no resistance).

In the next generation, there will again be variation, but not the "baseline" is that of the survivors of the first generation, so it's likely that the whole population (or close to it) will have some resistance. Some portion of that population may have a higher resistance than the prior generation, due to chance. So to simply it, let's say that in the second generation we have three basic classes: (i) due to random mutations, 1% of the overall generation has no resistance, (ii) 98% of the second generation has the same resistance as the survivors of the first generation (so each bacterium in this group has a 1% chance of surviving exposure to the antibiotic) and (iii) due again to random mutations,1% of the population has a 2% chance of surviving exposure to the antibiotic.

Assuming this generation is also hit with the antibiotic, it's not entirely "random" that group (iii) will do relatively well, even though they are a minority. If you imagine a similar process over many generations, you can see how the average resistance factor creeps up until you eventually have a population that can be largely composed of highly resistant individuals, based on the pattern of random mutation, followed by selection pressures that favor certain traits in a non-random way.

If an initial population has no resistance at all, then there is no guarantee that subsequent generations will ever develop it. There may or may not be a future mutation, randomly, that confers a degree of resistance, but selective pressure needs some trait upon which to act, and can't cause a trait to appear from nothing just because it would be helpful. With bacteria, good new for them, they generally have the ability to reproduce so fast and in such large numbers that new traits are always arising due to random mutation, giving natural selection a lot to work with.

I don't see that as evolution having a "direction" though. Going back to the resistant bacteria population, imagine that the second generation is never treated with the antibiotic. In that case, evolution is not going to favor increased resistance in the third generation. Just because a given population has a particular trait if no guarantee that evolution will enhance that trait over time. Humans, for example, aren't destined to evolve into an even more intelligent form, just because we happen to be highly intelligent (relative to other animals). It's entirely possible that we could, as a species, lose intelligence over time, depending on the conditions we and our descendants face.

If we do, it will most likely be because selective pressures are making it advantageous to be less intelligent (which can happen) (though if our high intelligence were largely a largely survival-neutral trait, we could also lose it due to "genetic drift," which is a random phenomenon).

The question I have is, if the bacteria need random genetic changes and natural selection to evolve, how do they initially resist the antibiotic, so the evolutionary process can begin? Doesn't the ability to fight the antibiotic and live long enough to start mutation process, mean they can already deal with it?

When you have an infection there are millions of bacteria attacking your body, antibiotics (along with your body defense systems) will almost always defeat the infection. Antibiotics are prescribed millions of times a year. There are untold billions upon billions of bacteria killed by these drugs. It is not surprising that in that incredible number of bacteria there would be bacteria with mutations that would be able to overcome the toxins of the anitbiotics.


As an analogy, I put mustard gas into a room full of people. Some people appear to resist the gas. The theory goes, these then breed so they can evolve the ability to resist the gas?

A rather farfetched and rather gruesom analogy, but I can go with it.


They were already able to fight the antibiotic, out of the blocks, or else they would not be able to live to breed another day. Is this due to real time adaptation followed by a sense of direction so they can do it better? Then they can share horizontally so they brothers have a sense or order and are not at the whim of chance.

A real time adaptation? No. That sounds more like magic than science. A sense of direction so they can do it better? Of course not! That line of reasoning is preposterous, and has nothing to do with the mechanism of evolution.


Relative to the analogy, if you were resistant to the mustard gas, you don't just throw the dice in the air, and look randomly. Rather common sense says you try to figure out what is helping you, and then work on a solution from there. Once this is done you share horizontally with others.

You are hopeless. It isn't that you try to figure out what is helping you and work out a solution, it's that fact that mating with dead people will not produce offspring.:rolleyes:

I think many people, like myself, see evolution as having a sense of direction.

You're anthropomorphizing here. Evolution has no direction other than survival. If survival means reducing brain volume, eliminating eyes and weakening the skeleton - that's the direction evolution will go in.


The question I have is, if the bacteria need random genetic changes and natural selection to evolve, how do they initially resist the antibiotic, so the evolutionary process can begin?

Most of them do not. They die. (Which, of course, is why antibiotics work to begin with.) The remaining ones - the ones with random mutations that give some small amount of protection to that antibiotic - are then either killed off by the body's immune system, or killed off eventually by the antibiotic.

That, by the way, is why it is critical to finish a course of antibiotics - to kill off the bacteria that have a little bit of resistance. Otherwise you breed them.


As an analogy, I put mustard gas into a room full of people. Some people appear to resist the gas. The theory goes, these then breed so they can evolve the ability to resist the gas?

Yes. The people who can hold their breath the longest will survive the longest. If you select for these people, you will end up with people with large lung capacities, higher hemoglobin counts and lower oxygen needs.

Does this mean they were "born with the ability to resist mustard gas?" Not really. It's just that a random combination of their traits (i.e. lung size, blood composition) allowed them to survive slightly longer than their peers.


Relative to the analogy, if you were resistant to the mustard gas, you don't just throw the dice in the air, and look randomly. Rather common sense says you try to figure out what is helping you, and then work on a solution from there. Once this is done you share horizontally with others.

?? Surely you are not talking about an intelligent response to the mustard gas issue? If so the answer is simple - shoot the people about to gas you. That's sort of a meaningless answer though.

evolution had milestones
If you mean "milestones toward a goal" such as Intelligent Design, no.

Once a milestone is reached a new layer begins and old is sealed shut.
This sounds almost Biblical. Just say "variation". Variations in DNA are seen within populations, and particular kinds of variations may lead to the evolution of new species. It's as simple as that.

If the process of evolution was entirely random, there should not be layers since random would erase and not conserve.
No. "Entirely random" is purely subjective. Mutations are one of many kinds of random processes in biology. They happen to account, in part, for speciation. But the mechanism for preserving random processes is natural selection. Natural selection is also very complicated and can not be whittled down as you may think. Nor can it be ignored. Not if you are examining the causes of evolution (as you often do).

This does not deny evolution, but supports the assumption of order in evolution.
It seems to deny science as a whole, that is, you are diverting us away from the scientific treatment of the subject.

Order would create layers and milestones, while random would erase this.
You are just inventing ideas at random. You have completely diverged from the subject of the genome itself, which is the object of the variation. In the embryo, it is the stem cells which diversify, and you are evading that subject altogether.

I see layers therefore order.
The layers you should be looking at are the endoderm, mesoderm and ectoderm (of the primitive embryo).

The simplest way to explain how this is possible is with an observation.
So far you haven't acknowledged stem cell development, and the way cells and tissues diverge into many different kinds, from a single cell of one kind.

Cells with their membranes removed, will still partition sodium and potassium ions and enrich themselves in potassium ions, even though there are no sodium-potassium pumps.
It is not the issue of membranes that immediately surface in this question of fetal development, but rather, the actual machinery of cell diversification, which centers around the mechanisms of gene expression, synthesis of specialized proteins and enzymes, signalling and so forth.

The simplest way to explain this is the cationic pumping, by enriching the cell in potassium, causes a potential in the cell, which induces an equilibrium response in the cell. All the cellular innards adjust to this equilibrium induction.
The simplest way to talk about science is to talk about science. Why are you evading science?

Over the time scales of evolution, the equilibrium induction eventually causes the innards to mirror the membrane potential and the impact of the potassium ions. Once the balance is established, if we remove the membrane, the organic equilibrium remains and potassium will builds up via the mirror. This long term induced order even applies to multicellular, since the same potassium membrane induced equilibrium schema is in effect in all cells.
If we assume this equilibrium induction, even if the DNA results in a new random protein, the equilibrium within the internal protein grid of the cell will have a global constraint. The protein needs to fit in or else it it toast for recycle. This equilibrium censoring can be modeled with configurational equilibrium. A particular protein, as an integrated molecular shape/surface has a sweet spot in the equilibrium grid. Even new membrane proteins will end in the membrane, because anywhere else is a sour spot relative to equilibrium.
There are cases where proteins will find their sweet spot, but will be transported, using ATP energy, to a non equilibrium place. This is useful for adding energy to the protein, but it needs to be anchored or else it will diffuse to lower toward lower energy. During late cell cycles when the scaffolding protein dissolve, the proteins diffuse toward lower energy in the new grid. Energy and entropy tells it where to go.
:shrug: Mumbo-jumbo. Incoherent, absurd, pointless, muddled obscurity with no substance, character or use.

Zero. You get a zero. I come away from this with nothing added to the question, which inquires into the nature of pharyngeal arches.

So far you haven't acknowledged stem cell development, and the way cells and tissues diverge into many different kinds, from a single cell of one kind.

“
Cells with their membranes removed, will still partition sodium and potassium ions and enrich themselves in potassium ions, even though there are no sodium-potassium pumps.
”
It is not the issue of membranes that immediately surface in this question of fetal development, but rather, the actual machinery of cell diversification, which centers around the mechanisms of gene expression, synthesis of specialized proteins and enzymes, signalling and so forth.
“
The simplest way to explain this is the cationic pumping, by enriching the cell in potassium, causes a potential in the cell, which induces an equilibrium response in the cell. All the cellular innards adjust to this equilibrium induction.
”
The simplest way to talk about science is to talk about science. Why are you evading science?


I was not initially addressing fetal development, but showing you data that confirms my theory of induced global order based on equilibrium. What I was hoping is you would explain how we can remove of cell membrane and the potassium will partition even without an enzyme mechanism, using existing theory based on randomness at the DNA and natural selection.

Once you understand this equilibrium design, then it will make sense that fetal development makes use of an equilibrium schema. You start at genetic expression, leading the differentiation, but I start at the membrane to do the same thing. A signal from another cell has to go through the membrane before the DNA can get it. You explain starting three steps later. I start at step one when the signally first enters the cell and alters equilibria on the DNA. Then the current theory starts at that point, missing the first boat.

Let me explain how this cationic partitioning works so you can see the global equilibrium within the cell. Sodium and potassium cations have different impacts on the structure of water. The potassium cations are larger and its positive charge is more shielded than sodium, causing potassium to bind, to water in a weaker fashion, than water and sodium cations.

When the cell expends all that ATP energy to separate these cations, it does so to alter the water potential in the cell, in line with the potassium induction. All the organics see this specific water potential, and like oil and water mixing, need to form an equilibrium. If we use this same induction for eons, the innards of the cell have no choice but to evolve an equilibrium. It is not my choice or your choice. It has nothing to do with random choice. The goal is to minimize energy.

In more detail, since potassium binds to water weaker than water itself, the water inside the cell tends to hydrogen bond better with itself forming structuring with the water. The impact is that hydrophobic molecules, like signally molecules, and protein surfaces are better able to dissolve or expand in water. This opens up proteins and the DNA equilibrium for action.

I am not sure why science starts in the middle of the process and ignore all the front end. This is misleading. If you control the membrane you can control the real time water potential setting the global potential even for the DNA.

If you look at natural selection, it reduces all the possible alternatives to fewer. If have a large number of plants or critters and only one or two are selected, the future for breeding has fewer alternatives. This reflects a decrease in complexity or a reduction of biological entropy.

The DNA will increase diversity again, in the next generation of offspring. This increases entropy and complexity. Then natural selection reduces this complexity down again to less. How does natural selection go in the opposite direction of the second law? The DNA follows the second law.

The answer will still follow the second law in the biggest picture of the earth, but not where natural selection is usually presented in evolution. There a reduction in variety is occurring.

Relative to new species, the DNA can increase variety and complexity. But natural selection will skinny this variety and complexity down to the most fit. The DNA might form a new species in this complexity, but then this new species needs to make the global lowering complexity cut of natural selection. This creates a paradox for some new species that are more complex, since natural selection reduces complexity, unless.......

Picture a scenario where the earth is huge and can support endless life. There is no need for natural selection, since there is plenty of room, plenty of food and no predators, so even the sick and mutant can get by. With only the DNA leading the charge, lineages are forming in all directions. We would have maximum diversity, complexity and entropy and a maximum energy requirement; explosion of life.

Next, we will add natural selection due to environmental limits being suddenly taxed. What will happen is variety and entropy will begin to fall as food falls and predators appear to help open up new sources of food. Regardless, there is still only so much energy/food and not all can be supported.

There is an energy limit in the environment (food) being placed on the original entropy/complexity. Entropy needs energy so as energy reaches the limit, so does the amount of biological entropy. We need to reduce variety to free up entropy so life can become more complex. Life also needs to get more efficient it the context of the environment or complex life would exceed the limited energy. Natural selection chose efficiency so it can also support more complexity, with less energy, to maintain the energy limitation.

If we get back to new species, natural selection can be satisfied with a new species if there are improvements in efficiency so the energy balance is fine.

I was not initially addressing fetal development, but showing you data that confirms my theory of induced global order based on equilibrium.

You mean Creation Science. But that's been disproven, even in court.


What I was hoping is you would explain how we can remove of cell membrane and the potassium will partition even without an enzyme mechanism, using existing theory based on randomness at the DNA and natural selection.


First you need to understand

How the Sodium Potassium Pump Works (http://highered.mcgraw-hill.com/sites/0072495855/student_view0/chapter2/animation__how_the_sodium_potassium_pump_works.htm l)

You will notice that randomness of the trajectory (Brownian motion) of each sodium and potassium ion accounts (in part) for the success of active transport. You need to expand your understanding of randomness to reflect the actual behavior of chemicals in nature.

Active transport is exploited for reasons other than regulating sodium and potassium concentrations. However, you should compare it to other functions of the cell membrane, especially

Osmosis (http://highered.mcgraw-hill.com/sites/0072495855/student_view0/chapter2/animation__how_osmosis_works.html), and

Facilitated Diffusion (http://highered.mcgraw-hill.com/sites/0072495855/student_view0/chapter2/animation__how_facilitated_diffusion_works.html)

By now you should understand that these are each necessary and beneficial functions of the cell membrane. And it should be intuitive that osmosis is the simplest, facilitated diffusion is slightly more complex, and active transport is even more complex.

You next ask how "randomness at the DNA and natural selection" caused cells to acquire these functions in their cell membranes. The quick answer is: because the mutations (which are random) that created DNA, which coded for proteins, that exhibit the features of active transport, conveyed to the host cell a particular trait, which is the ability to move ions across the concentration gradient, and this trait was favored in the primordial environment of the Archaen eon, thus, the lack of this trait was selected out, and the cells carrying this trait evolved it, and passed it down to the many life forms that branched afterwards, leaving this trait as permanently bound to the library of traits that were then evolving.

Note: the Archaean lasted 1.2 billion years.



Once you understand this equilibrium design, then it will make sense that fetal development makes use of an equilibrium schema.
Fetal development is the consequence of stem cell differentiation. Until we get to that discussion, we are lost in a quagmire of no escape.



You start at genetic expression, leading the differentiation, but I start at the membrane to do the same thing.

No, embyogenesis starts at genetic expression, leading to differentiation. You can't seem to get started because you have contempt for science.



A signal from another cell has to go through the membrane before the DNA can get it.

In this case they are stem cells, and what they are doing is what we should be talking about.



You explain starting three steps later. I start at step one when the signally first enters the cell and alters equilibria on the DNA.

Really? OK let's get started. Go ahead, describe signalling and stem cell differentiation. Then we will finally be discussing biology instead of rambling out in the weeds.



Then the current theory starts at that point, missing the first boat.
...he says as he launches a vessel called Contempt.

Go for it.

If you look at natural selection, it reduces all the possible alternatives to fewer.

Correct. And mutation increases the possible alternatives.


Relative to new species, the DNA can increase variety and complexity. But natural selection will skinny this variety and complexity down to the most fit. The DNA might form a new species in this complexity, but then this new species needs to make the global lowering complexity cut of natural selection. This creates a paradox for some new species that are more complex, since natural selection reduces complexity . . .

That's not a paradox, more of a balance. Mutations increase complexity without regard to function. Natural selection removes those increases in complexity that compromise function. The balance between the two gives rise to the functional complexity of modern life.


Picture a scenario where the earth is huge and can support endless life. There is no need for natural selection, since there is plenty of room, plenty of food and no predators, so even the sick and mutant can get by.

There is still natural selection in that case. An organism with defective reproductive organs will not reproduce, and will be selected against; its DNA will be removed from the pool.

However, your general observation that natural selection is decreased with a decrease in competition is reasonable; one of the selective pressures has been removed.


Next, we will add natural selection due to environmental limits being suddenly taxed. What will happen is variety and entropy will begin to fall as food falls and predators appear to help open up new sources of food.

Variety will not fall; indeed, new organisms will evolve to better extract the available resources. Animals without any need for defense will evolve claws, quills and armor. Animals without any need to find food in trees will evolve longer necks as the trees start to get taller to avoid them. Plants will evolve trunks and long branches to reach more sunlight than their neighbors.

The total NUMBER of species may well decline, since there is less energy to support an unlimited number of species. But within those species, variety will tend to increase as "niches" appear where none existed before.

I love it when Creationists so publically illustrate their total lack of understanding of the second law of thermodynamics. Hint" It only applies to closed systems and says nothing about local decreases of entropy(which is what life itself basically is), but only about the total entropy of the system. The Earth is not a closed system(now where could any energy, say heat and/or light be coming from?), life living with a non closed system has plenty of energy to harvest, decreasing it's own entropy at the expense of an increase in the environment, fed by outside energy.

DNA is not information, it is a chemical molecule. Changes to the sequence of the building blocks making up that molecule may or may not do anything. Sections of the molecule can assemble other molecules which life has found useful, but changes in those sequences(mutation)neither adds nor subtracts from any "instruction", information or code, it changes what that molecule does directly. We look at this and call it information or code so we can understand it, but the information or code exists nowhere but in the maps we make to describe that process, but these maps are not the process any more than a geographical map is the territory.

Grumpy:cool:

I love it when Creationists so publically illustrate their total lack of understanding of the second law of thermodynamics. Hint" It only applies to closed systems and says nothing about local decreases of entropy(which is what life itself basically is), but only about the total entropy of the system. The Earth is not a closed system(now where could any energy, say heat and/or light be coming from?), life living with a non closed system has plenty of energy to harvest, decreasing it's own entropy at the expense of an increase in the environment, fed by outside energy.

First I am not a creationist, but I do look for logical design which requires less in the way of random assumptions. All I said was natural selection lowers entropy, and is therefore moving in the opposite direction of the universe. This is possible, like you said, as long as there is an increase in entropy elsewhere. I also said that.

However, I was also pointing out the center piece of evolution or natural selection is defining lowering entropy. This is not the spontaneous direction for entropy, according to the second law. Yet it occurs constantly and consistently, according to the theory. I was trying to open the scope of the analysis, to provide the potentials needed to drive this contrary to spontaneous direction.

In engineering, entropy is connected to the irretrievable heat within work cycles and is a measure of inefficiency. If selective advantage is lowering entropy, which is going in the opposite direction of spontaneous entropy, than natural selection is evolving life in the direction of higher engineering efficiency.

The interesting point is, order overcoming chaos, via natural selection, since the spontaneous direction of entropy is disorder. I am not a creationists, but they see this order, which can be proven by science. The denial was never right.

First I am not a creationist, but I do look for logical design
How is that not creationism?



which requires less in the way of random assumptions.

But all you ever do is make random assumptions. What on earth are you talking about?



All I said was natural selection lowers entropy, and is therefore moving in the opposite direction of the universe.

Is this not a Creation Science argument? Since you discredit science, you conveniently throw out any legitimacy to your claims. Entropy was dicovered by a scientist, and is principally a subject of scientific concern. Yet you discredit science, which is equivalent to cutting your nose off to spite your face.



... I was also pointing out the center piece of evolution or natural selection is defining lowering entropy.

No, the centerpiece of Creation Science is its agenda to discredit science, because science discredits Genesis as a creation myth. You haven't actually ever discussed entropy, because you discredit science, and without science, entropy remains an undiscovered phenomenon. You still haven't made any valid connection between entropy and evolution. You think you have, but as long as you fail to acknowledge that entropy only applies to energy that can not be converted to useful work in a themodynamic system, then you are just making bald random claims.



This is not the spontaneous direction for entropy, according to the second law.

which has nothing to do with evolution.



Yet it occurs constantly and consistently, according to the theory.

No, evolution is not a thermodynamic system



I was trying to open the scope of the analysis, to provide the potentials needed to drive this contrary to spontaneous direction.

Meaning: I am trying to impose my bald assertions on science, which I loathe.



In engineering, entropy is connected to the irretrievable heat within work cycles and is a measure of inefficiency.

Because engineering is dealing with closed systems, and you are not, nor do you actually rely on engineering, nor do you have anything but contempt for it, as you have expressly stated.



If selective advantage is lowering entropy, which is going in the opposite direction of spontaneous entropy, than natural selection is evolving life in the direction of higher engineering efficiency.

You have not once even tried to draw a system boundary and calculate total energy. Until you do so, all of your ideas are left in the dust, buried under the mountains of facts and evidence accumulated by the millions of scientists who know how to draw system boundaries before they set out to infer what amount is lost to entropy.


The interesting point is, order overcoming chaos, via natural selection, since the spontaneous direction of entropy is disorder.

You have not shown that order arises out of chaos. Life arises out of the elements, and most of them are the product of cosmic fusion (initially from hydrogen), which, by your definition, is the same as order out of chaos. So what's the problem here?


I am not a creationists, but they see this order, which can be proven by science. The denial was never right.
You say you are not a creationist, but you are vainly attempting to prove a creationist claim. You say science is wrong, but reach into the science grab bag and pull out random ideas, like entropy, and attempt to enshrine your creationist ideas on them. That's only the first layer of your fallacy. Beyond that, you completely obliterate relevancy by inventing your ideas about how the world works, without ever bothering to stop and fact check yourself. On top of that are layer upon layer of random invented ideas, analogies and claims.

But no substance.

Because engineering is dealing with closed systems, and you are not, nor do you actually rely on engineering, nor do you have anything but contempt for it, as you have expressly stated.


Most machines are open to the environment, such as an outdoor AC. We still talk in terms of efficiencies which can lower slightly when taken outside compared to the development lab.

I was trained as a chemical engineer. I was in development, with the goal of making things more efficient. Engineers lower entropy in the world around them, like natural selection. We are cut from the same cloth. I would choose among alternatives that might work and improve on the final choice. If it didn't exist, I would invent what I needed. I often found if people think their machine is not broken they will resist any change. They may even fight you . A lot of time is wasted until after they learn to be comfortable.

You don't seen to understand the basics, so let me repeat. Natural selection reduces complexity by only selecting a fraction of the starting units. Do you have any problem so far? Do the math to see if after natural selection there is more or less. This reduction reflects loss of entropy via natural selection. This is permissible, but requires another layer increasing entropy, so the second law is not violated.

Loss of entropy, like natural selection, is not the spontaneous direction of entropy. It will not happen on its own. Natural selection is an effect. Natural selection can and does happen, as Darwin witnessed, only because entropy is increasing elsewhere. This is the cause, for the natural selection effect. Can you follow the logic?

Let me change this around a little, and instead of a bunch of animals, say we had a bunch of rocks. Which rock will natural selection choose? This sounds silly, but is quite profound. Natural selection will not choose rocks. Natural selection is not concerned with rocks but life. The entropy needed for the natural selection effect is within life itself. Natural selection is an effect, that is not spontaneous in terms of entropy, but rather stems from life, which increases entropy.

If we freeze life, start with dead animals or rocks, natural selection does not come into the picture. It is only when life appears, does natural selection appear. Life can generate a lot of entropy with natural selection, by defining lowering entropy, an effect derived from this high entropy cause.

If we had a herd of animals competing in the mating olympics, natural selection is made possible because life is in motion. If they also decide to postpone and sit it out, there is no natural selection that day, and the entropy stays high for another day. Tomorrow life competes and entropy is lowered. But this can only occur if we have entropy increasing via life.

This is deep so I will stop and take my dose of insults. Maybe before insulting you can show us where natural selection comes from, if my logic is off. This will be more useful to everyone that pure insult. Insults can be funny though.

Natural selection reduces complexity by only selecting a fraction of the starting units.
You appear to have the capacity to to speak as a scientist, and you claim to have the training. I do not dispute any of that since, obviously, I don't know you. But what you are saying makes no sense. If you were interested in communicating scientifically, it seem to me you would start out by explaining what you mean by "reduces complexity". What language is that? Perhaps your training occurred at a time or place when evolution was not available in the curriculum. But it's available to you through a million sources right here on the web. Why do you refuse to use the common language of scientists when addressing topics in science? Let's face it, the world is full of charlatans and pranksters who make all kinds of claims. I don't have anything to go by except your own words. If you are indeed a chemical engineer, then I am inclined to think this is a game. Why do you avoid the actual definition of natural selection, which has nothing to do with "reducing complexity" and everything to do with the struggle for survival and the promotion of traits best adapted to a niche? Speak to this, and you might convince me. Until then, I have nothing else to go on except the possible scenario that this is just a gag.

Do the math to see if after natural selection there is more or less.
What math? First you need a system diagram. You need to account for energy transport. How do you propose to draw a diagram of evolution that represents a bounded thermodynamic system, in which we account for all the energy exchanges? These will have numbers, in Joules, and the amounts not accounted for are attributed to entropy. That's when the math comes in, when there's something to actually tally. Until you have done that, your claim is nothing more than an invention. Doesn't it bother you that you can't produce numbers that add up to a Joule value for entropy? Similarly, your assertions about randomness, without ever making reference to statistics, or why you think something is causal or deterministic or not, lead me to believe that you are bluffing.

This reduction reflects loss of entropy via natural selection.
Refer to your last statement: "Do the math", and when you have numbers, then we can go over them. in fact, I think the whole world would love to see that. It would be a monumental feat to do that.

This is permissible, but requires another layer increasing entropy, so the second law is not violated.
The second law was violated the moment you discovered you were unable to diagram the thermodynamic system, draw its boundaries, account for energy transferred, and arrive at a number that equals the amount of entropy you say is associated with evolution.

Loss of entropy, like natural selection, is not the spontaneous direction of entropy.
You have no earthly idea what direction entropy has taken because you have no system.

It will not happen on its own. Natural selection is an effect.
Where is the dictionary definition of "natural selection" in your discussion? Why are you refusing to speak the commonly accepted language of science? The term "natural selection" only has meaning by reference to nature, that is, to a niche that carves out a specific set of traits that will be favored. Do you notice I never once mentioned any terminology from thermodynamics in that statement? Guess why? Because it has nothing to do with thermodynamics! That's not to say you couldn't begin, case by case, to construct models of natural selection, accounting for all the energetic interactions that occur, then diagram the system, including the system boundary, then enumerate all the energy exchanges, and evaluate the entropy in numerically, in Joules. Certainly that is hypothetically possible to do. But you haven't even begun to do that. You're just claiming that entropy reversed because you say so. Guess what - even if it turned out to be true, your disregard for treating this - the living world's biggest reason for doing what it does - without even a grain of analysis, leaves you out in the cold. So this goes nowhere.

Natural selection can and does happen, as Darwin witnessed, only because entropy is increasing elsewhere.
It's the other way around. Natural selection is observed as the cause for mutations to succeed, and for new species to therefore arise. Again, you are avoiding the English language.

This is the cause, for the natural selection effect.
Wrong again, look up the meaning of natural selection. It's not an effect, but a cause. Evolution is the effect.

Let me change this around a little, and instead of a bunch of animals, say we had a bunch of rocks. Which rock will natural selection choose? This sounds silly, but is quite profound. Natural selection will not choose rocks. Natural selection is not concerned with rocks but life.
Silly is the wrong ballpark. It's absurd. Once again, you're either pretending not to know the definition of natural selection, or you just refuse to acknowledge what it is. In either case, you're so far off base, there is nothing on the table to analyze. It's all sytrofoam. And besides, natural selection affects speciation in ALL life forms, and not animals alone.

The entropy needed for the natural selection effect is within life itself.
You have no system, no energy audit, therefore entropy is not even on the table. And the energy needed to sustain life is not within life itself, I'm sure you know that, and are reminded of it every time you get hungry. This is precisely why your attempts to characterize total energy are wrong. This is why you need a system boundary. You need to account for ALL the energy to conserve it under the first law, before you can even get to the second law. Life requires nutrients, water (and often sunlight) and it requires gas exchange (and some life forms have other energy requirements). But you haven't accounted for any of those. So you can't declare what is or is not lost to entropy.

Natural selection is an effect, that is not spontaneous in terms of entropy, but rather stems from life, which increases entropy.
The absence of water that makes it impossible for fish to survive on land is not an effect, but a cause, by which fish evolved primitive lungs and primative appendages, and climbed out of the water, and natural selection is the cause, not the effect, that those primitive forms evolved into amphibians. Again, you will notice I never once mentioned anything about thermodynamics, since it is not relevant to the discussion of natural selection. And also note, the absence of water on dry land does not "stem from life" as you would have us believe. But clearly, life on land stems from the fact that dry land is not submerged below water.

If we freeze life, start with dead animals or rocks, natural selection does not come into the picture. It is only when life appears, does natural selection appear.
Really? So the dry land appeared only after primitive fish poked their heads up and said "Let there be land"? How insane is that?

Life can generate a lot of entropy with natural selection, by defining lowering entropy, an effect derived from this high entropy cause.
False, and utterly bogus, for all the above reasons.

If we had a herd of animals competing in the mating olympics, natural selection is made possible because life is in motion. If they also decide to postpone and sit it out, there is no natural selection that day, and the entropy stays high for another day. Tomorrow life competes and entropy is lowered. But this can only occur if we have entropy increasing via life.
Absurd.

Maybe before insulting you can show us where natural selection comes from, if my logic is off.
I think I've answered that, but if you haven't understood me, just Google "natural selection", "niche" and "entropy". That should cover all the bases. By the way, natural selection wasn't "born" so it doesn't have a creator, it doesn't "come from" anywhere. It's an observed cause for something else to be born: species. Until you acquire a working definition of natural selection, you have no basis for making claims against the prevailing science, and the prevailing explanation of biological phenomena, namely, evolution.

Natural selection reduces complexity by only selecting a fraction of the starting units.

And when there just as many again? Every individual DNA molecule within a species is more or less just as complex as any other one. Some will have certain additions or deletions in different spots on the strand but, on average, they are all simularly complex. Even if there are only a few of them the genome is no less complex than when there are a myriad of them. Each individual can be seen as a testing vessel of the genome(including all additions and deletions)to see if it survives to pass down his particular combination of mutations, if he passes the test his genes spread through the genome, becoming more common. The genome gains continuously the traits that are more successful, the genome becomes more complex as it never instantly discards the previous traits, it continues the testing in the next generation with new combinations on the basic genome.


This sounds silly, but is quite profound. Natural selection will not choose rocks.

No, but rocks can and do reduce their entropy(become more ordered)not through selection, but by the nature of their physical properties(something DNA is simply a very complex example of). Crystals are one example, as are salt formations and veins of minerals. The Earth itself decreased it's original complexity of mixed up substances into layers of materials of various densities, including most of the iron and nickle forming a core. And yes, that iron and nickle did kind of naturally select itself for moving into the core, it being denser than the rest. Order comes from disorder naturally all the time.

Grumpy:cool:

By the way, if you don't want to be identified as a Creationist, stop using the same debunked arguments and ideas.

If we had a herd of animals competing in the mating olympics, natural selection is made possible because life is in motion. If they also decide to postpone and sit it out, there is no natural selection that day, and the entropy stays high for another day.

Nope. In many cases, animals that "sit it out" and wait until a time that is more beneficial for offspring to be born, win the natural selection "game." The ones that mate that day may well lose the natural selection "game."

Note in both cases (animals decide to mate, animals don't decide to mate) entropy doesn't change between the cases. Over the next year it might - but at the moment they decide to mate, nothing significant changes in terms of entropy.

Mod note: Thread moved from B&G to Alternative Theories.