Jump to content

Evolution has never been observed


cabinintheforest
 Share

Recommended Posts

I could just as easily suggested different colored rocks of equal density and shape. Random processes alone would not sort these but deterministic processes alone can. The point of course is that random processes are neither sufficient nor necessary to accomplish the sorting you and skeptic suggested. This is as expected because entropy laws inform us that random processes acting on a system will drive the outcome configuration to the discrete states with the highest probability. When deterministic processes are also involved, these add constraints that limit the permutations and alter probability distribution, but either way the random process by virtue of entropy considerations drives the system to the highest probability over time, which is partial sorting if gravity and density differences are involved.

 

 

Cypress, your constant denial of the ability of random processes to cause apparent order does not make the denial correct, we have given you several examples of how this works and you keep moving the goal posts. It is a synergy of the energy input and the differences between the particles. and yes I can see an energy input sorting things by color, mechanical energy like wave action would not do this nor would, i think, chemical energy, but EM radiation could do so.

 

Color is an actual property of an object unlike a arbitrary number invented by a human.

 

No energy input no sorting, no differences between the particles no sorting, it doesn't matter what the particles are and no one has to direct the rise in order... Some where on Saturn's moon Titan, right now, there are streams that are sorting out rock hard pieces of ice the same way rivers here on earth do it with rocks, no design or intelligent input required.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, moontonman, sorry you are wrong. Each example you and skeptic offered have deterministic components included and the deterministic process accounts for the observed effect but without reducing net probability. Since the deterministic processes account for the direct observed effect, entropy is not reduced as a result of this process since deterministic processes do not change probability of discrete states. My challenge remains unchanged, and that is to offer an example of a physical only set of processes acting on a macro system that results in outcomes with steady reductions in the overall probability of the discrete states when inputs and outputs are included. Abiogenesis and evolution (as an explanation for all observed diversity) as presently posited are described as systems that can supposedly accomplish this task. Yet the theory offers no way to explain how this is accomplished. Remember, I am not speaking of thermal entropy here, I am speaking of molecular and information entropy. As stated in the modern versions of the theories, both fail to address the apparent violation in probability theory and entropy laws with respect to molecular configuration and the content of biological information (the functional, prescriptive information stored in the DNA molecules). I have been consistent and unchanging on these points from the beginning and you have offered no examples and no explanation as to how net probability does get reduced.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, moontonman, sorry you are wrong. Each example you and skeptic offered have deterministic components included and the deterministic process accounts for the observed effect but without reducing net probability. Since the deterministic processes account for the direct observed effect, entropy is not reduced as a result of this process since deterministic processes do not change probability of discrete states.

 

Exactly what do you mean by deterministic processes? It seems to mean anything you want so far in this discussion.

 

My challenge remains unchanged,

 

Your "challenge" has changed more than a cuttlefish on LSD! :rolleyes:

 

and that is to offer an example of a physical only set of processes acting on a macro system that results in outcomes with steady reductions in the overall probability of the discrete states when inputs and outputs are included. Abiogenesis and evolution (as an explanation for all observed diversity) as presently posited are described as systems that can supposedly accomplish this task. Yet the theory offers no way to explain how this is accomplished. Remember, I am not speaking of thermal entropy here, I am speaking of molecular and information entropy. As stated in the modern versions of the theories, both fail to address the apparent violation in probability theory and entropy laws with respect to molecular configuration and the content of biological information (the functional, prescriptive information stored in the DNA molecules). I have been consistent and unchanging on these points from the beginning and you have offered no examples and no explanation as to how net probability does get reduced.

 

You are using the concept of information entropy totally out of context, you have not even established the reality of information entropy, in the context you are suggesting. order can arise out of disorder by the input of energy, this applies to both shells on the beach and complex chemicals. Your constant obfuscation of the issue does not change the facts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, moontonman, sorry you are wrong. Each example you and skeptic offered have deterministic components included and the deterministic process accounts for the observed effect but without reducing net probability.

 

Except there is no deterministic component. The properties or the setup result in modified probability distributions, which is enough to sort objects via random collisions. This works for both larger items and the refrigerator example.

 

My challenge remains unchanged, and that is to offer an example of a physical only set of processes acting on a macro system that results in outcomes with steady reductions in the overall probability of the discrete states when inputs and outputs are included.

 

This challenge was answered long ago, with the example of the contents of a refrigerator. However, the example of a refrigerator only works when the inputs and outputs are considered, but won't work if it and its surroundings are treated as a single system with no inputs nor outputs. As required by the second law of thermodynamics, the entropy of an isolated system (the fridge and its surroundings) increases, but the entropy of the contents of the refrigerator can decrease as well since it is not an isolated system due to the inputs and outputs. This is all well understood by anyone with a basic knowledge of thermodynamics, so if you don't understand it you probably want to review the basics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exactly what do you mean by deterministic processes? It seems to mean anything you want so far in this discussion.

 

Deterministic processes result in outcomes that are certain. The probability of an outcome given a deterministic process or cause is 1

 

You are using the concept of information entropy totally out of context, you have not even established the reality of information entropy, in the context you are suggesting.

 

My equations for Information entropy are consistent with statistical forms of entropy and follow the formulas based on probability theory and information theory. Your complaint rings hollow unless you can demonstrate with specific formulas and examples how my use is out of context. Describe precisely my error, be specific.

 

order can arise out of disorder by the input of energy, this applies to both shells on the beach and complex chemicals. Your constant obfuscation of the issue does not change the facts.

 

In probability theory and entropy, order has a very precise meaning but I suspect you are using a different meaning. In a system with large numbers of discrete states, order is said to be maximized when the configuration of all the discrete states is such that that particular configuration has the lowest overall probability of all possible permutations. Entropy is a proxy for order and is a constant times the sum of -PilnPi for each i discrete state. Thermal energy is based on the discrete energy states of molecules and atoms and thus entropy applies thermal energy and heat transfer. Prescriptive information is based on the combinations of characters in discrete positions of the message and thus entropy and order applies to prescriptive information.

 

You seem to be claim that positive energy alone as the sole input into a system (such as the contents of a beach) can change the configuration of the discrete states such that over time the the probability of the configuration is steadily reduced. When I speak of the order observed in biological information this is what I am speaking of. I don't think this is what you mean by increasing order, and if it is not then you're example is a straw man , but if you do mean this, then let's dig into the details of your example so we can determine if the outcomes are becoming progressively less probable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You seem to be claim that positive energy alone as the sole input into a system (such as the contents of a beach) can change the configuration of the discrete states such that over time the the probability of the configuration is steadily reduced. When I speak of the order observed in biological information this is what I am speaking of. I don't think this is what you mean by increasing order, and if it is not then you're example is a straw man , but if you do mean this, then let's dig into the details of your example so we can determine if the outcomes are becoming progressively less probable.

 

That is exactly what i am saying, my example of the beach is true, it actually happened, the waves not only created the heart shaped pieces of brick it sorted them out by shape. I have seen this with many other shapes of particles on the beach and in rivers but the surf is better than a river at shaping and sorting objects. The heart shape caught my eye that day but the beach had both created and sorted out lots of other shapes as well, the surf blindly creates the shapes this way, it orders and arranges them by shape, size and density, it does it ever day of every week of every year from dust sized particles to boulders, 24/7/365 the surf never stops the processes it drives. I could take you to any beach any place on the planet and show you examples of this process. You need to read Freeman Dyson's book Origins of Life, short sweet and to the point, your objections not only fail they make no sense at all...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Except there is no deterministic component. The properties or the setup result in modified probability distributions, which is enough to sort objects via random collisions. This works for both larger items and the refrigerator example.

 

 

 

This challenge was answered long ago, with the example of the contents of a refrigerator. However, the example of a refrigerator only works when the inputs and outputs are considered, but won't work if it and its surroundings are treated as a single system with no inputs nor outputs.

 

As I have now explained 4 times, when you define the system as the contents of a warm refrigerator where the heat pump removes heat energy from the contents, a heat flux crosses the boundary you defined. Considering this heat flux as an output, and the mass transfer that occurs due to volumetric contraction, the system you defined gains entropy as it must. It is only by improperly ignoring the boundary fluxes that you get the "system" you defined as losing entropy.

 

It is the same with processes posited for abiogenesis and the evolutionary theory (as an explanation for observed biological diversity). Neither of these theories offer an explanation for how the apparently system looses entropy because just as you have attempted to do with the refrigerator example, these theories fail to include and fail to identify the source and mechanism by which low entropy prescriptive information crosses the boundary of the system. I claim that while in your refrigerator system was ill defined but the processes where correct, in these other two cases the processes are incorrectly defined and instead ther must be other processes involved that do account for import of functional prescriptive information. It is clear from this thread that these sources are unknown. It is also clear that there are no examples of physical only processes alone that do derive or organize large amounts of functional prescriptive information beyond the amount predicted by probabiliity for random processes based on the resources available.

 

That is exactly what i am saying, my example of the beach is true, it actually happened, the waves not only created the heart shaped pieces of brick it sorted them out by shape. I have seen this with many other shapes of particles on the beach and in rivers but the surf is better than a river at shaping and sorting objects. The heart shape caught my eye that day but the beach had both created and sorted out lots of other shapes as well, the surf blindly creates the shapes this way, it orders and arranges them by shape, size and density, it does it ever day of every week of every year from dust sized particles to boulders, 24/7/365 the surf never stops the processes it drives. I could take you to any beach any place on the planet and show you examples of this process. You need to read Freeman Dyson's book Origins of Life, short sweet and to the point, your objections not only fail they make no sense at all...

 

But what you observe on the beach is not a reduction in the configuration probability because the changes in discrete states that increase your personal perception of order are deterministic based on gravity, density, material hardness, etc.. Over time, the entropy of the beach is increasing as it must.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I'm done explaining. Go ask anyone who knows thermodynamics, and they will tell you that the entropy of a system can be reduced.

 

As for the fridge, either make it a airtight and the entropy will be reduced for sure since heat flows out but no materials can flow in, or add enough material that the entropy decrease will make up for any air that flows in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I have now explained 4 times, when you define the system as the contents of a warm refrigerator where the heat pump removes heat energy from the contents, a heat flux crosses the boundary you defined. Considering this heat flux as an output, and the mass transfer that occurs due to volumetric contraction, the system you defined gains entropy as it must. It is only by improperly ignoring the boundary fluxes that you get the "system" you defined as losing entropy.

 

Cypress, how do you reconcile that with:

 

[math] dU=TdS-PdV [/math]

 

or

 

[math] dS = \frac{\delta Q}{T} \! [/math]

 

About volumetric contraction: I would treat the refrigerator as a constant volume system. Correct me if I'm not understanding your treatment of the system as a non-constant volume system.

 

EDIT: It's worth adding that biological systems exist in a state of perpetual dynamic non-equilibrium. I don't know if anyone here knows any non-equilibrium thermodynamics. I honestly know very little.

Edited by mississippichem
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The thermal entropy of matter drops with temperature, but in a thermodynamic system, defined as the contents of an airtight refrigerator, inputs and outputs, all fluxes, must be included in order to obtain realistic results. The contents of an airtight refrigerator looses internal energy and thus the discrete energy states become less distributed, and have higher order, but the system includes the heat flux leaving the refrigerator contents and entering the evaporator coils. since entropy entropy, S = ∑Q/T this heat flux is taking entropy with it and it is part of the system. Furthermore Skeptic describe the system cooling and dropping temperature. I have now explained this six times. The net entropy of the system, being the contents or part of the contents of a refrigerator, and the heat flux leaving the contents, is rising since the process is not reversible as temperature changes.

 

I have indulged Skeptic's persistence to make it clear that Skeptic is attempting to ignore the heat transfer/heat flux leaving the contents of the refrigerator so he can incorrectly claim that entropy of the system dropped. He makes this attempt because his argument requires demonstration of a system where entropy drops so he can create the false impression that the theories in question, abiogenesis and biodiversity by known evolutionary process alone, as currently posited, don't require identification of a source of low entropy, or sink for high entropy information and molecular in order avoid violation the laws of probability and entropy for macro events.

 

The primary difference between his refrigerator example and these others is with the refrigerator (a heat pump) there is a known heat flux that accounts for the transfer of entropy out of the refrigerator contents. With these two theories there is no identified flux of information and molecular entropy across the system boundary. Skeptic has created an elaborate straw man. Instead he should either identify the entropy flux involved in chemic abiogenesis and the processes responsible for observed biodiversity or admit that he hasn't got a clue. Design is a process that does import large quantities of low entropy information and molecular order across system boundaries. It is a process that is known and in operation today. It is the only process so far as I am aware that does accomplish this task. I advocate that other processes be investigated that offer an alternative to design, but many advocates of evolutionary theory and abiogenesis seem to prefer to ignore the issues, claim there is none, and call the messengers ignorant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The thermal entropy of matter drops with temperature, but in a thermodynamic system, defined as the contents of an airtight refrigerator, inputs and outputs, all fluxes, must be included in order to obtain realistic results. The contents of an airtight refrigerator looses internal energy and thus the discrete energy states become less distributed, and have higher order, but the system includes the heat flux leaving the refrigerator contents and entering the evaporator coils. since entropy entropy, S = ∑Q/T this heat flux is taking entropy with it and it is part of the system. Furthermore Skeptic describe the system cooling and dropping temperature. I have now explained this six times. The net entropy of the system, being the contents or part of the contents of a refrigerator, and the heat flux leaving the contents, is rising since the process is not reversible as temperature changes.

from wikipedia [article:Entropy (order and disorder)]:

 

In thermodynamics, entropy is commonly associated with the amount of order, disorder, and/or chaos in a thermodynamic system. This stems from Rudolf Clausius' 1862 assertion that any thermodynamic processes always "admits to being reduced to the alteration in some way or another of the arrangement of the constituent parts of the working body" and that internal work associated with these alterations is quantified energetically by a measure of "entropy" change, according to the following differential expression:[1]

 

[math]\int \frac{\delta Q}{T} \ge 0[/math]

 

In the years to follow, Ludwig Boltzmann translated these "alterations" into that of a probabilistic view of order and disorder in gas phase molecular systems.

 

In recent years, in chemistry textbooks there has been a shift away from using the terms "order" and "disorder" to that of the concept of energy dispersion to describe entropy, among other theories. In the 2002 encyclopedia Encarta, for example, entropy is defined as a thermodynamic property which serves as a measure of how close a system is to equilibrium; as well as a measure of the disorder in the system. [2] In the context of entropy, "perfect internal disorder" is synonymous with "equilibrium", but since that definition is so far different from the usual definition implied in normal speech, the use of the term in science has caused a great deal of confusion and misunderstanding.

 

Locally, the entropy can be lowered by external action. This applies to machines, such as a refrigerator, where the entropy in the cold chamber is being reduced, and to living organisms. This local decrease in entropy is, however, only possible at the expense of an entropy increase in the surroundings.

 

The only requirement on the sign of the [math]\Delta S[/math] term is that:

 

[math]\Delta S_{universe}>0[/math]

 

[math]\Delta S_{system}+\Delta S_{surroundings}>0[/math]

 

The entropy of the system [inside the refrigerator] must decrease if the above inequality or the Clausius Inequality is to hold. The heat flux leaving the system is accounted for by [math] (\Delta S_{surroundings}) [/math]; you've incorrectly defined the system. The process you described with a negative [math]dQ[/math] and [math] dT[/math] for the system along with a positive [math] dS [/math] for the system is highly improbable

Edited by mississippichem
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cypress, how do you reconcile that with:

 

[math] dU=TdS-PdV [/math]

 

or

 

[math] dS = \frac{\delta Q}{T} \! [/math]

 

About volumetric contraction: I would treat the refrigerator as a constant volume system. Correct me if I'm not understanding your treatment of the system as a non-constant volume system.

 

In Skeptic's original problem statement he defined the system as one cubic foot of free space in the refrigerator. Thus as the temperature in the refrigerator drops the molecules in that volume contract and additional molecules cross the boundary into the system. It was the volume of the molecules of air that I referred to as changing, but not the volume of the system Skeptic defined. Therefore Skeptic's original problem statement involved an open system and I recognized it as such. Unfortunately Skeptic did not, and he made use of an ad hominem as an attempt to discredit me.

 

I agree, the volume should be treated as constant as defined by Skeptic. The system, as originally described, was an open system since mass transfer into the system, despite his claim that it was closed.

 

EDIT: It's worth adding that biological systems exist in a state of perpetual dynamic non-equilibrium. I don't know if anyone here knows any non-equilibrium thermodynamics. I honestly know very little.

 

You are correct to point that out, however all macro systems acted on by physical processes alone, despite the configurations, proceed according to probability theory and entropy laws. All properly treated systems as defined above experience a zero or greater change in entropy so long as all the inputs and outputs are included in the system description. When they are not, the system is described incorrectly.

 

wiki articles are often well described but they are not always 100% precise. In context the wiki article are saying the same thing, but like Skeptic, the writer is choosing to treat the heat flux as part of the surrounding. This is incorrect because it is a flow across the boundary When considering the system, fluxes across the boundary must be included.

 

 

The only requirement on the sign of the [math]\Delta S[/math] term is that:

 

[math]\Delta S_{universe}>0[/math]

 

[math]\Delta S_{system}+\Delta S_{surroundings}>0[/math]

 

The entropy of the system [inside the refrigerator] must decrease if the above inequality or the Clausius Inequality is to hold.

 

the entropy of the contents of the refrigerator drops since the temperature of the contents drop, but including the flux across the boundary of the system, entropy rises as it must and as the wiki article describes.

 

The heat flux leaving the system is accounted for by [math] (\Delta S_{surroundings}) [/math]; you've incorrectly defined the system.

 

I have defined it differently and more accurately, particularly for the context of this discussion. The same process applies to the evaporator, or any other component of the refrigerator, fluxes across the system boundaries must be included. When they are not included then one must as a caveat as the wiki author did.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In Skeptic's original problem statement he defined the system as one cubic foot of free space in the refrigerator. Thus as the temperature in the refrigerator drops the molecules in that volume contract and additional molecules cross the boundary into the system. It was the volume of the molecules of air that I referred to as changing, but not the volume of the system Skeptic defined. Therefore Skeptic's original problem statement involved an open system and I recognized it as such.

 

Where do those molecules come from? Out of an adjacent volume? That would be impossible, because if this were true one would also require for molecules to flow into that volume as well, rather than flow out of the volume. You are requiring a spontaneous increase in the number of molecules in the system. That's wrong.

 

Your insistence that one must include all inputs and outputs in an entropy calculation is basically insisting that the system always be the universe. This isn't particularly useful. It is perfectly acceptable to define smaller systems.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In Skeptic's original problem statement he defined the system as one cubic foot of free space in the refrigerator. Thus as the temperature in the refrigerator drops the molecules in that volume contract and additional molecules cross the boundary into the system. It was the volume of the molecules of air that I referred to as changing, but not the volume of the system Skeptic defined. Therefore Skeptic's original problem statement involved an open system and I recognized it as such. Unfortunately Skeptic did not, and he made use of an ad hominem as an attempt to discredit me.

 

I agree, the volume should be treated as constant as defined by Skeptic. The system, as originally described, was an open system since mass transfer into the system, despite his claim that it was closed.

 

You know very well I never intended to have airflow into the refrigerator -- that should have been obvious by my saying the refrigerator was a closed (but not isolated) system. The only way that can be is if the refrigerator is airtight, which it can be, but you insist on making the problem more complicated to obfuscate the obvious truth that you are wrong. The same with your lies that I'm not accounting for the inputs and outputs -- it is you who is failing to do so. I told you that if you like you can keep track of the increase in entropy of the surroundings, but that I wanted the entropy of the refrigerator contents treated separately. The entropy of the contents of a refrigerator can drop, an increasing the entropy of the surroundings won't change that fact.

 

You are correct to point that out, however all macro systems acted on by physical processes alone, despite the configurations, proceed according to probability theory and entropy laws. All properly treated systems as defined above experience a zero or greater change in entropy so long as all the inputs and outputs are included in the system description. When they are not, the system is described incorrectly.

 

You're confusing "system" and "universe". I'm asking about a system, and the answer you're trying to give is about the universe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Where do those molecules come from? Out of an adjacent volume? That would be impossible, because if this were true one would also require for molecules to flow into that volume as well, rather than flow out of the volume. You are requiring a spontaneous increase in the number of molecules in the system. That's wrong.

 

Most refrigerators are not air tight, though airflow is limited, air mass flows into the refrigerator as the temperature drops so that pressure remains constant. In Skeptic's original problem statement he did not specify the hypothetical airtight refrigerator of his sixth and latest attempt, but as I explained it does not change the outcome.

 

Your insistence that one must include all inputs and outputs in an entropy calculation is basically insisting that the system always be the universe. This isn't particularly useful. It is perfectly acceptable to define smaller systems.

 

Not so, the system was defined by skeptic as the contents and earlier as a fixed volume inside the refrigerator. skeptic even agreed that the inputs and outputs must be considered and included. the system I used is quite small, It does not include the walls of the refrigerator or the evaporator, or the refrigerant pipes, or the compressor or expansion valve or any other part of the universe. Just the system Skeptic defined and the fluxes across the system boundaries.

Edited by cypress
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I could just as easily suggested different colored rocks of equal density and shape. Random processes alone would not sort these but deterministic processes alone can.

You big mistake (and it really can be called a mistake because we have repeatedlyu tried to correct you on this), is that evolution is not totally random, nor is it totally deterministic. It is both.

 

Mutation is random, but selection is not. There are two (count them 2), parts. One is random, the other is deterministic.

 

Selection is sime: If it reproduces (or reproduices faster), it is selected for. If it doesn't it is selcted against.

 

It is a binary thing. It dies before it reproduces, or it reproduces. Get it it is deterministic. We have agreed, this is not were the "infomrmation gets added.

 

However, you yourself have stated that random processes can import informaiton, and guess what, this is what goes on in random variation. Seed you agree with us, information can get imported, it is just hat whe we point this out ot you you go off trying to prove that because selection is not random information can't be imported into an evolving system.

 

This is like trying to argue that cars don't work because if you poor petrol into the passenger seat it doesn't fill the petrol tank. It really is exactly this argument you are using.

 

We are not sying that selection imports information. And you can argue that forever and we won't disagree with you. However, as you have stated (and so I believe you agree with it), random processes CAN import information into the system, and this is our argument.

 

Ranom mutation allows information to be imported. Selection amplifies any advantage (information) imported.

 

As you state a determinisitic process has a probability of 1, that it is a certainty. If the determinisit process amplifies existing information (not creates it, not imports it), and it does this with a certainty, then what is the provelem that you have?

 

You agree that imformation vcan be added through random processes, you agree that determinisitic systems have a probability of 1, then what is the problem with a determinisitic system amplifying (but not creating) information and the random process importing it?

 

The point of course is that random processes are neither sufficient nor necessary to accomplish the sorting you and skeptic suggested. This is as expected because entropy laws inform us that random processes acting on a system will drive the outcome configuration to the discrete states with the highest probability. When deterministic processes are also involved, these add constraints that limit the permutations and alter probability distribution, but either way the random process by virtue of entropy considerations drives the system to the highest probability over time, which is partial sorting if gravity and density differences are involved.

Yes, purely random processes are not. However, we are not talking aobut purely random or puely determinisitc system ehre are wew. You keep using the strawmen of pure determinisitc or pure random systems.

 

I will repeat it again: We are not talking pure random or pure determinisitic systems.

 

If you have a look at each example we have presented (plkease go and have a look), you will see that each has a random component and a determinisitic component. And, the sorting/selection is deterministic with a random process providing the "importation" of information (usually in the form of energy).

 

You are arguing against a complete strawman of your own creation. You keep using pure random or pure determinisitic systems. Or when arguing against our example you use determinisitc parts where we specified random (random in place of determinisitic).

 

It this this reason why your arguments fail. You are not actually addressing what we are saying. You are putting petrol into the passenger seat and complaining that there is no fuel in the fuel tank. :doh:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In Skeptic's original problem statement he defined the system as one cubic foot of free space in the refrigerator. Thus as the temperature in the refrigerator drops the molecules in that volume contract and additional molecules cross the boundary into the system. It was the volume of the molecules of air that I referred to as changing, but not the volume of the system Skeptic defined. Therefore Skeptic's original problem statement involved an open system and I recognized it as such. Unfortunately Skeptic did not, and he made use of an ad hominem as an attempt to discredit me.

 

!

Moderator Note

I apologize for the possible appearance of a conflict of interest here, as I am involved in this thread, but we are short of moderator participation at the moment, so I don't see much of a choice but to step in.

 

There are two options a poster has when there is a claim of a personal attack against you, such as an ad hominem argument.

 

1) Report it.

2) Do nothing.

 

I know people choose option 2, they just move on with the discussion, and if the person is OK with that, fine; it's their call. However, I want to note that there is no option #3; posting an accusation of a previous alleged ad hom isn't permissible. It is, in truth, also an ad hominem attack, regardless of the validity of the accusation. In any event, is not something to be used a a weapon in a discussion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You big mistake (and it really can be called a mistake because we have repeatedlyu tried to correct you on this), is that evolution is not totally random, nor is it totally deterministic. It is both.

 

Mutation is random, but selection is not. There are two (count them 2), parts. One is random, the other is deterministic.

 

I am quite aware of the mechanism and it is because of the dual process that adaptation is possible. Just as with moontonman's example with the beach where both processes are involved, changes occur but those changes do not represent a progressive net reduction in the probability of the configuration of the discrete states. You and the others are not correcting my argument you are repeatedly misrepresenting it.

 

Previously I have asked for cases where evolutionary processes do proceed along long contiguous pathways to novel form and function. This would demonstrate that new form and function is an inevitable result of the deterministic process of selection, that these new forms are no less probable than the forms from which they were derived plus any minor order is obtained from the probabilistic resources imported by random processes. Unfortunately you can't even offer a known contiguous pathway of four or more selectable steps. So this solution is unavailable.

 

I also asked for known examples of physical only processes accomplishing similar feats of net probability reduction. Some offered evolutionary algorithms but those examples included a designer that intentionally imported active information to accomplish the apparent reduction in probability so that when the information flux was included there was no net reduction. Others including yourself suggested that low probability energy could be substituted for low probability information or molecular order but you were unable to offer a verified demonstrable example; it was a just so story. Still others attempted more deceptive tactics that included making subtle redefinitions of the problem statement. One poster used traditional examples like the heat pump to show that thermodynamic cycles can reduce entropy of one component of the system when the fluxes entering and leaving that component is ignored. But this is not what is posited by abiogenesis and evolutionary theory. For this redefined example to be a valid representation of how abiogenesis and evolution as an explanation for all observed biodiversity one must identify the information fluxes involved in these processes just as in the heat pump example one must point out that the distribution of discrete energy states is being reduced by removing energy state permutations in the form of a heat flux that is leaving the deliberately defined system. In other words one must identify the flows across the system boundaries.

 

Finally I have noted that design is an example of a process that does import information order in the form of functional prescriptive information into physical systems that store information including representations of digital computer code and DNA. Design is a process that does address the requirement that life from non-life and derivation of biodiversity must have a source of low entropy functional prescriptive information.

 

The original challenge remains unfulfilled except by design.

 

 

As you state a determinisitic process has a probability of 1, that it is a certainty. If the determinisit process amplifies existing information (not creates it, not imports it), and it does this with a certainty, then what is the provelem that you have?

 

Simple, if you are going to argue that new form and function is does not represent a reduction in probability of the discrete prescriptive character configurations, that instead these configurations have equal probability in that the change from one configuration to the next is driven by a deterministic process then you must identify this process. Currently you have the state changes occuring by random processes and selection by a deterministic process. Alternatively you will need to show that selectable pathways exist. You need to demonstrate that there are evolutionary pathways greater than those 1-2 step ones achievable by random processes alone. You need to offer up a handful of actualized four and greater step pathways.

 

You agree that imformation vcan be added through random processes, you agree that determinisitic systems have a probability of 1, then what is the problem with a determinisitic system amplifying (but not creating) information and the random process importing it?

 

It can be shown that there is insufficient probabilistic resources available for this process to achieve what has been observed within the posited timeframe. I have previously offered published articles to this effect. I am happy to discuss them again.

 

Yes, purely random processes are not. However, we are not talking aobut purely random or puely determinisitc system ehre are wew. You keep using the strawmen of pure determinisitc or pure random systems.

 

False as described above.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How does your entropy-information issue deal with the recent work with laboratory-evolved RNA enzymes? And their ability to rapidily evolve within hours? There are even "molecular speciation" experiments with competing ribozymes exploring new niches and adapting to their environments. Lots of mutations and new function evolving rapidly within a single day.

 

Specifically, I'm referring to the continuous in vitro evolution/serial transfer/micro-fluidics experiments of Gerald Joyce and others.

Edited by Zwirko
Link to comment
Share on other sites

How does your entropy-information issue deal with the recent work with laboratory-evolved RNA enzymes? And their ability to rapidily evolve within hours? There are even "molecular speciation" experiments with competing ribozymes exploring new niches and adapting to their environments. Lots of mutations and new function evolving rapidly within a single day.

 

Specifically, I'm referring to the continuous in vitro evolution/serial transfer/micro-fluidics experiments of Gerald Joyce and others.

 

Good question. I'll look into it. Perhaps you might also suggest implications.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am quite aware of the mechanism and it is because of the dual process that adaptation is possible. Just as with moontonman's example with the beach where both processes are involved, changes occur but those changes do not represent a progressive net reduction in the probability of the configuration of the discrete states. You and the others are not correcting my argument you are repeatedly misrepresenting it.

No, we have been trying to correct your misrepresentations and misunderstandings.

 

Previously I have asked for cases where evolutionary processes do proceed along long contiguous pathways to novel form and function. This would demonstrate that new form and function is an inevitable result of the deterministic process of selection, that these new forms are no less probable than the forms from which they were derived plus any minor order is obtained from the probabilistic resources imported by random processes. Unfortunately you can't even offer a known contiguous pathway of four or more selectable steps. So this solution is unavailable.

Evolution is not a directed process, so what you are asking is actuyally counter to our arguments. It is like asking someone to prove that 1 + 1 = 2 by proving it to be 3.

 

We have given examples where a pathway exists that shows 4 or more steps (the flagela, the eye, etc) but as these can only be determined after the fact (ie after they have evolved) you reject them.

 

It is your belief that change in form and function can not be achieved by an undirected process, but must only come from a directed process (design). This is not what evolution states, this is not what we are aruing. We have been trying to show that this assumption that change must be directed is wrong.

 

To that, we have given many many examples where change occurs without direction, but in hind sight appears directed, and if a presupposition that change that appears directed, must be directed, then you could never understand how these changes could occur without direction. Such as stone frost/thaw circles, sorting of pebbles by waves or river curents, etc.

 

These are undirected activities with a random element, but due to deteminisitic processes that act as a selection/sorting process, the random variations are arranged as if to a purpose and by direction.

 

This is our argument, that there exist processes that give the appearence of direction and purpose, but are not infact directed. As there are examples that you agrtee qwith that show this property, then what is your objection to the fact that evolution, which shares these same basic properties (random inputs with deterministic selections of inputs) is also one of these systems. You don't seem to have an objection the the existance of these types of systems, only that evolution (which has the basic properties of these kinds of system) is not one of them, for no other reason than it doesn't fit your beliefs.

 

And yes, it is a belief as you have not provided any evidence that shows that evolution is some how different, only that if you ignore the fact that it has the properties of these systems then your arugments make sense. By ignoring the fact that evolution has the properties of a self organising system can you hold your argument.

 

I also asked for known examples of physical only processes accomplishing similar feats of net probability reduction. Some offered evolutionary algorithms but those examples included a designer that intentionally imported active information to accomplish the apparent reduction in probability so that when the information flux was included there was no net reduction.

There have been many examples offered. I have offered several myself. Yes, including genetic algorithms, but as you seem to have forgotten, I have also offered examles of frost/thaw stone circles.

 

In Frost/Thaw stone circles, the placemnt of stones in such a manner by random chance alone is extremel improbable (almost unimaginably improbabl actually), but yet, these things exist in their thousands. The reason is that there is a process going on that creates them. It takes random inputs (and variables one like hot/cold variations) in stone placments and movment and then by a deterministic process (the way the dirt is moved by water freezing in it) it causes an extremely improbable event - the sorting of stones into a circle.

 

Here is a physical only system that, using the same basic functions that evolution uses (random inputs and a determinisitc selection processes) to reduce the entrop of the local environment in such a way as to look designed. This is exactly what you have asked for, but you seem to either have forgoten it or reject it without a valid explaination.

 

Others including yourself suggested that low probability energy could be substituted for low probability information or molecular order but you were unable to offer a verified demonstrable example; it was a just so story.

Actually I gave a very good example of how low entropy energy can be used to reduce local entropy at the cost of increasing universal entropy. It is called growing.

 

When you grow, the cells in your body use low entropy energy and material to decrease the local entropy of you by repairing damage and even increaseing the number of cells.

 

This is a direct example of what I am talking about.

 

With single celled organims, they do this, they use low entropy energy and material in their environment to make more of themselves and repair any damage they might have taken, but this process is not perfect and errors do creep in. If this process could not be used to decrease entropy then in a short order all livng systems would decay into maximum entropy.

 

However, if you knew any thing about biology, you would know that this is the exact same process that evolution uses to decrease the entropy of its processes (ie: replication). So to deny evolution, you also have to deny that organisms grow and repair themselves.

 

An organism takes in low entropy energy and material from its environment, but due to random processes, variations occur. If these variations are bad, we call them errors and it causes the organism to be less able (or unable) to replicate. If these variations cause an increased replication rate, then they are preserved and through geometrical population growth amplified.

 

Over time, these variations can build up into very large changes and indeed new functions as old functions are either no longer needed, or the new function out performs the old function.

 

Still others attempted more deceptive tactics that included making subtle redefinitions of the problem statement. One poster used traditional examples like the heat pump to show that thermodynamic cycles can reduce entropy of one component of the system when the fluxes entering and leaving that component is ignored. But this is not what is posited by abiogenesis and evolutionary theory.

Again, this is your misrepresentation/misinterperetation of abiogenisis. The theory of abiogeneisis does not say this. You are getting confused between what you think it says and what it actualyl says. We have tried (repeatedly) to tell you that your understading is wrong, but you refuse to accept that you have an incorrect understanding of evolution and abiogenisis.

 

So, please concentrate here: Your understanding of what abiogeneisi and evolution is, is wrong. Starting form that, it is time you actually learned what they say and leave behind what you think they say.

 

got it.

 

Ok.

 

Now from this:

 

Abiolgenisis is about how chemical systems can first become self organising system, then assisted replicating systems, and then develop into self replicating systems.

 

These are 3 important and different concepts.

A self organising system is one where, dispite (and often because) of random inputs, it non the less ends up showing what appears to be a decrease in entropy. However, wehn you look at these systems, you will find that there are either a low entropy input (usualy by energy and matter), or a output of high entropy (or both).

 

Crystals are the most common example of this, so are snowflakes (this has a specific name even - difusion limited aggrigation - and cities are another such example of this).

 

An assisted replicating system uses outside/environmental causes to replicate, but it first must be a self organising system (if it wasn't then the daughter product would not be a true replication - there are many such examples where this is not the case such as with catalysts).

 

Finally a self replicating system is one that is driven by internal processes to replicate. IN this case the raw materials and energy from outside in the environment are used by the replicator to organise matter and energy (and information) to produce more coppies of itslef. It does not have to wait for events outside of it to cause replication. once the raw materials and energy are assembled, then it can use them to repolicate by itself (hence self-replication).

 

As the video I poseted about this explained, with the lipid vesicals, they are a sefl organising system. Lipids will self organise into a bi-layer due to deterministic chemical processes. They will grow by stealing lipids from other vesicles due to ionic pressures. Also, neucleotide monomer will spontainiously self polymerise due to deterministic processes, and more over this polymerisation represents a higher entropy level than neucleotide monomers by themselves (thermal entropy, in this case). Because this is spontainious and it is not directed, these polymers have no information. These neucleotide chains will also pair bone with other neucleo tides and this too is an increase in thermal entropy. However, this pair bonding increases the chances of polymerisation of the attached monomers with the next in the chain as they are forced to remain in close proximity because of the pair bonding.

 

However, these systems are not self replicating as they are. they requier events outside of them to cause replication. In this case it is the actions of the heating/cooling cycles near underwater thermal vents (or other such sources) and the actions of physical impacts.

 

The heating cooling allow the pair bonded polymer chains to seperate (this is an example of a low entropy energy causing a decrease in local entropy), but then when the cooling occurs, pair bonding can reoccur, and this does not have to be with the polymer chain that was previously pair bonded with the curent chain (and can be neucleotide monomer). This causes the neucleotide chains to replicate, but as this is caused by external factors (the heating cooling) then it is not self replication, but assisted replication.

 

the physical impacts cause the vesicles to split without them being ruptured. This then allows the neucleotide chains that exist within the vesicle to be divided between the two vesicles.

 

This completes the assisted replication cycle.

 

Yes, this is not life because it is not self replication. But, you asked for an example where certain processes were occuring, and this example fulfilled them. If you want to try and reject it because you changed the goal posts, then that is your problem and does not effect the validity of that example.

 

However, in a preemtive response to your shifting of the goal posts, I also included the explaination of how such a system could become self replicating, thus fullfilling the transition to a true self replicating system and would be considdered a living system.

 

As I think you would agree, the function of self replication is a new and noval function not present in the previous, assisted replicating system. As your argumets seems to be that evolution can not create new functions, then if evolution can be shown to be able to turn this non-selfreplicating system ino a self replicating system, then it is indeed possible for evolution to create new form and function.

 

So here goes:

 

Neucleotides, and in fact any chemical can have more then one reaction. That is it might react one way with a certain chemical (or chemicals), but produce a different result with other chemicals (this is so well accepted, I didn't feel the need to state it before, but it seems you didn't understand that before and argued against it occuring).

 

This measn that the neucleotide chains will show activity beyond just forming polymers and pair bonding. They are capable of doing other things, not only by themselves, but in concert as well. They can in fact act as catalysts, or enzymes. This is know as RNA shows this and it is a type of neucleotide (even DNA shows some of this too).

 

If any of the neucliotide chains show such activity, it will be essentially random because the chains are not directed to form such structures by an outside agent (remember I am trying to show that this can occur without an outside agent, so I need to show that there isn't one here). But, if any of these chains help the vesicle replicate, maybe by increasing the ionic pressure and thus helping it steal other vesicle's lipids (larger lipid vesicles are more likely to be split as larger objects are easier to split) and it helps prevents other vesicles from stealing its lipids.

 

I will point out at this stage, we actually have evolution, as we have replication, variation and selction (not biological evolution, but the algorithm/process of evolution). As I am trying to show that evolution can do this, I need to point this out.

 

So, any vesicle that does not have these structures will replicate less often than ones that don't have these structures. This measn that information is now part of the polymer chain. We have increased information, through the actions of random variation (the copying process of the polymer chains is not perfect) and selection (the vesicles compete with each other for lipids with the ones with more lipids replicating more often than ones with less lipids).

 

As I have established, these neucleotides can have other effects other than polymerisation and pair bonding. If one such effect is to change the structure of a lipid (quite likely actually) then this can cause a change in the lipids in the vesicle.

 

If such a change causes the vesicle to loose lipids (by destrying them) or by weakening the ability of the vesicle to hold onto them, then this would cause that vesicle to be selected against as it would not replicate as often (if at all). However, the vesicles where this change didn't occur would still exist and these would keep on replicating.

 

Eventually,one of these vesicles will, through random chance, have a sequence of neucleotides that cause a favourable change in the lipids. We know that different types of lipids form weaker or stronger bonds with their neibours in a bi-layer (the lipids in modern cells are really good at this). It doesn't have to be a massive improvment, just a small improvemnt is necesary as any advantage gets amplified by geometrical population growth.

 

Now this change in lipid is one step towards createing lipids from scatch using chemicals floating around. As changing a lipid might requier a chemical floating around to add to or allow part of the lipid to be removed, then by small changes this can build up into a structure that allows the neucleotide to create lipids. As this is a step towards self replication (the vesicle now doesn't need to only get its lipids from outside - it also means that changes to lipids can be entierly self contained and it doesn't requier them to exist in the environment before it can use them).

 

Now, heat is not the only way pair bonding can be broken. It can be achieved through chemical means as well. If a vesicle encouters these chemicals, then it will cause the pair bonded chain to "unzip" and allow it to replicate (re-pair bond with monomers). Again, the secondary reactions caused by the neucleotides could also have this effect, or attract such chemicals. This way, the environmental effects (still assisted replication here) can cause replication away from a heat source. This would be an advantage to such a vesicle as replication could go on away from a direct energy source. This is the start of energy stroage and management that a self replicating system needs to have.

 

Neucleotide monomers and polymers can attact and hold onto chemicals without they themselves being disrupted (many chemicals do this, such as water) and aid in the reactions of these other chemicals. Thus, if a structure formed that allowed these high energy molecules to be assembled, then this would be an advantage to the vesicle as it would allow it to store more energy than other vesicles, thus allow more replication.

 

Also, these secondary effects can allow the production of neucleotides themsevles from simpler chemicals and any sequence that did this would have an advantage over other vesicles as it would not requier the neucliotide monomers to difuse into itself before it could use them to replicate the neucleotide polymers.

 

So, now we have a system, through evolution went from assisted replication, to full selfreplication. At no point is an outside agent needed to direct this as each process is according to know deterministic chemical processes. As it also requiers energy to perform these processes and releases this energy as high entropy waste it does not violate any (including information entropy) laws.

 

Now, I know that you are going to try and dismiss this as a "just so" story. But, before you do, I was not trying to say this is exactly what occured. All I need to do to prove your argument wrong is to provide a physically plausable explaination of how just uing evolution you can generate new function. I used abiogenisis as such an example as self replication is clearly a new function.

 

It actually does not matter if this is a physically possilble occurance (although it is), what is important is that only using evolution one can create new function. As your argument is not about chemistry and what chemicals can do, but that evolution catagorically can not produce new function, then any scenario where evolution produces new function disproves your argument.

 

As the above shows that just a step by step process of marginal improvmens crated from random variation (imperfect copying) and selected for by determinisitc selection (replication rate) can indeed proced new function, then your argument has been disproved. If you try to argue that this is a just so story, then that will be a red herring argument aswhether or not it is a just so story is total;ly irrelevent. The only important thing is that it shows that only using an evolutionary process, one can indeed get new function.

 

For this redefined example to be a valid representation of how abiogenesis and evolution as an explanation for all observed biodiversity one must identify the information fluxes involved in these processes just as in the heat pump example one must point out that the distribution of discrete energy states is being reduced by removing energy state permutations in the form of a heat flux that is leaving the deliberately defined system. In other words one must identify the flows across the system boundaries.

Ok, I'll bite. In the above example, I have identified all the information fluxes, that of random erros in copying. At no point did I need to resort to an external agent "fixing" things so that it would work. The information at the start was in how chemicals react and how entropy works. If you are suggesting that such a mix of chemicals already had allthe information that all life would ever have on every planet in every galaxy in the entire universe, then you would have to substantiate that claim, if you can't then you will have to accept that the starting information in the system I described does not contain the information for a self replicating system and that is was actually generated by the process.

 

At no point was extra information added to achieve the result, so no information is needed to enter the system (other than through the processes I already described). Thus, are all the information fluxes identified and accounted for, and yet it still works...

 

As the system requiers energy (first in the form of heating and cooling and physical impacts), and also increases the total entropy of the universe (the bi-layer, polymer and pair bonding are all higher entropy/lower energy states - lower energy state release energy into the environment thus increaseing the entropy of the universe). Because this energy release is needed at all stages of the process, at any time it appears that entropy is violated, you can calculate the total entropy increase to achieve that entropy reduction and you will find that the total entropy has increased even though it has decreased locally. Thus is entropy accounted for and it is shown that the system does not violate this (it actually increases entropy - quite significantly actually).

 

This example fullfills your requierments here too.

 

Finally I have noted that design is an example of a process that does import information order in the form of functional prescriptive information into physical systems that store information including representations of digital computer code and DNA. Design is a process that does address the requirement that life from non-life and derivation of biodiversity must have a source of low entropy functional prescriptive information.

But design has to be made by some entity. This entity would also be subject to information entropy. So your argument that design has to come from a mind fails because you don't "identify the flows across the system boundaries" as you say. In other words you are trying to argue that evolution fails to be able to produce the effects we claim, and then say that your argument is right, dispite the exact sam violation. Either the violation doesn't exist and evolution is as capable of generating new information like design, or neither of them can. To argue that one can and the other can't is a completely illogical argument as you have to ignore your own argument against the other side to allow your side to occur.

 

The original challenge remains unfulfilled except by design.

No, even design fails your challenge if evolution fails it.

 

Simple, if you are going to argue that new form and function is does not represent a reduction in probability of the discrete prescriptive character configurations, that instead these configurations have equal probability in that the change from one configuration to the next is driven by a deterministic process then you must identify this process. Currently you have the state changes occuring by random processes and selection by a deterministic process. Alternatively you will need to show that selectable pathways exist. You need to demonstrate that there are evolutionary pathways greater than those 1-2 step ones achievable by random processes alone. You need to offer up a handful of actualized four and greater step pathways.

No, I am not argueing that. I am arguing that evolution is capable of increasing information by the increase of universal entropy. As you have agreeed can occur, entropy can be lowered locally if the total (universal) entropy is increased.

 

This has been shown for evolution, it increases the universal entropy. As you are willing to accept that entropy can be decreased locally (at the cost of universal entropy), and evolution is shown to decrease local entropy at the cost of universal entropy, then why do you keep arguing that evolution can't work as it violates entropy?

 

It can be shown that there is insufficient probabilistic resources available for this process to achieve what has been observed within the posited timeframe. I have previously offered published articles to this effect. I am happy to discuss them again.

I have shown that because of geometric population growth, the strawman argument that there isn't enough time is false.

 

You can even do this yourself. I have given examples and experiments where you can do it yourself. You dismised them as irrelevent because there was a human involved in performing or setting up the experiment claiming that information had to be imported somehow (without actually showing that is really was, you just assumed it had to be - because it disproved your argument).

 

So, if you can not actually show that external information is being imported by either the design or the operator, then you don't actually have an argument against the results of the experiments.

 

The simple oneis to change one word into another word. Really it doesn't have to be a word, but it could be a sequence of DNA that does one function and another sequence that does another function. and it wouldn't requier a human to do it either, so the fact that the experiment requiers a human to do it is irrelevent and to argue it is a red herring arguemnt as the same thing can occur without the need for a human or external information being imported by some mind.

 

To do this experiment start with a word, and then make many copies of it, each with a small variation. If if a new word is closer to the target word, then it is kept, if it further from the target word it is discarded. Then take the closest word to the target word and replicate it with variation and repeat.

 

If you use 8 letter words, then the chances that you will randomly generate the target word with a variation is 1 in 208,827,064,576. So if you were to generate a new word ever minute it would take around 397,040 years.

 

But, try it. If you use evolution you will get it in less than that (much less than that). In other words, there is something about evolution that makes it reach the goal quicker than pure chance alone. It means that your argument that evolution would not have enough time to do things is wrong.

 

Your articles used the pure random method, and so even though the articles might be solid, you used them incorrectly and that is why your argument was wrong. I am not argueing against the articles, but against their use.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

To that, we have given many many examples where change occurs without direction, but in hind sight appears directed, and if a presupposition that change that appears directed, must be directed, then you could never understand how these changes could occur without direction. Such as stone frost/thaw circles, sorting of pebbles by waves or river curents, etc.

 

These are undirected activities with a random element, but due to deteminisitic processes that act as a selection/sorting process, the random variations are arranged as if to a purpose and by direction.

 

This is our argument, that there exist processes that give the appearence of direction and purpose, but are not infact directed. As there are examples that you agrtee qwith that show this property, then what is your objection to the fact that evolution, which shares these same basic properties (random inputs with deterministic selections of inputs) is also one of these systems. You don't seem to have an objection the the existance of these types of systems, only that evolution (which has the basic properties of these kinds of system) is not one of them, for no other reason than it doesn't fit your beliefs.

 

Alright let's explore this idea.

 

You claim that abiogenesis and evolutionary processes work the same way these other processes work. Four different examples have been given and I have suggested that none of these processes fit the posited models of abiogenesis and evolution in deriving all observed diversity .

 

Skeptic provided a heat pump / heat transfer example where heat flux was removed from a system. This relies on random brownian motion and energy transfer in particle collisions. In this process there is a net thermal entropy increase.

 

The second example is in growth of crystals. This process involves random processes of brownian motion and deterministic processes involving electric forces between the atoms/molecules such that the probability of the orientation of discrete molecule and atom positions is unchanged as the crystals grow. Also like the heat pump example the there is heat flux removed as the solid forms. Therefore net entropy again increases.

 

The third example was of sorting of various sand and stone particles on a beach where again random processes provide movement and deterministic processes provide placement. Again, as the configurations of the discrete states change, the probability of these orientations do not decrease since deterministic processes dictate placement.

 

The final example was of growth, but since growth is managed and controlled by prescriptive information, growth is also a deterministic process that does not alter probability. Net thermal entropy of the system increases also for reasons previously explained.

 

Which of these examples specifically does evolutionary processes most closely follow? Which process specifically does abiogenesis most closely mimic?

 

What are the differences and how do those differences influence the progression of probability of the discrete states?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The third example was of sorting of various sand and stone particles on a beach where again random processes provide movement and deterministic processes provide placement. Again, as the configurations of the discrete states change, the probability of these orientations do not decrease since deterministic processes dictate placement.

 

 

I think you are ignoring a vital part of this process, the shapes themselves. The energy of the surf doesn't just sort out material via some fixed parameter of the objects, the energy of the surf creates the shapes as it sorts them. The shapes or the idea the shapes are more or less complex is a human idea. The surf knows nothing of heart shapes or cylinders or tubes, balls, ovals, or some of the really bizarre shapes and things it creates as the waves pound down onto raw materials all sorts of micro and macro shapes are created by the ocean. Everything from the almost organic movements of inlets and barrier islands to dust sized grains of unusually dense sand and everything in between created by and moved and sported out by wave action on the properties of the particles and random occurrences like breaking and grinding of the materials. The surf breaks huge numbers of shells as it pounds the shore then sorts the different shaped pieces that are left over, the result is you find many of certain pieces of shells but never all the pieces of the whole shell in one place. Time is also a big factor, one day a small area of beach might contain 10's of thousands of a particular type of shark teeth, all sorted out and concentrated in one spot. The next day no trace of shark teeth can be found in the very same spot. The surf can create and sort on very short time scales and very long ones but there is no intelligence behind it, it's just what happens when you have raw materials and energy input...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.