Evolution has never been observed

Recommended Posts

moontonman, Your post seems to have been an elaboration of my brief description but I don't see any substantive error in my abbreviated one. Do you have any disagreement with the progression of probability of the discrete states of the beach system over time? Do you agree that over time the probability of the orientation of the discrete state of beach particles increases over time? If you disagree please explain in precise terms how probability changes over time.

If so, is it your claim that abiogenesis and evolution as an explanation for all biological diversity proceeds by processes that also result in outcomes that have increased probability of the discrete states just as the beach example?

Skeptic, does the heat flux and therefore thermal entropy change crossing the boundary of a system have any bearing on the balance of the system? Can the entropy of the balance of the system you described change without this or a similar flux? If you were asked to explain how and why the entropy of the contents of an airtight refrigerator changed, are you justified ignoring, that is not describing or even mentioning, this heat flux?

If your claim is that abiogenesis and evolution as an explanation for all biological diversity proceed by processes similar to the heat pump example then please describe for me the thermal and information and molecular order imported by way of fluxes into the chemic and biological system.

• Replies 368
• Created

Popular Days

moontonman, Your post seems to have been an elaboration of my brief description but I don't see any substantive error in my abbreviated one. Do you have any disagreement with the progression of probability of the discrete states of the beach system over time? Do you agree that over time the probability of the orientation of the discrete state of beach particles increases over time? If you disagree please explain in precise terms how probability changes over time.

Cypress, I do not understand your terminology much less your arguments, it's quite possible I'm just not bright enough to understand... but I don't think so. I think you have a distorted understanding of what information is... Information is a human concept, it only has meaning to a human brain, the shapes, order and arrangement of those shapes is only information to a human, the ocean has no concept of anything it is doing, the ocean is a random process that acts randomly on objects, this morning is might be pieces of brick, tomorrow olive snail shells, next week something else. The surf is in constant flux only our snap shots of it look like order, life is the same way, only our snap shots of it look like order, in reality it's a flux of processes that build upon each other to create a complexity we label information...

If so, is it your claim that abiogenesis and evolution as an explanation for all biological diversity proceeds by processes that also result in outcomes that have increased probability of the discrete states just as the beach example?

yes

Edited by Moontanman
Share on other sites

Cypress, I do not understand your terminology much less your arguments, it's quite possible I'm just not bright enough to understand... but I don't think so. I think you have a distorted understanding of what information is... Information is a human concept, it only has meaning to a human brain, the shapes, order and arrangement of those shapes is only information to a human, the ocean has no concept of anything it is doing, the ocean is a random process that acts randomly on objects, this morning is might be pieces of brick, tomorrow olive snail shells, next week something else. The surf is in constant flux only our snap shots of it look like order, life is the same way, only our snap shots of it look like order, in reality it's a flux of processes that build upon each other to create a complexity we label information...

False, information exists independently of the human mind. Have a look at how information is measured in modern cosmology. Information is probability reduction. Information exists wherever probability is reduced.

Since you have agreed that the beach system progresses over time with no reduction in probability, you are stating that the beach system does not increase information content over time. Also you argue that just as the beach system we have discussed does not contain information, biological systems do not contain information. You argue that life from non-life did not increase information content and you argue that the DNA code is not information. Is this a correct representation of your argument?

Share on other sites

Skeptic, does the heat flux and therefore thermal entropy change crossing the boundary of a system have any bearing on the balance of the system? Can the entropy of the balance of the system you described change without this or a similar flux? If you were asked to explain how and why the entropy of the contents of an airtight refrigerator changed, are you justified ignoring, that is not describing or even mentioning, this heat flux?

A system that is not isolated must have inputs or outputs. If you expand the system so that it has no inputs and outputs, as you are doing, you have instead of the original system a universe. Energy can be removed from a system if it is not isolated. Entropy can be reduced in a system (just look at how the equation for total entropy depends on temperature to see that this must necessarily be true if heat can be removed from the system). You chose to ignore the inputs and outputs by changing from the system to a universe, and that is intellectually dishonest of you. I've invited you repeatedly to account for the fluxes to your heart's content, but only so long as you don't change the system in question, and you consistently change the system in question so you can ignore the fluxes.

I'll define an even more specific problem that even you would be ashamed to try to change under the premise of it not accounting for the fluxes. Here goes:

Consider a closed, isolated system U consisting of systems A and B. System A is 1 liter of water at 100 C at time 0, contained in a container thin enough to be negligible for the purposes of this problem. System B consists of 1000 liters of water at 0 C at time 0. There is heat transfer between systems A and B, which proceeds until equilibrium. Calculate: 1) the entropy change of system A from time 0 til equilibrium. 2) the entropy change of system B from time 0 til equilibrium. 3) the entropy change of system U from time 0 til equilibrium.

As you're so fond of pointing out, the entropy of system U and of B will increase. But as I've been trying to tell you, the entropy of system A will decrease. Feel free to calculate it out if you don't believe me. And since I included for you everything you need to account for all the fluxes, instead of telling you you can do so if you like and leaving that up to you, I don't see how you can accuse me of ignoring the fluxes and keep a straight face with this one.

If your claim is that abiogenesis and evolution as an explanation for all biological diversity proceed by processes similar to the heat pump example then please describe for me the thermal and information and molecular order imported by way of fluxes into the chemic and biological system.

A plant can reduce the local entropy, using sunlight as the energy source. Chemoautotrophs can do the same with chemicals. When I used PCR to copy DNA strands, I used a rather crude heat engine (by cycling the temperature) to separate the strands of DNA; in nature thermal vents can do similarly. There are many more potential sources of energy that can be used to reduce entropy. It helps to understand what entropy means though.

Cypress, I do not understand your terminology much less your arguments, it's quite possible I'm just not bright enough to understand... but I don't think so. I think you have a distorted understanding of what information is...

Perhaps, but I think the problem here is his idea of what entropy means... I think he's using the probability portion of the definition taking into account the specific setup of the processes in question, which by that definition would increase always but be completely worthless, rather than using the definition scientists use. Similarly with the probability portion in the definition of information, which would likewise be a (nearly?) worthless definition.

Also you argue that just as the beach system we have discussed does not contain information, biological systems do not contain information.

I'm also interested in your own thoughts about this. Do you think the DNA from living creatures contain information? Is there any evidence that DNA from living creatures contains information?

Share on other sites

A system that is not isolated must have inputs or outputs.

Your redefined refrigerator is now a close system that is not isolated, in contrast to your previous definition where you incorrectly claimed it was closed when it was in fact an open system.

If you expand the system so that it has no inputs and outputs, as you are doing, you have instead of the original system a universe.

The system I am using is as you have redefined. The redefined system is the contents of a sealed refrigerator box (not even the entire refrigerator much less the entire universe). It is a closed, non-isolated system with heat flux crossing the boundary. I have been consistent about this definition ever since you redefined it. When considering what happens to net entropy, I include the contents of the refrigerator and the heat flux crossing the boundary of the system. The net entropy change is greater than zero in this example. You are incorrect.

I'll define an even more specific problem that even you would be ashamed to try to change under the premise of it not accounting for the fluxes. Here goes:

Consider a closed, isolated system U consisting of systems A and B. System A is 1 liter of water at 100 C at time 0, contained in a container thin enough to be negligible for the purposes of this problem. System B consists of 1000 liters of water at 0 C at time 0. There is heat transfer between systems A and B, which proceeds until equilibrium. Calculate: 1) the entropy change of system A from time 0 til equilibrium. 2) the entropy change of system B from time 0 til equilibrium. 3) the entropy change of system U from time 0 til equilibrium.

As you're so fond of pointing out, the entropy of system U and of B will increase. But as I've been trying to tell you, the entropy of system A will decrease. Feel free to calculate it out if you don't believe me. And since I included for you everything you need to account for all the fluxes, instead of telling you you can do so if you like and leaving that up to you, I don't see how you can accuse me of ignoring the fluxes and keep a straight face with this one.

1. Like the regrigerator contents, system A is closed but not isolated. There is a heat flux crossing the boundary of A. The net entropy of system A including the heat flux is positive.
2. System B is also closed but not isolated. The same heat flux leaving A is entering B so the entropy of this flux is the same magnitude but has the opposite sign. The net entropy of B including the heat flux is positive.
3. U is a closed and isolated system of A and B. Net entropy for U is the sum of the net entropy for A and B (including the heat fluxes) which are both positive so net entropy for U is also positive.

A plant can reduce the local entropy, using sunlight as the energy source. Chemoautotrophs can do the same with chemicals. When I used PCR to copy DNA strands, I used a rather crude heat engine (by cycling the temperature) to separate the strands of DNA; in nature thermal vents can do similarly. There are many more potential sources of energy that can be used to reduce entropy. It helps to understand what entropy means though.

As you seem to be having difficulty with the previous simple examples, I don't think it would be constructive traipse into these just yet.

I'm also interested in your own thoughts about this. Do you think the DNA from living creatures contain information? Is there any evidence that DNA from living creatures contains information?

If we could stay on the previous points for a bit longer I will come back to this, please though answer this question posed of you:

If your claim is that abiogenesis and evolution as an explanation for all biological diversity proceed by processes similar to the heat pump example then please describe for me the thermal and information and molecular order imported by way of fluxes into the chemic and biological system.
Share on other sites

The system I am using is as you have redefined. The redefined system is the contents of a sealed refrigerator box (not even the entire refrigerator much less the entire universe). It is a closed, non-isolated system with heat flux crossing the boundary. I have been consistent about this definition ever since you redefined it. When considering what happens to net entropy, I include the contents of the refrigerator and the heat flux crossing the boundary of the system. The net entropy change is greater than zero in this example. You are incorrect.

That's redefining the system. Which is the problem with this whole discussion. Well, one of them.

Share on other sites

It is including inputs and outputs as is proper. If you were asked to explain how and why the entropy of the contents of an airtight refrigerator changed, are you justified ignoring, that is not describing or even mentioning, this heat flux?

Share on other sites

Like the regrigerator contents, system A is closed but not isolated. There is a heat flux crossing the boundary of A. The net entropy of system A including the heat flux is positive.

Yes, but the heat flux goes to system B. Including a positive heat flux in your calculations means you are merging system B with system A, same as you have been doing before and just as intellectually dishonest. Unless you want to violate the first law of thermodynamics instead, the Q of system A must decrease when heat is transferred to system B.

Go ahead, look at the equation

The change of Q is negative for system A and temperature is positive, so necessarily the entropy of system A decreases. Don't you understand the basics of thermodynamics? It is only for system B that the change in Q is positive, and entropy increases. In system U the entropy also increases, in that case not due to a change in Q but to a change in the distribution of heat and temperature, or if you prefer because the entropy increase in B is greater than the entropy decrease in A.

Share on other sites

Yes, but the heat flux goes to system B.

I made that point in my response here.

Including a positive heat flux in your calculations means you are merging system B with system A, same as you have been doing before and just as intellectually dishonest.

False, as described before A and its flux is one system and B and its flux is another system.

Unless you want to violate the first law of thermodynamics instead, the Q of system A must decrease when heat is transferred to system B.

As I previously described, the Q of A does decrease, the results I describe are correct and accurate.

The change of Q is negative for system A and temperature is positive, so necessarily the entropy of system A decreases. Don't you understand the basics of thermodynamics?

False, system A includes the heat flux leaving A unless you now wish to ignore inputs and outputs. You have redefined the system several times, is this what you would now like to do?

Share on other sites

The heat flux into A is -Q, hence the entropy decreases per the equation. The heat leaving A is no longer part of A, that's what it means to leave the system. A does not contain any positive input of energy. The sum of the inputs and outputs of A is represented entirely by a heat flux of -Q into A, and including +Q in your calculations means you are not accounting for the inputs and outputs of system A. Please, go ask someone you trust who knows thermodynamics go over the basics with you again.

Share on other sites

Surely you are not attempting to claim that net entropy change for A is approximately twice the magnitude one would obtain from entropy tables, that is one quantity for the temperature drop of the mass and a second for the heat flux across the boundary. In the real world the two are offsetting as I have described all along and because the process is not reversible net entropy is slightly positive.

Share on other sites

Surely you are not attempting to claim that net entropy change for A is approximately twice the magnitude one would obtain from entropy tables, that is one quantity for the temperature drop of the mass and a second for the heat flux across the boundary. In the real world the two are offsetting as I have described all along and because the process is not reversible net entropy is slightly positive.

Using a constant heat capacity for water of 4.2 J/g/K, the entropy change for system A is:

$\Delta S = \int^{T=373.15}_{T=273.25}\frac{-4.2 * 1000 * dT}{T} = -4,200 (log 373.15 - log 273.25) = -568$

Whereas for B it is:

$\Delta S = \int^{T=273.15}_{T=273.25}\frac{-4.2 * 1,000,000 * dT}{T} = -4,200,000 (log 273.15 - log 273.25) = 668$

The overall change in entropy, and the change in entropy in system U is 100.

The negative sign is because I'm keeping track of the heat flow from rather than the heat flow to.

And if you don't like my calculations, feel free to use the equations found here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy#Consequences_and_applications

Share on other sites

What is wrong is that you have redefined the problem statement yet again. You have once again moved the goal post.

Instead of system A and system B, you are calculating the entropy change of only a part of each of the systems you previously described. You implicitly answered the question I asked of you when I said this two posts ago:

"False, system A includes the heat flux leaving A unless you now wish to ignore inputs and outputs. You have redefined the system several times, is this what you would now like to do?"

Your calculations are of only the mass of System A but not the heat flux crossing the boundary System A and only the mass of system B but not the heat flux.

The purpose for pointing out this distinction between describing only the entropy associated with the mass of material contained within the sealed refrigerator and contained by the boundary of system A and B as you have now redefined and the original definition where inputs and outputs were properly treated is the it is failure to identify and include the the information and molecular entropy associated with the fluxes that is the failure in the theories of abiogenesis and evolution as a process that accounts for observed biodiversity. Both of these theories as currently framed do not identify the source of this flux.

In your latest redefinition where only changes in the mass of System A and B are considered, you choose to not include the fluxes in your calculation and thus, on a system basis, the system entropy changes are incorrect. In your explanation you acknowledged existence of these fluxes and explained your decision to not include them in the calculations. Failure to include them provides you with an opportunity to dodge the actual fundamental issue with the theories of abiogenesis and evolution as an explanation for observed diversity. But just as you had to acknowledge the existence of this flux (despite your refusal to include them in the calculation) in your redefined problem, there must be a source and thus an entropy flux associated with these two processed being discussed.

If abiogenesis and evolutionary processes as accounting for all observed diversity mimics the refrigerator example as you claim it does, what is the source of the required information and molecular entropy flux?

Edited by cypress
Share on other sites

Show me how you calculate it, and maybe I can help you see where you're wrong.

In the meantime, I invite you to educate yourself: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy#Consequences_and_applications

Rather than beating a dead horse, on a point you can't win, perhaps we can return to the primary issue which was asked of you pages ago and has still not been answered. If you would answer this question:

"If abiogenesis and evolutionary processes as accounting for all observed diversity mimics the refrigerator example as you cliam it does, what is the source of the required information and molecular entropy flux?"

Share on other sites

Well, tell me when you ask someone who knows about thermodynamics, but in the meantime I'll consider that I won that bit and that you're too stubborn to talk to. I'm sure you have some chemist friends who could explain it to you. Why don't you tell them about how confused you think I am and they can have a good laugh at you, if you're so sure you're right.

Share on other sites

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 .

Well, more than 4 examples were given, but I will work with these as since you have brought them up, you musat feel that they are in some way the best representations of your arguments.

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.

This example was given to point out to you what a "System" is. What Skeptic was attempting to show (and you seem to have missed) is that the fridge, althoguh it has inputs and outputs, is a system within the larger system of the universe. It is what is called a Local System. That is because the inputs and outputs might not be explicitly stated (or completely known), it does have the property of its components being distinctly identifyable and measureable.

By studdying a local system we can see how it operates and functions and learn the principals by which it works. This is the cornerstone of science (being able to do this), and what is remarkable is that it works. As the quote goes: The most incomprehencable thing about the universe is that it is conprehensable. This is what is ment by that quote, we don't need to know everything about the universe to understand a part of the universe.

In other words, we can stdy local systems and learn from them.

What Skeptic was showing is that even though the entropy in the local system (ie: the fridge) goes down, the global entropy still goes up (and goes up more than the fridge system's entropy goes down). This is extremely important to understand. That we can look at a local system and see that it seems to violate entropy, but then when we look at the total system no violation actually takes place.

Think of it a bit like money. You might have several bank accounts, and move your money between them, but when you do this, you don't magically create more money (although you might loose some to bank fees). It might look like you create more money if all you do is foccus on the ballance of a single account when you transfer money to it, but the total amount of money you have does not go up just by transferring it between your accounts.

In this analogy, each back account is a local system, but the total amount of money you have is the global system. So by this you can see that we can have local systems that decrease entropy (or local bank balances that go up) but that this does not change anyhting about the total entropy (or the total amount of money you have in your accounts).

This is what Skeptic was trying to explain to you with that example.

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.

Yes, I did state that when I used it as an example. I stated that the total entropy of the global system will increase (or at best remain the same - but far more likely to increase).

However where I think your problem is, is your confusion between local systems and global systems (as your responses to Skeptic's posts on the fridge demonstrates). As the crystal is a local system, and the material the crystal is in is a global system, there is no problem with entropy is the crystal's local system decreases in entropy, so long as the global system increases entropy to compensate.

As to your question about which is closer to abiogenisis, this is probably the closest as the way that the lipids and neucleotide chains and pair bonding are more similar to how a crystal forms.

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.

This example was intended to show that through purely mechanical means it is possible to get order out of disorder (although at the cost of entropy). The waves contain energy, and it is this energy that is used to sort the stones on the beach. however, the energy of these waves is diapated in a highly disorganised way, thus increaseing the entropy of the global system.

See again it is your confusion between local and global systems that has made you think this example had something wrong with it. Sure, if we were treating the local system as a global one, or treating the global system as a local one (as you seem to have done with them) then it would appear that entropy is violated and the example was invalid.

However, if you recognise that local systems can be studdied as local systems, and that we don't need to know everything about the entier universe to know anything about a part of it, then the example becomes valid as it is clearly an example of a local system. And, as I have explained (many times now), local systems can experience a reduction of entropy as long as there is an increase in entropy of the global system.

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.

Yes, even with growth there is a net increase in global entropy. This has never been denied by me (and in fact I have explicitly stated this several times in these discussions).

What I have said is that with growth it represents a local decrease in entropy. that is the growing organism causes a decrease in local entropy as it grows. To grow requiers that there is a reduction of entropy, as a living organism is an extremely ordered system, and it gets the raw materials to grow from its environment and these materials are in an extremly disordered state. This means that any growth must reduce the local entropy of the raw materials in order to incorporate them into itself. However, this comes at the cost of global entropy, which must increase.

In this respect, all of these above examples are like evolution in that evolution does not reduce entropy without cost. Evolution decreases the LOCAL entropy but at the cost of increaseing the TOTAL GLOBAL entropy.

This is where your arguments fail. You keep insisting the local reduction of entropy caused by evolution must be treated as a global reduction in entropy. We have repeatedly tried to explain this to you, and now that it has (again) been explicitly stated, if you try to use the argument that evolution decreases entropy and thus can not occur again, the only reason can be that you are trolling.

Yes, evolution does decrease entropy but only on a local scale and at the cost of increaseing entropy on the global scale.

I will also say that growth is the most like evolution (but not totally identical - so just using the example growth as an argument against evolution is not a valid argument).

What evolution does is a ratchet (you might be familar with the concept, especially as used in some tools like spanners and screwdrivers). A ratchet allows the handel to move one way, but not the other. If you randomly jiggle the handel of a ratchetted tool, then you will, dispite the jiggleing being random, get movement in a particular direction as determined by the ratchet.

In evolution, selection, acts as a ratchet. As only the most fit (that is the ones that have the greatest reproductive success) breed the most, then the ones that are less fit (the ones with less reproductive success) will breed less. This will mean that more of the population will comprise of the more successfull breeders than the less successful breeders, then due to the geometric growth these successful breeders will dominate the popualtion, and with a finite population limit will cause the less successful breeders to become extinct (and if you want to know where one of the places that information entropy increases it is in the loss of the genetic material of the ones that go extinct).

This way you can get more information and a reduction of information entropy, but at the much greater cost of the loss of the information in the genes of the organisms that die and go extinct.

This answers your questions about how evolution can decrease the local entropy and increase the local information of an organism. These were the main questions you had. They have now been answered (and was answered a long time ago in this discussion).

You had a problem with evolution and that was you could not see how information could be created (as we have shown processes can increase information at the cost of thermal/energy entropy), and that you could not see how the entropy could decrease as entropy was only supposed to increase (it is because the global entropy increases you can get a local decrease in entropy).

Actually there is one objection you still seemed to have, but as these objections are just parts of that bigger objection (it is just that you have to join the parts together to properly answer this other objection).

As DNA describe the way an organism grows (and you agree with that), and we have now shown how the information contained in the DNA can increase at the cost of global entropy increase, then to answer the collective objection you have:

Because DNA describes the development of the organism and the information can indeed increase, then this allows all the variation of all the organisms because the variation is just the variation of the organism's DNA, and that can change. If you change the DNA, you change the organism. Evolution is the process by which the DNA is changed in a way to make sure the orgnaisms adapt (mutation is the process by which the DNA is changed, but this ghange is random and represents another way for inforamtion entropy to increase with the occasional and much smaller increase).

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?

All your question you keep raising have been answered a long time ago int his discussion. The fact that you keep repeating these questions means that you either don't understand them or you are just a troll. I have given you the benifit of the doubt and gone with the assumption that you just don't understand. As you seem to be quite inteligent I have not tried to dumb down my answers too much, but as your repeated lack of understanding continues, I have had to make it simpler and simpler.

But the fact is, all your questions have been repeatedly answered. If you still don't understand the answers, then that is fine. However, don't use your lack of understanding as a counter argument against what we have been trying to explain to you.

Reality does not care if you understand it or not. It is still reality even if you are incapable of understanding it. Knowing this, when you respond, please respond to what you don't understand and not use that lack of understanding as your counter argument.

Share on other sites

There's little point in arguing with cypress anymore given that he has been banished from the site.

Share on other sites

There's little point in arguing with cypress anymore given that he has been banished from the site.

lol, I don't think there was much point when he was here either....

Create an account

Register a new account