"evolutionists wrong about entropy" YOU RESPOND

ChosenByPasta
ChosenByPasta's picture
Posts: 141
Joined: 2006-08-08
User is offlineOffline
"evolutionists wrong about entropy" YOU RESPOND

I came across this and thought it would be interesting to post on here. I'm at work right now and don't have time to read all of it, but I thought it would be interesting to see some responses.

Evolutionists Wrong About Entropy
Special Contribution
By Babu G. Ranganathan

Evolutionists argue that the law of entropy in science (the net tendency of matter to go towards greater disorder rather than greater order) does not contradict evolutionary theory because they claim the law of entropy does not apply in open systems such as our Earth, and evolutionists use examples such as a seed becoming a tree as a contradiction to the law of entropy. Evolutionists are wrong on both counts for reasons which will be fully explained in this article.

Entropy does occur in open systems. We discovered entropy here on Earth which is an open system in relation to the Sun. However, entropy applies only to spontaneous or chance processes.

The spontaneous (unaided or undirected) tendency of matter is always towards greater disorder — not towards greater order and complexity as evolution would teach. Just having enough energy from the Sun is not sufficient to overcome entropy. This tendency towards disorder which exists in all matter can be temporarily overcome only if there exists some energy converting and directing mechanism to direct, develop, and maintain order.

When a seed becomes a tree, for example, there is no violation to the law of entropy because the seed contains a directing genetic code and very highly complex biological mechanisms to overcome entropy so that a seed can evolve into a fully developed tree. In other words, the development of seed to tree is not a spontaneous (or chance) event. The question is how did biological life and order come into existence in the first place when there was no directing code and mechanism for overcoming entropy.

The theory of evolution teaches that matter has an innate tendency to evolve towards greater and greater complexity or order. We are so accustomed to seeing evolution of technology all about us (new cars, boats, ships, inventions, etc.) that we assume that Nature must work the same way also. Of course, we forget that all those new gadgets and technology had a human designer behind them. Nature, however, does not work the same way.

Even the scientific followers of Prigogine, the father of Chaos theory, have admitted that only a very minimal level of order will ever be possible as a result of spontaneous or chance processes.

For example, a few amino acids have been produced spontaneously, but there is already a natural tendency for molecules to form into amino acids if given the right conditions. There is, however, no natural tendency for amino acids to come together spontaneously into a sequence to form into proteins. They have to be directed to do so by the genetic code in the cells of our bodies. Even the simplest cell is made up of billions of protein molecules. An average protein molecule may comprise of several hundred sequentially arranged amino acids. Many are comprised of thousands of sequential units. If they are not in the precise sequence the protein will not function!

The sequence of molecules in DNA (the genetic code) determines the sequence of molecules in proteins. Furthermore, without DNA there cannot be RNA, but without RNA there cannot be DNA. Without either DNA or RNA there cannot be proteins, but without proteins there cannot be either DNA or RNA. These complex molecules are all mutually dependent upon one another for existence!

If the cell had evolved it would have had to be all at once. A partially evolved cell cannot wait millions of years to become complete because it would be highly unstable and quickly disintegrate in the open environment, especially without the protection of a complete and fully functioning cell membrane.

The great British scientist Sir Frederick Hoyle has said that the mathematical probability of the sequence of molecules in the simplest cell occurring by chance is 10 to the 40,000th power or roughly equivalent to a tornado going through a junk yard of airplane parts and assembling a 747 Jumbo Jet. It is not rational to put faith in such odds for the origin of life.

Considering the enormous complexity of life, it is much more logical to believe that the genetic and biological similarities between all species is due to a common Designer rather than common biological ancestry. It is only logical that the great Designer would design similar functions for similar purposes and different functions for different purposes in all of the various forms of life.

Contrary to popular belief, scientists have never created life in the laboratory. What scientists have done is genetically alter or engineer already existing forms of life, and by doing this scientists have been able to produce new forms of life. However, they did not produce these new life forms from non-living matter. Even if scientists ever do produce life from non-living matter it won't be by chance so it still wouldn't help support any argument for evolution.

What if we should find evidence of life on Mars? Wouldn't that prove evolution? No. It wouldn't be proof that such life had evolved from non-living matter by chance natural processes. And even if we did find evidence of life on Mars it would have most likely have come from our very own planet - Earth! In the Earth's past there was powerful volcanic activity which could have easily spewed dirt containing microbes into outer space which eventually could have reached Mars. A Newsweek article of September 21, 1998, p.12 mentions exactly this possibility.

Ultimately, however, scientists concede that the law of entropy (the process of progessive energy decay and disorder) will conquer the entire universe and the universe, if left to itself, will end in total chaos (the opposite direction of evolution!). In fact, the law of entropy contradicts the Big Bang theory which teaches that the universe spontaneously went from disorder to order.

The mighty law of entropy in science simply teaches that the net direction of the universe is always downward towards greater and greater disorder and chaos — not towards greater and greater order and complexity.

Furthermore, because of the law of entropy the universe does not have the ability to have sustained itself from all eternity since all the useful energy in the universe will some day become irreversibly and totally useless. The universe, therefore, cannot be eternal and requires a beginning. Since energy cannot come into existence from nothing by any natural process, the beginning of the universe must have required a Supernatural origin!

Science cannot prove we're here by creation, but neither can science prove we're here by chance or macro-evolution. No one has observed either. They are both accepted on faith. The issue is which faith, Darwinian macro-evolutionary theory or creation, has better scientific support.

Whatever evolution occurs in Nature is limited to within biological kinds (such as the varieties of dogs, cats, horses, cows, etc.) but, unless Nature can perform genetic engineering, evolution will never be possible across biological kinds, especially from simpler kinds to more complex ones (i.e. from fish to human).

What we believe about our origins does influence our philosophy and value of life as well as our view of ourselves and others. This is no small issue!

Just because science can explain how life and the universe operate and work doesn't mean there is no Supreme Designer. Would it be rational to believe that there's no designer behind airplanes because science can explain how airplanes operate and work?

Natural laws are adequate to explain how the order in life, the universe, and even a microwave oven operates, but mere undirected natural laws can never fully explain the origin of such order.

There is, of course, so much more to say on this subject. Scientist, creationist, debater, writer, and lecturer, Dr. Walt Brown covers various scientific issues ( i.e. thermodynamics, fossils, biological variation and diversity, the origin of life, comparative anatomy and embryology, the issue of vestigial organs, the age of the earth, etc. ) at greater depth on his website at www.creationscience.com. Another excellent source of information from highly qualified scientists who are creationists is the Institute for Creation Research (www.icr.org) in San Diego, California.

It is important to understand that belief in neither evolution or creation is necessary to the actual study of science itself. One can understand the human body and become a first class surgeon regardless of whether he or she believes the human body is the result of the chance forces of nature or of a Supreme Designer.

Click here

http://theseoultimes.com/ST/?url=/ST/db/read.php?idx=4788

"Every true faith is infallible -- It performs what the believing person hopes to find in it. But it does not offer the least support for the establishing of an objective truth. Here the ways of men divide. If you want to achieve peace of mind and happiness, have faith. If you want to be a disciple of truth, then search." - Nietzsche


Ophios
Ophios's picture
Posts: 909
Joined: 2006-09-19
User is offlineOffline
If entropy nullifies

If entropy nullifies evolution, then snowflakes don't exist either.


triften
Silver Member
triften's picture
Posts: 591
Joined: 2007-01-01
User is offlineOffline
Creationaists love

Creationaists love confusing (or is it conflating?) information theory's entropy and thermodynamics' entropy.

Entropy in physics is a representation of the amount of energy in a system available to do work.

Entropy in IT refers to the amount of disorder/randomness in a data set.

While they both refer to disorder, they are not the same. In IT, entropy can increase and decrease at will (so to speak). A collection of data does not spontaneously decay.

With that said, let's take a look here...

ChosenByPasta wrote:

Evolutionists argue that the law of entropy in science (the net tendency of matter to go towards greater disorder rather than greater order) does not contradict evolutionary theory because they claim the law of entropy does not apply in open systems such as our Earth, and evolutionists use examples such as a seed becoming a tree as a contradiction to the law of entropy.

This is because we are not a closed system and the sun is providing additional energy which life can use to build things.

ChosenByPasta wrote:
Evolutionists are wrong on both counts for reasons which will be fully explained in this article. Entropy does occur in open systems. We discovered entropy here on Earth which is an open system in relation to the Sun. However, entropy applies only to spontaneous or chance processes.

Um, no.

ChosenByPasta wrote:

The spontaneous (unaided or undirected) tendency of matter is always towards greater disorder — not towards greater order and complexity as evolution would teach.

Ice freezes and gets more orderly. Is that unaided?

ChosenByPasta wrote:

Just having enough energy from the Sun is not sufficient to overcome entropy.

Entropy isn't "overcome". The entropy in the area of the Sun increase, so that the entropy on Earth can decrease. Entropy still increases within the Sun/Earth system.

ChosenByPasta wrote:

This tendency towards disorder which exists in all matter can be temporarily overcome only if there exists some energy converting and directing mechanism to direct, develop, and maintain order.

Here is an example of mixing the two definitions of entropy. Energy is expended, there for entropy (physics) increases by definition, however, entropy (information) can decrease.

ChosenByPasta wrote:

When a seed becomes a tree, for example, there is no violation to the law of entropy because the seed contains a directing genetic code and very highly complex biological mechanisms to overcome entropy so that a seed can evolve into a fully developed tree.

Correction: the laws of thermodynamics are not violated because energy is expended during the process, increasing entropy (physics sense).

ChosenByPasta wrote:

In other words, the development of seed to tree is not a spontaneous (or chance) event. The question is how did biological life and order come into existence in the first place when there was no directing code and mechanism for overcoming entropy.

There is no mechanism to "overcome" entropy in the thermodynamics sense. Meanwhile, entropy in the IT sense is not governed by any such laws.

ChosenByPasta wrote:

The theory of evolution teaches that matter has an innate tendency to evolve towards greater and greater complexity or order.

Strawman. Penalty, 15 yards, first down.

_Life_ evolves to greater complexity.

Also, complexity != order. A crystaline structure can be very orderly without being complex.

ChosenByPasta wrote:

We are so accustomed to seeing evolution of technology all about us (new cars, boats, ships, inventions, etc.) that we assume that Nature must work the same way also. Of course, we forget that all those new gadgets and technology had a human designer behind them. Nature, however, does not work the same way.

Ah, the watchmaker argument. That old chestnut. I can visit a watch factory and look atwatches being made, but I've never been to a universe factory.

ChosenByPasta wrote:

Even the scientific followers of Prigogine, the father of Chaos theory, have admitted that only a very minimal level of order will ever be possible as a result of spontaneous or chance processes. For example, a few amino acids have been produced spontaneously, but there is already a natural tendency for molecules to form into amino acids if given the right conditions. There is, however, no natural tendency for amino acids to come together spontaneously into a sequence to form into proteins.

Actually, amino acids are rather fond of linking together. These processes are not entirely random, they are chemical interactions that follow certain rules of behavior.

ChosenByPasta wrote:

They have to be directed to do so by the genetic code in the cells of our bodies. Even the simplest cell is made up of billions of protein molecules. An average protein molecule may comprise of several hundred sequentially arranged amino acids. Many are comprised of thousands of sequential units. If they are not in the precise sequence the protein will not function!

And now they've brought abiogenesis into an argument against evolution. Sigh.

Actually, you can have variations ofgene sequences wherein some work better than others at their particular function.

ChosenByPasta wrote:

The sequence of molecules in DNA (the genetic code) determines the sequence of molecules in proteins. Furthermore, without DNA there cannot be RNA, but without RNA there cannot be DNA. Without either DNA or RNA there cannot be proteins, but without proteins there cannot be either DNA or RNA. These complex molecules are all mutually dependent upon one another for existence!

Actually, RNA can reproduce itself just fine on its own.

ChosenByPasta wrote:

If the cell had evolved it would have had to be all at once. A partially evolved cell cannot wait millions of years to become complete because it would be highly unstable and quickly disintegrate in the open environment, especially without the protection of a complete and fully functioning cell membrane.

This is incorrent. Amino acids are quite stable.

Besides, a protein doesn't need to hang around and chat with its buddies, it just needs to persist long enough to make a few copies of itself.

ChosenByPasta wrote:

The great British scientist Sir Frederick Hoyle has said that the mathematical probability of the sequence of molecules in the simplest cell occurring by chance is 10 to the 40,000th power or roughly equivalent to a tornado going through a junk yard of airplane parts and assembling a 747 Jumbo Jet.

This is based on the mistaken notion that an entire cell must be assembled all at once.

The chances of a simple self-replicating protein are on the order of 10^40, which seems large, but keep in mind that a kilogram of amino acids contains about 10^27 molecules.

 

ChosenByPasta wrote:

It is not rational to put faith in such odds for the origin of life. Considering the enormous complexity of life, it is much more logical to believe that the genetic and biological similarities between all species is due to a common Designer rather than common biological ancestry.

It is much more an argument by ignorance to insist on the presence of a designer, especially since it begs the question. If a complex thing like life requires a designer, then where did a complex thing like the designer come from?

ChosenByPasta wrote:

It is only logical that the great Designer would design similar functions for similar purposes and different functions for different purposes in all of the various forms of life.

It is only logical that animals would evolve similar functions for similar purposes and different functions for different purposes.

ChosenByPasta wrote:

Contrary to popular belief, scientists have never created life in the laboratory. What scientists have done is genetically alter or engineer already existing forms of life, and by doing this scientists have been able to produce new forms of life.

He's oddly silent about the fact that scientists have shown that amino acids can be formed by electric currents in particular mixtures of gases.

ChosenByPasta wrote:

However, they did not produce these new life forms from non-living matter. Even if scientists ever do produce life from non-living matter it won't be by chance so it still wouldn't help support any argument for evolution.

Well I guess I have to agree with him on this, but that's because evolution and abiogenesis are two different theories.

ChosenByPasta wrote:

What if we should find evidence of life on Mars? Wouldn't that prove evolution? No.

And he continues the confusion of the two.

ChosenByPasta wrote:

It wouldn't be proof that such life had evolved from non-living matter by chance natural processes. And even if we did find evidence of life on Mars it would have most likely have come from our very own planet - Earth!

Continued confusion with a dash of pure speculation.

ChosenByPasta wrote:

In the Earth's past there was powerful volcanic activity which could have easily spewed dirt containing microbes into outer space which eventually could have reached Mars. A Newsweek article of September 21, 1998, p.12 mentions exactly this possibility. Ultimately, however, scientists concede that the law of entropy (the process of progessive energy decay and disorder) will conquer the entire universe and the universe, if left to itself, will end in total chaos (the opposite direction of evolution!).

While the amount of usable energy in the universe will decrease (assuming none comes from elsewhere), that does not mean that that energy cannot form pockets of order in the mean time.

ChosenByPasta wrote:

In fact, the law of entropy contradicts the Big Bang theory which teaches that the universe spontaneously went from disorder to order.

Strawman. From what I understand, the Big bang theory says no such thing.

ChosenByPasta wrote:

The mighty law of entropy in science simply teaches that the net direction of the universe is always downward towards greater and greater disorder and chaos — not towards greater and greater order and complexity.

Confusing the two definitions again.

ChosenByPasta wrote:

Furthermore, because of the law of entropy the universe does not have the ability to have sustained itself from all eternity since all the useful energy in the universe will some day become irreversibly and totally useless. The universe, therefore, cannot be eternal and requires a beginning. Since energy cannot come into existence from nothing by any natural process, the beginning of the universe must have required a Supernatural origin!

That beginning could be the big bang. This guy claims to be arguing against evolution but he's all over the place. Evolution, abiogenesis, the big bang.

"Since I don't understand the theory of the big bang, it must have been god!"

ChosenByPasta wrote:

Science cannot prove we're here by creation, but neither can science prove we're here by chance or macro-evolution. No one has observed either.

Here's the macro evolution strawman. Evolution is evolution is evolution. It doesn't matter whether the changes are small or large (which are relative and of little use to us), the crux is that change does occur.

Evolution has been observed. In addition to a great number of studies of animals in the wild and in laboratories, anyone who comes down with MRSA will attest to that.

ChosenByPasta wrote:

They are both accepted on faith. The issue is which faith, Darwinian macro-evolutionary theory or creation, has better scientific support. Whatever evolution occurs in Nature is limited to within biological kinds (such as the varieties of dogs, cats, horses, cows, etc.) but, unless Nature can perform genetic engineering, evolution will never be possible across biological kinds, especially from simpler kinds to more complex ones (i.e. from fish to human).

How does one walk a thousand miles but with single steps?

He has offered no proof other than his own incredulity.

ChosenByPasta wrote:

What we believe about our origins does influence our philosophy and value of life as well as our view of ourselves and others. This is no small issue! Just because science can explain how life and the universe operate and work doesn't mean there is no Supreme Designer. Would it be rational to believe that there's no designer behind airplanes because science can explain how airplanes operate and work? Natural laws are adequate to explain how the order in life, the universe, and even a microwave oven operates, but mere undirected natural laws can never fully explain the origin of such order.

The "god of the gaps" strikes again. "Science is all well and good, except when it contradicts with what the bible says."

ChosenByPasta wrote:

There is, of course, so much more to say on this subject. Scientist, creationist, debater, writer, and lecturer, Dr. Walt Brown covers various scientific issues ( i.e. thermodynamics, fossils, biological variation and diversity, the origin of life, comparative anatomy and embryology, the issue of vestigial organs, the age of the earth, etc. ) at greater depth on his website at www.creationscience.com. Another excellent source of information from highly qualified scientists who are creationists is the Institute for Creation Research (www.icr.org) in San Diego, California. It is important to understand that belief in neither evolution or creation is necessary to the actual study of science itself. One can understand the human body and become a first class surgeon regardless of whether he or she believes the human body is the result of the chance forces of nature or of a Supreme Designer. Click here http://theseoultimes.com/ST/?url=/ST/db/read.php?idx=4788

For every claim you see on that site, please take a look at http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html . The quick refutations will lead you to additional resources so you can do your own research.

-Triften


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Evolutionists argue that

Evolutionists argue that the law of entropy in science (the net tendency of matter to go towards greater disorder rather than greater order) does not contradict evolutionary theory because they claim the law of entropy does not apply in open systems such as our Earth, and evolutionists use examples such as a seed becoming a tree as a contradiction to the law of entropy. Evolutionists are wrong on both counts for reasons which will be fully explained in this article.

In case you havent bothered with your definition of organic life, it is an autocatalytic system that takes in free energy to reproduce and correct cellular entropy.

Entropy does occur in open systems. We discovered entropy here on Earth which is an open system in relation to the Sun. However, entropy applies only to spontaneous or chance processes.

In case you havent bothered with evolutionary genetics, the process is not spontaneous or chance.

The spontaneous (unaided or undirected) tendency of matter is always towards greater disorder — not towards greater order and complexity as evolution would teach. Just having enough energy from the Sun is not sufficient to overcome entropy. This tendency towards disorder which exists in all matter can be temporarily overcome only if there exists some energy converting and directing mechanism to direct, develop, and maintain order.

The energy from the sun is only utilized by phototrophic organisms, whose photosynthesizing is bound by chemical laws. For respiration, the adenosine triphosphate synthesis is an incredibly wasteful process that is only done because of its autoregulatory properties, requiring no designer.

For the rest of your junk, you can read my essay for refutation

http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/yellow_number_five/evolution_of_life/4880

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


ChosenByPasta
ChosenByPasta's picture
Posts: 141
Joined: 2006-08-08
User is offlineOffline
Keep in mind that I don't

Keep in mind that I don't actually agree with that. I just came across it and posted it on here to learn more. I came across a couple of flaws on my own and I'm poorly trained in science.

"Every true faith is infallible -- It performs what the believing person hopes to find in it. But it does not offer the least support for the establishing of an objective truth. Here the ways of men divide. If you want to achieve peace of mind and happiness, have faith. If you want to be a disciple of truth, then search." - Nietzsche


ChosenByPasta
ChosenByPasta's picture
Posts: 141
Joined: 2006-08-08
User is offlineOffline
Nice refutes guys.  I just

Nice refutes guys. 
I just wanted to see what the responses would be. I was alrady able to pick out many of the strawmans, but I don't even understand the basic concepts of entropy. I've pondered the idea for a little bit, and read the refute of this argument in george smith's and richard dawkins' books.

"Every true faith is infallible -- It performs what the believing person hopes to find in it. But it does not offer the least support for the establishing of an objective truth. Here the ways of men divide. If you want to achieve peace of mind and happiness, have faith. If you want to be a disciple of truth, then search." - Nietzsche


ollj
Posts: 22
Joined: 2007-03-22
User is offlineOffline
The second law of

The second law of thermodynamics and an increase of entropy only applies to CLOSED SYSTEMS and it does NOT apply to large scale system the size of a solar system where gravity can start fusion of helium. Gravity has large scale effects, including amplifiing small density differences to larger density differences, a decrease of entrophy.

Earth is NOT a closed system because it gets constant energy from the sun and from radioactive decay in its core.  Living cells use the constant energy flow todecrease entropy. The meanig of life could be reduced to "to use energy and gravity to decrease chaos".