|
Author
|
Topic: The Theory of evolution in the Perspective of Thermodynamics and Experience-de Jong
|
William DeJong
Member
Member # 1162
|
posted 22. August 2006 09:10
quote:
That's not a prediction. A prediction would be something like "According to hypothesis H, if we do X under conditions C, then Y will occur within timeframe T." Please point to the book and page number that contains a prediction for Miller's experiment.
The prediction of Miller is clear:"According to the (macro)-theory of evolution, if we let random flashes of electricity pass through a sphere filled with the basic organic substances as we think to have been present on the primeval earth, then an ever concentrated organic soup of building blocks for life will emerge in the sphere". Conducting this initial-experiment, Miller found that random flashes of electricity not only can form DNA-building blocks but also destroy them again, the bigger the sooner. He concluded that random flashes of lightning cannot transform a pool of basic substances into an ever-concentrated organic soup, leading to the falsification of his hypothesis. Instead of reporting this, disappointing, finding, he adjusted his initial-experiment and added a transportation mechanism to the sphere bringing the building blocks formed to a retort, in order to save them from destruction by new flashes of lightning. As the result of his non-random interventions, in the added retort ever-concentrated organic soup was now produced, and Miller claimed that his adjusted-experiment verified the prediction of the (macro)-theory of evolution! Based on Millers misleading adjusted-experiment, the theory of evolution claims that, long ago, random flashes of lightning have produced billions of tons of DNA building blocks in the primeval oceans; at a certain moment the concentration of the resulting organic soup exceeded a certain threshold, and DNA-like reproducing structures emerged and began to order themselves into cells, and finally into organisms. This course of events, found in any book on evolution, never could have happened, since Miller's initial-experiment proves that random flashes of lightning cannot produce ever-concentrated organic soup. The history of science shows that false assumptions and even fraud can have a long life. The Miller-fraud exists only half a century yet. Nevertheless, some critical journalists would do a fine job to kill this fraud.
quote:
I specifically stated that it's a room with a heat conductive roof and floor. I don't know where you got the idea that it's a refrigerator.
You state that between the top and the floor of the room a 20 degrees temperature difference is present, while the room is in equilibrium. This situation is only possible if under the floor of the room, an active heat pump is present.
quote:
According to your logic, the surface of the moon should be at a uniform temperature. But the truth is that the shaded side of the moon is 300K less than the sunny side. I don't know why you keep repeating a claim that's so obviously wrong.
Apparently, we need to take a closer look at the sphere with 2ndEarth in its center. Let C be a point at 150,000,000 km away from the sun. (This is equal to the distance between our Earth and the sun). Around C we draw an imaginary sphere S with a 100,000 km radius. The line connecting the sun and point C first intersects the surface of S in point A, passes C, and then intersects S in point B. S is in equilibrium with its surrounding, implying that the influx of energy (IE) provided by the sun equals the outflux of energy (OE). The universe far around point C is in rest for a long time and differences in temperature have equalized. Therefore, the temperature in space at point A is equal to the temperature at point B, and equal to the temperature anywhere else on the surface of the imaginary sphere S around point C.
We now take 2ndEarth (identical to our Earth, except the existence of living organisms) from the darkness of outer space and put it in the center of S. As long as 2ndEarth is warming up in the sunlight, IE is larger than OE. At the surface of S where 2ndEarth casts a shadow, the temperature will decrease. When warming up, 2ndEarth starts to radiate energy. The radiated energy also reaches the initially shadowed spot on S, warming it up. The amount of energy radiated by 2ndEarth keeps increasing until a new equilibrium is reached and OE equals IE again. When equilibrium is reached, temperature differences on S have equalized, and anywhere on S the temperature is equal again. If not, two points on S could be found in between a temperature difference would exist. A heat engine could be attached to this difference and produce an additional amount of energy AE. The conservation of energy demands that IE= OE + AE. But since S is in equilibrium, and IE=OE, AE can only be zero, implying that no two points can be found on S with a temperature difference in between. In equilibrium, S with 2ndEarth placed in its center is a "zero-left-term-system". According to the 2ndLaw, the entropy inside S increases. The claim that the sun provides plenty of free energy that will decrease the entropy on 2ndEarth therefore is false.
In space traveling, satellites are provided with energy panels to harness the radiation of the sun and to drive the electrical equipment on board. How wonderful it would be if these sophisticated, fragile, and expensive panels could be replaced by a simple Perspex sphere with a stone hanging in its center casting a shadow on the sphere, producing a structural temperature difference to feed a heat engine driving the equipment on board. Unfortunately, such things only exist in dreams and in fiction stories.
Everyone is free to believe that the universe is full of free energy that allows molecules to express their supposed intrinsic desire to order themselves, maintain that order and expand it ever further. This belief, however, is in flat contradiction with empirical science and everyday experience in homes, offices, factories and laboratories. Presenting this belief as science drags us back into the Dark Ages.
[ 22. August 2006, 09:11: Message edited by: William DeJong ]
IP: Logged
|
|
2ndclass
Member
Member # 1979
|
posted 22. August 2006 12:08
William:
quote:
The prediction of Miller is clear:"According to the (macro)-theory of evolution, if we let random flashes of electricity pass through a sphere filled with the basic organic substances as we think to have been present on the primeval earth, then an ever concentrated organic soup of building blocks for life will emerge in the sphere".
Who are you quoting here?
quote:
When equilibrium is reached, temperature differences on S have equalized, and anywhere on S the temperature is equal again.
No, it isn't. The shaded region is cooler than the sunny region. Night is cooler than day. It's simply astounding to me that you continue to deny this fact.
The rest of your argument is based on the premise that night and day are the same temperature, so it's no surprise that your conclusion is wrong.
[Edit: Removed the unnecessary snarkiness.]
[ 23. August 2006, 12:20: Message edited by: 2ndclass ]
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 24. August 2006 17:32
Everything in both ontogeny and phylogeny demonstrates beyond any doubt that a thermodynamic explanation for either phenomenon is out of the question. While each chemical step cannot violate chemical law and doesn't, the effect of those same reactions within the living system is to lead to greater complexity, clearly a thermodynamic impossibility. Furthermore, neither process is reversible. It is only but very slightly reversed with the death of the individual and the extinction of the species.
It is no wonder a friend of mine used to call it thermogodammics. I don't believe is it has any application to living systems and I don't believe it has contributed anything to our understanding of life. Life is not a statistical process.
But that is just me.
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
2ndclass
Member
Member # 1979
|
posted 25. August 2006 11:42
John:
quote:
...is to lead to greater complexity, clearly a thermodynamic impossibility.
Please state the law of thermodynamics that says complexity can't increase.
quote:
Furthermore, neither process is reversible.
That's true of virtually all macroscopic processes. I don't see your point.
IP: Logged
|
|
William DeJong
Member
Member # 1162
|
posted 05. September 2006 06:07
quote:
No, it isn't. The shaded region is cooler than the sunny region. Night is cooler than day. It's simply astounding to me that you continue to deny this fact. The rest of your argument is based on the premise that night and day are the same temperature, so it's no surprise that your conclusion is wrong.
Indeed, the sunny side of the moon is warm and the shaded side is cold. But on a 10,000 km radius imaginary sphere around the moon, the temperature in space is equal as well as the influx and the outflux of energy. As a consequence, the moon is a zero-left-term system, for which the entropy increases. All the constructions left on the moon by NASA will ultimately turn into dust as well as the rocks of the moon, and finally spread into space.
quote:
Please state the law of thermodynamics that says complexity can't increase.
A fundamental characteristic of the reality we live in is that all differences (e.g. of temperature, energy, density, concentration) will ultimately equalize. If, for instance, a temperature difference would not ultimately equalize, a heat engine could be attached to it and run forever, resulting in a perpetual mobile. The laws of thermodynamics teach us perpetual mobiles cannot exist. Increase of complexity is the opposite of equalization of differences. Since the natural course of events is the equalization of differences, increase of complexity is an unnatural course of events.
Our children should to be taught that the natural course of events is that all differences ultimately equalize and that the claim of Darwinism that molecules have an natural desire to order themselves, preserve that order, and expand it ever-further, is no more than a belief. Moreover, they should be taught this belief is in flat contradiction with empirical science and everyday experience in homes, offices, factories and laboratories. It should become compulsory at schools and universities to conduct and discuss both the initial Miller-experiment and the adjusted Miller-experiment. The initial Miller-experiment (see my post of 22 August) will make clear that random flashes of lightning can make basic substances stick together as building blocks for life and that new flashes of lightning will destroy them again, the bigger the sooner. The adjusted Miller-experiment will show that only by Miller's directed effort (constructing a transportation system to move away the produced building blocks for life to a safe retort) could lead to the production of an ever concentrated organic soup. In the discussion of both experiments, attention should be given to the differences between science and religion, and how religion often tries to hijack science to make itself credible. Examining and discussing both the initial and the adjusted Miller-experiment, in schools, universities, and in scientific television programs, may help to save us from turning back to the Dark Ages.
IP: Logged
|
|
2ndclass
Member
Member # 1979
|
posted 05. September 2006 12:18
quote:
Indeed, the sunny side of the moon is warm and the shaded side is cold. But on a 10,000 km radius imaginary sphere around the moon, the temperature in space is equal as well as the influx and the outflux of energy.
The influx and outflux are equal, but the temperature (i.e. energy density) is not uniform. If it were, then the temperature on the surface of the moon would be uniform. That's basic physics.
quote:
A fundamental characteristic of the reality we live in is that all differences (e.g. of temperature, energy, density, concentration) will ultimately equalize.
The key word is ultimately, which implies that biocomplexity is temporary. To conclude from this that biocomplexity is impossible is a non-sequitur.
I realize that you disagree with me, but if you ask anyone with a basic knowledge of physics, they'll tell you the same thing. With that, I'm going to bow out of this conversation. It's been good talking to you, William.
IP: Logged
|
|
William DeJong
Member
Member # 1162
|
posted 12. September 2006 06:29
quote:
The influx and outflux are equal, but the temperature (i.e. energy density) is not uniform. If it were, then the temperature on the surface of the moon would be uniform. That's basic physics.
Indeed, the temperature on the surface of the moon is not uniform. If spot X is in the darkness, its temperature will rise rapidly as soon as the first sunrays hit it. But turning around the earth, X will move soon into darkness again and cool off and warm up and cool off, et cetera. All spots on the moon show the same cyclic motion of warming up and cooling down. Between the spots of high and low temperature, equalization processes are present. The further away from the surface of the moon, the more these equalization processes succeed in decreasing the differences between high and low temperatures. On a 10,000 km radius sphere around the moon, the equalization processes will have resulted in equality of temperatures. Since the influx and outflux of energy through the surface of the sphere is equal as well, the sphere with the moon in its center is a "zero-left-term-system", for which the entropy increases.
quote:
The key word is ultimately, which implies that biocomplexity is temporary. To conclude from this that biocomplexity is impossible is a non-sequitur.
Indeed, random processes can make differences grow temporarily, as Miller showed in his initial experiment. But the building blocks for life that were produced by random flashes of lightning appeared to be destroyed the next moment by new flashes of lightning, the bigger the sooner. The biocomplexity Miller saw growing by random processes in his initial experiment lasted for about half an hour and then stopped. Therefore, he adjusted his experiment and added a non-random transportation mechanism to his lightning sphere. After bringing the produced building blocks into safety, he succeeded in producing an ever-concentrated organic soup.
quote:
I realize that you disagree with me, but if you ask anyone with a basic knowledge of physics, they'll tell you the same thing. With that, I'm going to bow out of this conversation. It's been good talking to you, William.
The beauty of empirical science is that it is grounded in experiential knowledge, which can be reproduced by experiments. The initial-Miller experiment and the adjusted-Miller experiment will teach everyone the fundamental property of physics that random processes cannot preserve differences and make them grow ever further. Basic substances do not start ordering themselves, preserve that order and expand it ever further This property of reality is the basis for the (bio)chemical industry, where energy flows are delibarately directed to make differences grow, resulting in the transformation of simple substances into complex, high energy substances.
I feel sad for science and for human rationality that clear empirical facts do not convince you of the falsehood of the basic supposition of the theory of (macro) evolutionary theory that molecules have an intrinsic desire to order themselves, preserve that order and expand it ever further. Apparently, your faith in the virtual reality presented by Darwinism is of greater value to you than the knowledge of physical science and its basis of empirical facts. Nevertheless, it has been good talking to you, 2nd Class.
CONCLUSIONS OF THE DISCUSSION
1. The central hypothesis of the theory of (macro) evolution that random processes can make molecules start ordering themselves, maintain that order and expand it ever further, cannot be confirmed by empirical evidence.
2. The initial Miller-experiment combined with the adjusted Miller-experiment, together, falsify the central hypothesis of the theory of (macro) evolution. The initial Miller-experiment will make clear that random flashes of lightning can make basic substances stick together as building blocks for life and that new flashes of lightning will destroy them again, the bigger the sooner. The adjusted Miller-experiment will show that only by Miller's directed effort (constructing a transportation system to move away the produced building blocks for life to a safe retort) could lead to the production of an ever concentrated organic soup.
3. A fundamental characteristic of the reality we live in is that all differences (e.g. of temperature, energy, density, concentration) will ultimately equalize. If, for instance, a temperature difference would not ultimately equalize, a heat engine could be attached to it and run forever, resulting in a perpetual mobile. The laws of thermodynamics teach us perpetual mobiles cannot exist. Increase of complexity is the opposite of equalization of differences. Since the natural course of events is the equalization of differences, increase of complexity is an unnatural course of events.
4. Thermodynamics is very clear, as well as everyday experiences in homes, offices, factories and laboratories: RANDOM PROCESSES CANNOT PRESERVE ORDER AND EXPAND IT EVER FURTHER.
5. The claim that space is full of free energy of the sun, and that this energy can make molecules on 2ndEarth (identical to our Earth, except the presence of living organisms) make start ordering themselves, preserve that order and expand it ever further is nonsense. It can be proven that a sphere with a radius of 100,000 km and 2ndEarth in its center is a "zero-left-term-system" for which the entropy increases.
6. Despite explicitly asking many times during this discussion, not any empirical evidence has been produced to confirm the basic hypothesis of the theory of (macro) evolution that random processes can make molecules start ordering themselves, preserve that order and expand it ever further. Clearly this hypothesis is only grounded in wishful thinking and is no more than a belief. In line with the ideas of Stephen Jay Gould, this belief should be removed from the domain of science to the domain of religion.
7. Everyone is free to believe that the universe is full of free energy, which allows molecules to express their supposed intrinsic desire to order themselves, maintain that order and expand it ever further. This belief, however, is in flat contradiction with empirical science and everyday experience in homes, offices, factories and laboratories.
8. Although the basic hypothesis of the theory of (macro) evolution is no more than a belief, this belief is presented as a scientific fact that is beyond discussion. Scientists who dare to question the theory of (macro) evolution are attacked with religious fire and their scholarly life is made difficult. In fact, we have returned to the Dark Ages, where priests told the people what to believe and where heretics were excommunicated.
9. Our children should to be taught that the natural course of events is that all differences ultimately equalize and that the claim of Darwinism that molecules have an natural desire to order themselves, preserve that order, and expand it ever-further, is no more than a belief. Moreover, they should be taught this belief is in flat contradiction with empirical science and everyday experience in homes, offices, factories and laboratories. It should become compulsory at schools and universities to conduct and discuss both the initial Miller-experiment and the adjusted Miller-experiment. In the discussion of both experiments, attention should be given to the differences between science and religion, and how religion often tries to hijack science to make itself credible.
[ 12. September 2006, 06:31: Message edited by: William DeJong ]
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 12. September 2006 14:50
Both ontogeny and phylogeny qualify as miracles. It is as simple as that and to believe otherwise is folly, but don't let me interrupt your fantasies. Carry on.
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 13. September 2006 19:10
Om the early 1900s it was fashionable to put animals in calorieters, incinerate them and see how many calories would be produced. Some interesting experiments were performed. One of these was to attempt to determine the "work of development," in German, the "Entwicklungsarbeit."
What was done was to put a hens'egg in the calorimeter, completely oxidize it and see how many calories were released. Next a hatched chick would be combusted and the heat released also recorded. This yielded a rather interesting result because it yielded a gross efficiency of around 64%. In other words of the egg material oxidized 64% resulted in a hatched chick. All of the egg was not involved because a small fraction of the egg remains unused when the chick hatches.
Now think what this means. During the development of the chick, the materials for its developmmnet must first be released by hydrolysis from the albumin and yolk before they can be then sybthesized into the chick. Furthermore a certain amount of the energy must have been used to maintain the developing chick durng the 21 days of incubation. Assuming the efficiency of the hydrolysis is the same as that of the subsequent synthesis, the effciency of each would be the square root of 64% or 80%, an extraordinarily high efficiency it seems to me. Our best diesel engines and light sources can't even approach this kind of conversion. Similar results were obtained with frog eggs and insect eggs as well. This work is summarized in Samuel Brody's book "Bioenergetics and growth."
I thought this might be of interest to those of you who know a lot more about thermodynamics than I do.
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
sciwall
Member
Member # 2454
|
posted 14. September 2006 13:12
quote:
5. The claim that space is full of free energy of the sun, and that this energy can make molecules on 2ndEarth (identical to our Earth, except the presence of living organisms) make start ordering themselves, preserve that order and expand it ever further is nonsense. It can be proven that a sphere with a radius of 100,000 km and 2ndEarth in its center is a "zero-left-term-system" for which the entropy increases.
Interesting discussion William, hope you do not mind me interjecting here, but does this mean you think that on 2ndEarth, neither ice nor ozone can form? Both are entropy decreasing processes, so should be precluded by your analysis
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 14. September 2006 16:11
2nd class
It is not my responsibility to prove that thermodynamic laws cannot produce complexity. It is yours to prove that they can. Have fun and get back to me with a convincing example from the living world. I'll give you 24 hours.
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
Johh A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 15. September 2006 16:47
2nd class
Times up. Where is your demonstration? Let the record show that 2nd class has failed to produce an example of themodynamic law acting to produce complexity. It is no wonder a biologist friend of mine once described it as "thermogodammics." Thermodynamics offers nothing in the way of explanation for either ontogeny or phylogeny.
A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
nullasalus
Member
Member # 2486
|
posted 16. September 2006 15:42
Jumping in here a little late, but I had one question.
William DeJong,
quote:
Indeed, random processes can make differences grow temporarily, as Miller showed in his initial experiment. But the building blocks for life that were produced by random flashes of lightning appeared to be destroyed the next moment by new flashes of lightning, the bigger the sooner. The biocomplexity Miller saw growing by random processes in his initial experiment lasted for about half an hour and then stopped. Therefore, he adjusted his experiment and added a non-random transportation mechanism to his lightning sphere. After bringing the produced building blocks into safety, he succeeded in producing an ever-concentrated organic soup.
I would agree that Miller's experiment, when described, typically has the second part glossed over (the transportation mechanism). However, it seems you're arguing that the second law of thermodynamics means that you can't get undirected increases in complexity, citing the results of Miller's first experiment as proof. However, apparently Miller *did* get an increase in complexity in the first experiment - it simply didn't last for longer than thirty minutes.
I understand that the results of the experiment are taken far out of whack - we'd have to have systems of increasing complexity for millions and millions of years. A far cry from thirty minutes. Still, if you're insisting that the 2nd law means complexity can't increase, how do you explain Miller's thirty minutes in his first attempt?
This is my first post here, and I'm quite ignorant besides. So! Please forgive me if I've asked a dumb question.
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 17. September 2006 07:06
My response is as follows.
It takes thirty minutes for the system to come to an equilibrium and a dead end as far as further net change is concerned. You cannot reach an equilibrium until the chemical components of the reaction have first been formed.
I hope that is a satisfactory explanation.
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemomstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
nullasalus
Member
Member # 2486
|
posted 17. September 2006 14:08
John A. Davidson,
It does, thank you. My assumption is that it's been assumed by all sides that 'abiogenesis' had to have occured at some point. The problem seems to center around whether the truly 'random' in the universe is sufficient for starting a process of complexity that will only 'equalize' after millions (billions?) of years.
I find it interesting that the Miller experiments apparently argue for this 'primordial soup' to have formed, but - forgive me if I'm wrong - how it would have formed the first sustainable life goes unaddressed. It seems backwards to me.
For my part, I wonder whether 'a long time ago, on earth' is the right starting point for the creation of life and the start of the evolutionary process. One thing is in general agreement among scientists currently - there was an apparent start to the universe, a Big Bang, the chance that provided the framework for all other chance. If a designer had intended the universe to unfold in certain ways, that seems where 'the fix' would have taken place.
But, that's straying off-topic. Just wanted to share some thoughts.
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic
