|
Author
|
Topic: The Theory of evolution in the Perspective of Thermodynamics and Experience-de Jong
|
2ndclass
Member
Member # 1979
|
posted 17. June 2006 13:51
John: quote:
Who cares?
Since you consider such an event to be determined, every particle physicist in the world would be curious to know what determines it.
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 17. June 2006 22:45
Quantum physics never had anything whatsoever to do with organic evolution. I thought everybody knew that but apparently not. I still don't believe that Einstein ever really bought a statistical basis for anything either. He lived and died a strict determinist and will I.
IP: Logged
|
|
2ndclass
Member
Member # 1979
|
posted 18. June 2006 11:29
quote:
Quantum physics never had anything whatsoever to do with organic evolution.
Who said anything about evolution? You made a broad claim of strict determinism, and I asked you a question based on that claim. "Who cares?" is not an answer. A lot of people care, and if you could support your claim of determinism, you would be Nobel laureate.
quote:
He lived and died a strict determinist and will I.
I don't doubt it.
IP: Logged
|
|
William DeJong
Member
Member # 1162
|
posted 19. June 2006 06:07
2ndClass: Differences equalize eventually and random processes cannot conserve or expand them. That's why evolution can continue only as long our planet is the recipient of non-random solar energy. Once the sun burns out, evolution will cease. (posted 16. June 2006 15:53)
Putting a container filled with water and a gas mixture into the sun will not result in the confirmation of the hypothesis of the theory of (macro) evolution that the emerging random convection flows in the container will produce complex molecules that will start growing further and further.
In your post of 12 June 2006 11:30, you presented a room with isolated walls and a sun-radiation-permeable roof and floor, filled with a gas mixture. The room was put into the sun. Initially, differences in temperature will exist inside the room: at the roof the temperature will be higher than at the floor. In this phase of warming-up, the outflux of energy will be smaller than the influx. But sooner or later, the temperature differences inside the room will equalize, as well as the differences between the influx and outflux of energy, according to the 2nd Law. The temperature differences you have presented in your thought experiment correspond with a situation of warming up, while the equalization of the influx and the outflux of energy corresponds with a situation of equilibrium. In reality such a situation cannot exist.
Student Miller intuitively understood that putting a container filled with a gas mixture into the sun would not result in the discovery that the gas molecules would start ordering themselves, conserve that order and expand it ever further. Therefore, he took a sphere of glass filled with basic substances necessary for life and put two electrodes into it and made flashes of lighting pass at random through the sphere. Indeed, more complex molecules emerged, like poisonous cyanide and coal tar and fortunately also building blocks as found in DNA molecules. Unfortunately, the amount of complex organic molecules in the sphere stopped growing after a while. In equilibrium, the number of complex molecules formed turned to be equal to the number of complex molecules destroyed by new flashes. In order to make differences grow (antagonizing the 2nd Law) Miller constructed a transportation system that moved new-formed building blocks towards a safe retort, resulting in the production by Miller of an ever-concentrated organic soup.
Miller carried out an experiment that should have confirmed the mechanism of the theory of (macro) evolution. Instead, the outcome was negative. According to the established scientific standards, he falsified the theory of (macro) evolution.
CONCLUSIONS OF THE DISCUSSION, SO FAR.
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 Miller-experiment falsifies the central hypothesis of the theory of (macro) evolution.
3. The arrow of time as presented by the theory of (macro) evolution ("random processes can preserve differences and make them grow ever further") is in flat contradiction with the arrow of time as presented by the 2nd Law ("differences ultimately equalize") and the arrow of time as presented by everyday experience.
4. A theory that (a) cannot be confirmed by empirical evidence, (b) is falsified by Miller's experiment, and (c) is in flat contradiction with the 2nd Law and everyday experience, does not meet the normal scientific standards and should therefore be removed from the scientific domain
Question to 2ndClass:
Do you agree with these conclusions? And if not, why not?
[ 19. June 2006, 06:13: Message edited by: William DeJong ]
IP: Logged
|
|
2ndclass
Member
Member # 1979
|
posted 19. June 2006 13:47
quote:
Putting a container filled with water and a gas mixture into the sun will not result in the confirmation of the hypothesis of the theory of (macro) evolution that the emerging random convection flows in the container will produce complex molecules that will start growing further and further.
First of all, you're conflating macroevolution with abiogenesis.
Second, I need some specifics on your experiment. How big is the container? Is it pure water or are there other elements in it? How long do we leave it in the sun? What kind of gases, and what kind of weather system are in the room?
quote:
But sooner or later, the temperature differences inside the room will equalize, as well as the differences between the influx and outflux of energy, according to the 2nd Law.
The 2nd Law does not say that temperature must equalize in an open system.
quote:
The temperature differences you have presented in your thought experiment correspond with a situation of warming up, while the equalization of the influx and the outflux of energy corresponds with a situation of equilibrium. In reality such a situation cannot exist.
Of course it can. A room with a constant heat source at the top and a constant heat sink at the bottom will never be in thermal equilibrium.
There are two fundamental points that you're failing to grasp:
1) A net energy flux of zero does not guarantee equilibrium.
2) The sun is a source of directed, not random, energy.
The first point is a very basic principle of thermodynamics, and I've repeated it several times in this discussion. The second point should be equally obvious. The earth has a net energy flux of zero, and yet it isn't in thermal equilibrium. Do you understand why it isn't? Until you understand this basic concept, this discussion will continue to be counterproductive.
quote:
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.
That is not the central hypothesis of evolutionary theory, for at least two reasons: 1) Evolutionary theory says nothing about abiogenesis, and 2) it says nothing about purely random processes. Physical laws imply an element of order in natural processes, which facilitates the emergence of complexity from simplicity. Empirical evidence bears this out, as any book on complexity theory will tell you. Consider non-biological instances of complexity, like a planetary weather system, or a snowflake.
quote:
2. The Miller-experiment falsifies the central hypothesis of the theory of (macro) evolution.
What specific predictions does evolutionary theory make that were falsified by the Miller experiment?
quote:
3. The arrow of time as presented by the theory of (macro) evolution ("random processes can preserve differences and make them grow ever further") is in flat contradiction with the arrow of time as presented by the 2nd Law ("differences ultimately equalize") and the arrow of time as presented by everyday experience.
It's true that "differences ultimately equalize," which means that evolution can't continue indefinitely.
The only arrow of time presented by the 2nd Law is the observation that net entropy continually increases. Everyday experience isn't very helpful when analyzing entropy. You demonstrated this by positing an electrical device that separates gases in a room, supposedly decreasing the entropy in the room. But the 2nd Law tells us that operating such a device in a thermally isolated room will increase, not decrease, the entropy. Sure, it's counterintuitive, but it's a scientific fact.
There's a reason that modern science is modern instead of ancient. The principles of natural evolution, relativity, and quantum mechanics were unknown until recently because they operate outside of, and seem to contradict, our everyday experience. Restricting our worldview to everyday experience entails a return to the Dark Ages.
quote:
Do you agree with these conclusions? And if not, why not?
No, for the reasons stated above.
IP: Logged
|
|
William DeJong
Member
Member # 1162
|
posted 26. June 2006 06:53
quote:
First of all, you're conflating macro evolution with abiogenesis.
We are discussing the theory that random processes can make molecules start ordering themselves, preserve that order, and expand it ever further. The labels you assign to the stages in this presumed process are not important.
quote:
Second, I need some specifics on your experiment. How big is the container? Is it pure water or are there other elements in it? How long do we leave it in the sun? What kind of gases, and what kind of weather system are in the room?
You may choose a container of any size and put any content in it. But you will never observe that the random processes inside the container, induced by the sun, will make molecules start ordering themselves, preserve that order, and expand it ever further. If random processes would be able to produce complex molecules out of simple substances, the resulting difference in energy content could be used to drive a heat engine. This would be wonderful: just put a box with some gas mixture in it into the sun and the energy pours out! Unfortunately, such things only happen in dreams and in mythical stories.
quote:
There are two fundamental points that you're failing to grasp: 1) A net energy flux of zero does not guarantee equilibrium.
Your experiment with a room that was put into the sun (see: your post of 12 June) contradicts this thesis. According to the 2ndLaw, differences between influx and outflux and between temperatures ultimately equalize. If outside the room some heat absorbing plasma is present, the temperature outside the room will drop quickly. But what happens somewhere outside the room is not the object of our investigation. In equilibrium, the influx (EI) and the outflux of energy (EO) are equal. Inside the room, the temperature at the roof (TR) will equal the temperature at the floor (TF). If TR would not be equal to TF, a heat engine could be connected to this temperature difference and produce an additional outflow of energy (EA). But this is impossible since EI=EO.
quote:
2) The sun is a source of directed, not random, energy.
Indeed, sunlight has a direction, and will induce random processes inside a container filled with molecules that is put into the sun. You will never observe that these random processes will make the molecules inside the container start ordering them selves, preserve that order, and expand it ever further. (If you would observe such a thing, be quick to patent the finding. It will put the larger part of chemical industry out of business!).
quote:
Physical laws imply an element of order in natural processes, which facilitates the emergence of complexity from simplicity.
In the virtual reality of the theory of (macro) evolution, molecules have an intrinsic desire to arrange themselves into more complex substances, to preserve that complexity, and expand it ever further. But everyday experience and all laws of empirical science, which are grounded in everyday experience, contradict this flatly.
quote:
What specific predictions does evolutionary theory make that were falsified by the Miller experiment?
Miller tried to confirm empirically the hypothesis that random processes can produce an ever concentrated organic soup. He falsified this hypothesis by showing that an ever-concentrated organic soup can only be produced by constructing a non-random transportation system. As a result the billions of tons of building-blocks-for-life in the primeval oceans never can have existed. If the basic assumptions of a theory are falsified, the theory must be rejected, according to the established scientific standards.
quote:
It's true that "differences ultimately equalize," which means that evolution can't continue indefinitely.
Living nature is constantly changing and adapting itself by the mechanism of variation and selection of allele combinations from the gene pool of a species (micro evolution). But the assumption that molecules have the intrinsic desire to combine into ever-complex configurations and are able to preserve that complexity cannot be confirmed by any empirical experiment. This mechanism is a myth.
quote:
The principles of natural evolution, relativity, and quantum mechanics were unknown until recently because they operate outside of, and seem to contradict, our everyday experience. Restricting our worldview to everyday experience entails a return to the Dark Ages.
Please show us any empirical evidence that random processes can make molecules start ordering themselves, preserve that order and expand it ever further. If you fail, we have indeed returned to the Dark Ages where the priests told people what they had to believe .
[ 26. June 2006, 07:45: Message edited by: William DeJong ]
IP: Logged
|
|
2ndclass
Member
Member # 1979
|
posted 26. June 2006 12:26
William, you made the following request:
quote:
Please show us any empirical evidence that random processes can make molecules start ordering themselves, preserve that order and expand it ever further.
The answer is that there is no such empirical evidence. We are in agreement that order can't expand ever further. When the sun burns out in several billion years, our solar system will be in equilibrium.
I've provided a specific response to your request. Now I'll ask for specific answers to three questions.
quote:
We are discussing the theory that random processes can make molecules start ordering themselves, preserve that order, and expand it ever further.
Question #1: Can you name one person who has claimed that "random processes can make molecules start ordering themselves, preserve that order, and expand it ever further?"
quote:
Your experiment with a room that was put into the sun (see: your post of 12 June) contradicts this thesis. According to the 2ndLaw, differences between influx and outflux and between temperatures ultimately equalize. If outside the room some heat absorbing plasma is present, the temperature outside the room will drop quickly. But what happens somewhere outside the room is not the object of our investigation. In equilibrium, the influx (EI) and the outflux of energy (EO) are equal. Inside the room, the temperature at the roof (TR) will equal the temperature at the floor (TF).
I'll explain the scenario again: The roof and floor are made of heat-conductive material. The air above the room is a constant 30 degrees C. The ground beneath the room is a constant 10 degrees C.
You claim that the temperature in the room will equalize. Question #2: What is the equilibrium temperature of the room?
In my scenario, 100kJ passes through the ceiling and 100kJ passes through the floor in a given time interval. Question #3: How much of an entropy decrease is allowed by the 2nd Law in this interval?
I've asked for one name and two numbers. This should be very simple.
IP: Logged
|
|
William DeJong
Member
Member # 1162
|
posted 03. July 2006 06:40
quote:
Question #1: Can you name one person who has claimed that "random processes can make molecules start ordering themselves, preserve that order, and expand it ever further?"
Student Miller. He tried to verify that random flashes of lightning can make basic substances start ordering themselves into an ever concentrated organic soup. He failed. Therefore he constructed a transportation system to prevent the produced building blocks to be destroyed by new random flashes of lightning. In all books on evolution, the Miller experiment is presented as the proof that random processes can make molecules start ordering themselves, preserve that order, and expand it ever further, and have produced billions of tons of building blocks for life in the primeval oceans. The Miller experiment, however, demonstrates that the central hypothesis of the theory of (macro) evolution that random processes can make molecules start ordering themselves, preserve that order, and expand it ever further is false. According to the established scientific standards the Miller experiment falsifies the theory of (macro) evolution.
quote:
I'll explain the scenario again: The roof and floor are made of heat-conductive material. In my scenario, 100kJ passes through the ceiling and 100kJ passes through the floor in a given time interval. The air above the room is a constant 30 degrees C. The ground beneath the room is a constant 10 degrees C. You claim that the temperature in the room will equalize.
Question #2: What is the equilibrium temperature of the room?
Question #3: How much of an entropy decrease is allowed by the 2nd Law in this interval?
According to the 2ndLaw, all differences (e.g., of energy, temperature, density, concentration, etc.) will equalize ultimately. If a box with isolated walls and a top and a bottom of glass is put in the sun on a beach, its content will be heated and the influx of energy (IE) will be larger than the outflux of energy (OE). Sooner or later equilibrium will be reached and OE will equal IE. Also the temperature differences inside the box will equalize. (If not, a heat engine could be connected to these differences, and produce an additional amount of energy AE. But this is impossible, since OE=IE).
If we put the box on a wet towel, initially a temperature difference between the bottom of the box and the towel is present. According the 2ndLaw, this difference will equalize sooner or later and the wet towel will ultimately reach the same temperature as the bottom of the box.
If the box is meant to cool some beer, we can put beneath the bottom of the box an electrical cooling device that can lower the temperature of its surrounding with 20 degrees. Since an active cooling device is present to cool the bottom of the box, we are now examining a refrigerator on a beach. In refrigerators, indeed, the place where the ice cubes are produced is colder than other places inside the refrigerator. But still a refrigerator on a beach cannot prove that random processes can make molecules start ordering themselves, preserve that order and expand it ever further. On the contrary, a refrigerator on a beach is as subjected to the 2ndLaw as any other system in our world. Student Miller knew intuitively that he could not come up with a refrigerator on a beach to confirm the theory of (macro) evolution. But you come up with a refrigerator on a beach.
Making calculations on refrigerators is the job of technicians. In the manuals of refrigerators usually the figures are given of the temperature inside the ice cube compartment and elsewhere in the refrigerator. Instead of going deeper into the technicalities of refrigerators, we do better by taking a closer look on the thermodynamics of the Earth.
Let 2ndEarth be identical to our Earth, with one exception: no living organisms are present on 2ndEarth. We put 2ndEarth at the center of a sphere with a radius of a 100,000-km and put the sphere into the light of the sun. Initially, 2ndEarth will heat up and the influx of energy (IE) will be larger than the outflux of energy (OE). Sooner or later equilibrium will be reached and OE will equal IE. Also the temperature differences on the surface of the sphere will equalize. (If not, a heat engine could be connected to these differences, and produce an additional amount of energy AE. But this is impossible, since OE=IE). As a consequence, the left term of the 2ndLaw is zero, and the entropy inside the sphere will increase. Notice that 2ndEarth is a "zero-left-term-system", although it is open.
There is no difference between putting a sphere with 2ndEarth in its center into space in the sunlight, or a box with isolated walls and a sun permeable top and bottom. After reaching equilibrium, for both systems the left term of the 2ndLaw is zero. Putting refrigerators into space in the sunlight is identical to putting satellites into space in the sunlight. In satellites, no one has ever observed that the sunlight caused molecules start ordering themselves, preserve that order and expand it ever further. On the contrary, the sunlight will burn away differences in density and concentration, resulting in the degeneration and disintegration of the constructions of the satellite, according to the 2ndLaw. Within ten years, the satellite will break down and will need repair by enigineers.
In the virtual reality of the theory of (macro) evolution, just putting a system into the sunlight will make it start ordering itself, preserve that order and expand it ever further. This is no more than a belief, grounded in wishful thinking. Moreover, this belief is in flat contradiction with everyday experience (e.g. in space traveling). In addition, this belief is in flat contradiction with empirical science, and the 2ndLaw in particular. Anyone is entitled to believe what he/ she wants, but believes should not be presented as science.
[ 03. July 2006, 06:48: Message edited by: William DeJong ]
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 03. July 2006 11:54
I remain flabbergatred that anyone could possibly assign a role for chance in either the creation of life or its subsequent evolution. Such minds simply can no longer exist within the bounds defined by rational objective behavior. So much for self named secondclass. As I say at my blog -
I love it so!
IP: Logged
|
|
2ndclass
Member
Member # 1979
|
posted 03. July 2006 12:22
quote:
quote:
Question #1: Can you name one person who has claimed that "random processes can make molecules start ordering themselves, preserve that order, and expand it ever further?"
Student Miller.
No, he didn't.
What did evolutionary theory predict would happen in Miller's experiment? Please provide a reference for your answer.
quote:
Question #2: What is the equilibrium temperature of the room?
Question #3: How much of an entropy decrease is allowed by the 2nd Law in this interval?
If you can't provide numerical answers to these questions, then you don't understand thermodynamics. I'll continue this discussion when you tell me the two numbers.
IP: Logged
|
|
William DeJong
Member
Member # 1162
|
posted 10. July 2006 06:57
quote:
What did evolutionary theory predict would happen in Miller's experiment? Please provide a reference for your answer.
Miller tried to confirm the hypothesis that random flashes of lightning can make basic substances start ordering themselves into DNA building blocks. Indeed, this happened. Unfortunately, new flashes of lightning began to destroy these building blocks, the bigger the faster. Therefore, Miller added a transportation system to the sphere where the building blocks emerged, and brought the building blocks into safety in a retort. In this retort he produced an ever-concentrated organic soup. The theory of (macro) evolution rests on Miller's experiment, which is thought to prove that billions of tons of building blocks for life have been present in the primeval oceans as the basis for a longtime steady process of further expansion of building blocks finally into DNA. Richard Dawkins has described this process many times in his books, for instance in The Blind Watchmaker . The process Dawkins describes so eloquently, however, can only exist in a virtual reality. In the reality of our laboratories and chemical factories, molecules never start ordering themselves, preserve that order and expand it ever further, as Miller experienced. Instead of confirming the basic hypothesis of the theory of (macro) evolution, Miller falsified - according to established scientific standards - the basic hypothesis of the theory of (macro) evolution that random flashes of lightning can make molecules start ordering themselves, preserve that order and expand it ever further. Only by the directed effort of Miller an ever-concentrated organic soup could be produced. Miller confirmed the 2ndLaw, and the everyday experience of personnel that is working in laboratories and chemical factories
quote:
Question #2: What is the equilibrium temperature of the room?
Question #3: How much of an entropy decrease is allowed by the 2nd Law in this interval?
If you can't provide numerical answers to these questions, then you don't understand thermodynamics. I'll continue this discussion when you tell me the two numbers.
The room we are discussing is a refrigerator on a beach. Its top and bottom are made of glass and at the bottom an electrical heat pump is present. The temperature on the beach is 30 C. The temperature at the bottom is 10 C. As long as the heat pump is working, a temperature gradient between the top and the bottom of the refrigerator can be observed. But sooner or later the heat pump will break down, according to the 2ndLaw, and the temperature differences inside the refrigerator will equalize according to the 2ndLaw. Ultimately all differences inside the refrigerator will equalize. The metal will rust, the synthetic materials will disintegrate, and the chemicals of the heat pump will leak away. During this process of equalization of differences, the entropy will increase and move to its (asymptotic) state of maximal entropy.
Only directed effort can make differences to grow, for instance the complexity of molecules, as student Miller experienced. Only directed effort can maintain differences, for instance in temperature and keep refrigerators functioning, providing a living for refrigerator maintenance engineers. All people understand thermodynamics, because thermodynamic theory has originated from everyday experience. The theory of (macro) evolution did not originate from everyday experience, but from wishful thinking. The theory is in flat contradiction with everyday experience and with the 2ndLaw. It corrupts the integrity of science and demands people to believe that the laws of nature support the central hypothesis of the theory of (macro) evolution that random processes can make molecules start ordering themselves, preserve that order and expand it ever further. Pupils and students should be taught this is not the case, and be made aware of the fact that the basic hypothesis of the theory of (macro) evolution is in flat contradiction with the laws of empirical science, in particular the 2ndLaw.
SUPPLEMENTARY CONLCUSIONS TO THE DISCUSSION SO FAR.
(To be added to the conclusions in my post of 19 June)
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 existence of living organisms) make start ordering themselves, preserve that order and expand it ever further is nonsense. In my post of 3 July it is 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 at least 4 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. 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 the priests told the people what to believe and where heretics were excommunicated.
(Be back mid-August to continue this discussion)
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 10. July 2006 07:25
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
Only the mechanism remains to be disclosed. As far as I am concerned it already has been. How that mechanism was implemented is all that remains and may never be known with certainty.
"If you tell the truth, you can be certain, sooner or later, to be found out."
Oscar Wilde
IP: Logged
|
|
2ndclass
Member
Member # 1979
|
posted 10. July 2006 12:28
William, you didn't answer my question, so I'll ask it again: What did evolutionary theory predict would happen in Miller's experiment? Please provide a reference for your answer.
Theories cannot be falsified unless they make predictions, so everything you say about Miller's experiment is irrelevant unless evolutionary theory predicted a certain outcome for it.
quote:
In my post of 3 July it is 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.
No you didn't. Your proof is invalid because you make the following false assumption: "Also the temperature differences on the surface of the sphere will equalize." The sun's radiation decreases according to the square of the distance to the center of the sun, so the side of the sphere that is further from the sun will be at a lower temperature. In the part of the sphere that's shaded by the planet, the temperature difference is even more drastic. This temperature difference allows a decrease in entropy.
I already explained that the "hypothesis" that order can expand "ever further" is a strawman. Do you understand why?
Also, I never mentioned a refrigerator, and you never answered question #3. Do you know the answer?
IP: Logged
|
|
William DeJong
Member
Member # 1162
|
posted 15. August 2006 06:18
quote:
What did evolutionary theory predict would happen in Miller's experiment? Please provide a reference for your answer.
Miller's experiment is meant to prove that random processes can make basic substances order themselves into ever-larger structures. The Miller-exeperiment is the ground for the claim of the theory of evolution that random flashes of lightning have produced billions of tons of building blocks for life in the primeval oceans, and that random processes could transform this organic soup into DNA. (See for instance all the books of Richard Dawkins, as a reference). The theory of evolution overlooks that random flashes of lightning will destroy the formed building blocks again, the bigger the faster, unless - as Miller did - they are transported deliberately to a safe retort.
quote:
Theories cannot be falsified unless they make predictions, so everything you say about Miller's experiment is irrelevant unless evolutionary theory predicted a certain outcome for it.
Miller tried to verify, at a biochemical level, the basic assumption of the theory of evolution that random processes can make basic substances order them selves into ever-larger structures. This appears only possible by adding a non-random transportation system. In fact Miller constructed a primitive DNA building block factory. Instead of verifying of the basic mechanism of the theory of evolution, he falsified the existence of that mechanism.
quote:
quote:
In my post of 3 July it is proven that a sphere wit h a radius of 100,000 km and 2ndEarth in its center is a "zero-left-term-system" for which the entropy increases.
No you didn't. Your proof is invalid because you make the following false assumption: "Also the temperature differences on the surface of the sphere will equalize." The sun's radiation decreases according to the square of the distance to the center of the sun, so the side of the sphere that is further from the sun will be at a lower temperature. In the part of the sphere that's shaded by the planet, the temperature difference is even more drastic. This temperature difference allows a decrease in entropy.
My proof that a sphere with a radius of 100,000 km and 2ndEarth in its center is a zero-left-term system applies a basic technique of thermodynamic theory building, which is for instance also used when proving that a perpetual mobile cannot exist. In equilibrium, the influx IE and the outflux of energy OE over the surface of the sphere will be equal. At the surface of the sphere, no (structural) temperature difference can be present. If such a difference would be present, a heat engine could be attached to it, and produce an additional amount of energy AE. But since IE = IO, an additional AE can only be zero. In equilibrium, the sphere with 2ndEarth in its center is a zero-left-term system. Inside it, the entropy will increase, according to the 2ndLaw.
Thermodynamics teaches us that all differences (of concentration, energy, temperature, etc.) will ultimately equalize. When roasting a chicken, turning it under a grill, indeed radiation decreases according to the square of the distance to the center of the grill, and the part of the oven that's shaded by the chicken will initially be at a lower temperature than the part at the other side. But if you conduct this experiment in your kitchen tonight, you will notice that at the surface of the chicken temperature differences ultimately equalize. Thermodynamic theory and experiments are very clear: all differences (for instance of temperature) ultimately equalize. Not only at the surface of a chicken placed under a grill, but also at the surface of sphere with a radius of 100,000 km and 2ndEarth in its center placed in the light of the sun.
quote:
I never mentioned a refrigerator,
The experiment you described appears to be an active refrigerator on a sunny beach with its door left open.
quote:
You never answered question #3. Do you know the answer?
In my post of 10 July, I explained that the entropy of your refrigerator will keep increasing
asymptotically.
quote:
I already explained that the "hypothesis" that order can expand "ever further" is a strawman. Do you understand why?
Thermodynamics is very very clear, as well as everyday experiences in homes, offices, factories and laboratories: RANDOM PROCESSES CANNOT PRESERVE ORDER AND EXPAND IT EVER FURTHER. We have to live with that.
IP: Logged
|
|
2ndclass
Member
Member # 1979
|
posted 15. August 2006 13:00
William: quote:
Miller's experiment is meant to prove that random processes can make basic substances order themselves into ever-larger structures. The Miller-exeperiment is the ground for the claim of the theory of evolution that random flashes of lightning have produced billions of tons of building blocks for life in the primeval oceans, and that random processes could transform this organic soup into DNA. (See for instance all the books of Richard Dawkins, as a reference).
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.
quote:
The experiment you described appears to be an active refrigerator on a sunny beach with its door left open.
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.
quote:
When roasting a chicken, turning it under a grill, indeed radiation decreases according to the square of the distance to the center of the grill, and the part of the oven that's shaded by the chicken will initially be at a lower temperature than the part at the other side. But if you conduct this experiment in your kitchen tonight, you will notice that at the surface of the chicken temperature differences ultimately equalize.
No, they won't. 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.
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic
