Thermodynamics

I was reading this forum, and was quite enjoying the well thought out arguments posted here. But then I came down to the "argument" (probably better labelled "cat vomit") posted by RAZD. RAZD, please, learn to present a logical argument before blighting intelligent discussion. Not only did you not explain or lay out your thoughts but you start by trying to poke fun at OWN3D for doing exactly that. Then there was your attempt at argument: I would like farther explanation of exactly what that’s supposed to mean, as the second law of thermodynamics is the same for both evolution and special creation. The implications (namely the decrease in entropy) of any observed evolution of new species are the same regardless of weather evolution, special creation or neither were the origin of life on this planet. If a decrease of entropy is a direct result of evolution, then either evolution or the second law of thermodynamics is wrong. If a decrease in entropy is not a necessary result of evolution, then the ideas are reconciled. If new species are observed to evolve, that does not violate the second law for Special Creation, not any more then it violates the second law for evolution, because both laws are the same: entropy will increase.If the aim of that statement of yours was actually supposed to be the age old argument, "but evolution HAS been observed!" then I think its time for you to explain the statement with proof. IF evolution has been observed no one told me about it, and I would appreciate knowing the “whos”, “whens”, “weres” and “whats” involved in this much mentioned, yet never described observation.In the mean time I give this advice to anyone else who wishes to make unsupported statements then use a smart-alicy finisher like: It better to stay quite and look like a fool, then to open your mouth and confirm it.

quote:

---

see, RAZD was pointing out that Own3d was trying to use the 2nd LoTD to disprove evolution, without realizing (3D not realizing, that is), that the 2nd LoTD refutes special creation the way that he applied it to the real world. (especially since we have observed the "creation" of new species. not discovery, but actual "creation").

---

Ok, to start, please explain:1. How the 2nd LoTD "refutes special creation the the way he applied it to the real world2. How RAZD in any way suggested that3. When and were "we" have observed "actual "creation""

After reading over the posts so far I thought it would be good to clarify what part of the evolutionary theory OWN3D is talking about when saying that it postulates an increase in complexity and order. The evidence for natural selection is overwhelming, however it involves a reducing in the overall genetic verity of a species; there is lose of information involved. It's the part of evolution involving the generation of new genetic information that implies a decrease in entropy.
Statements like kuresu's:

quote:

---

evolution = change in species over time. there is no "direction", in terms of becoming more complex or less so. just change.

---

are fully valid. From any point in the evolutionary process there is not necessarily a moving in the direction of complexity. OWN3D's point is that, assuming evolution is true, then evidently there has been an increase in complexity, because the creatures around us are more complex then the chemicals from which life is said to have arisen.Furthermore, if any new species were to evolve (not develop through natural selection, but through some process resulting in an increase in genetic information) then there would be an increase in complexity there too. If say, a dog, were to evolve into a new species, that was identical to a dog, except that the new species has a single horn on it’s head, then the genetic information needed for the horn must have been added to the gene pool. Therefore there has been an increase in complexity.The important difference (as far as I can see) in the creation and evolution models as far as this discussion goes, is that evolution states that no genetic material existed in the beginning, and since then it has arisen, while creation states that in the beginning all genetic material existed and that since then genetic material has been lost. Therefore, evolution states an increase in information (and logically a decrease in entropy) while creation states a decrease in information (and logically an increase in entropy)Thank you Matt P, your mathematical approach was quite intriguing. I plan on researching non-equilibrium thermodynamics myself, thank you also for the links you posted.And please kuresu (or anyone else who can explain kuresu's statement) explain that puzzling statement from earlier,

quote:

---

the 2nd LoTD refutes special creation the way that he [OWN3D] applied it to the real world.

---

Thank you for your reply.I think that you are right in the first point you raise:

quote:

---

information is not a single quantity. You cannot switch between measuring information by the variety in the gene pool to the content of an individual genome and get a valid answer. They are entirely separate things and need to be treated individually.

---

Perhaps a clear definition would be in order. But that's something I'll have to research and come back to, though perhaps a good one would be along the lines of "an increase in the amount of protein molecules, or overall length of the DNA"? I really can't be sure, I'm not especially knowledgeable in this area (part of the reason I'm following the thread).My intention was to clarify OWN3D's argument, which some people seemed to be misinterpreting (through no fault of their own). Which brings me to your second point:

quote:

---

you cannot simply equate increases in information or complexity to decreases in thermodynamic entropy. They are not the same thing. Where, for instance, in your example of a dog growing a horn would there be a decrease in thermodynamic entropy ?

---

I agree entirely, which is why I've been trying, as much as possible to use the term "implies." If fact I was hoping someone else would concisely explain, a few tried to explain why it doesn't necessarily mean a decrease in entropy, though the rebuttals are still going on.Then there was your final point:

quote:

---

To illustrate my points, consider your claim that natural selection reduces information. Given a mixed population of horned and hornless dogs, if natural selection were to cause the hornless dogs to be replaced with horned dogs that would - according to you - be a decrease in information. But also accordign to you the horned dogs are more complex and contain more genetic information - so surely replacing a hornless dog with a horned dog is an increase in information.

---

A better thought out argument by me would have been that "natural selection involves a net increase of information no more then 0." A typical example of natural selection would be if there were a species of frogs that had some blue and some green, much like variations in our eye colour. Then a type of snake was introduced that ate only the blue ones. Eventually all the frogs born blue get eaten, and only the green ones remain. The blue frog genes have now been lost.Your example is fine, except for your statement “surely replacing a hornless dog with a horned dog is an increase in information “. Your forgetting that for natural selection to select the horned dog, the horned dog had to be there to select. So if you have started with both horned dogs and hornless dogs, and end with just the horned ones then there has been neither an increase, nor decrease in genetic information. So in your example natural selection still does not increase the amount of information. Natural selection still works in a generally downward, or at least neutral, direction.