Forgot your password?
Haven't registered yet?
12/19/2014Science, Religion & the Climate Crisis, Berkeley, CA
1/7/2015 » 1/9/2015“Science and Religion in the Local Church,” Cambridge, England
1/13/2015“Identity, self-esteem and the Image of God,” Cambridge, England
1/17/2015Agriculture: Science & Christian Ethics, Paris, France
2/7/20152015 Winter Day Conference - So Calif Christians in Science
The reference to the Boeing 747 is an allusion to the old model
that evolution was like a tornado hitting a junkyard, picking up the remains of
airplanes, and producing a Boeing 747 ready to fly. The new model is that
evolution is like a computer generating an English sonnet by the random
selection of letters or words. The AJP article calculates the entropy of a
tornado (sun) and the entropy of an airplane (organisms) to prove that the
assembly of an airplane by a tornado does not violate the second law of
Kankelborg is quite right.
And yes, organisms do have temperature and so does a 747. Just put a thermometer in them (or your mouth) and see!
No, I don't see where that article says that adding heat decreases the entropy. That would be peculiar
That defining equation of entropy is a universal and applies to everything in every situation.
Perhaps you need to read more biology textbooks. Reproduction with variation coupled with natural selection (interpreted broadly to include sexual selection, sweep selection, neutral selection, etc.) is adequate, in the opinion of almost all evolutionary biologists, to explain common descent from a few ancestral forms into all species of today. Yes, there are dissenters and you can certainly find them. Most of them complain because we don't have all the details of what happened in between. I don't know of any valid argument that such descent is not possible in principle.
Again, any "new model" that claims evolution is simulated by a computer composing a sonnet by random assembly of notes is not accurate and does not even come close to reflecting what evolutionary biologists are talking about. Any model must reflect the basic concepts of reproduction with variation plus selection. That's missing in the "new model."
David: I interpreted Dr. Richardson’s email to me as confirmation that the equation: S = k log(Omega) only applies to thermodynamic systems. It does not apply to biological systems.Charles: A biological system is a thermodynamic system.David: I don’t understand why a biological system is a thermodynamic system. Is a Boeing 747 a thermodynamic system? Charles: Certainly.
Quotes aren't helpful, Dave. Focus on the logic and rationale and evidence underlying the concepts.
ALL systems are thermodynamic systems, whether they be persons or trees or airplanes. I am having difficulty understanding why you would call such a statement absurd. Temperature has to do with the kinetic energy of the atoms in the system. That's why it makes sense to apply to any system composed of atoms. If you are running a fever, all the atoms in your body will have a slightly elevated kinetic energy, varying somewhat according to their location, whether it be external or internal, etc. We can measure the temperature in all systems because kinetic energy of the atoms in the system will flow to a thermal sensor put in contact with it, bringing it to equilibrium.
Similarly, the second law of thermodynamics is universal, applying to ALL systems, without exception. And entropy, including its definition depending on the logarithm of the density of states, is a universal concept, applying to ALL systems.
And not a single one of the models that have independent probabilities of occurrence for each base pair or each amino acid, is a valid simulation of the process of evolution of a protein of any kind. I know you can find quotes for zillions of such claims, but they are all wrong. Why? Because no gene and no protein ever assembles in that manner nor is it proposed that they do so. Each one is an increment from a previous biochemical system. That's what we see in every cell reproduction event and every organism reproduction and we extrapolate that back to a common ancestor, though we cannot do so in detail.
It seems you are saying that a system cannot be a thermodynamic system if you cannot measure or somehow determine the average temperature of that system. But that's not the criterion for being a thermodynamic system. All systems are thermodynamic systems both microscopically and macroscopically.
You state that "The idea of proving that the second law of thermodynamics is not violated in these two processes by attributing a temperature and entropy to these biological systems and by writing down equations using the Boltzmann constant is absurd." It is a basic thermodynamic principle that temperature and entropy exist for all systems and that all systems obey the second law of thermodynamics. It does not matter whether or not you understand how to determine such a temperature--it does exist and can be shown both experimentally and theoretically. I'm at a loss to understand why you object to Boltzmann's constant. Simply asserting that something is absurd is not sufficient. You do not have valid arguments for systems not having temperature or entropy.
Then you state "The model biologists use to understand the evolution of the primary structure of a protein is the English sonnet," No, they do not. I have only seen anti-evolutionists use such a model when they attempt to show evolution didn't happen. Of course it didn't happen in that way. But no evolutionist suggests it either. This is an unrealistic scenario and is meaningless.
In science, authority is of little value. It all rests on the evidence and the logic underlying the assertions. Authorities can simply be authoritatively dead-wrong.
I can't imagine why you think a Boeing 747 is not a thermodynamic system. Of course it is. The fact that you (and I) do not know how to average the temperature correctly is irrelevant. For one thing, the existence of an airplane is a perfect example, in the bigger picture, of a decrease in entropy due to work/heat. It seems to me that you are trying to use this as an example that God is the Creator. Of course He is. But that has nothing to do with this example. I don't get it.