Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [OriginsTalk] Re: Lenny Flank Debunked -Part XI

Expand Messages
  • Charles Creager Jr.
    You got it backwards. You are claiming that biological evolution violates 2LOT therefore the burden is on you to prove your case. You must prove that the work
    Message 1 of 58 , May 1, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      You got it backwards.  You are claiming that
      biological evolution violates 2LOT therefore the
      burden is on you to prove your case.  You must prove
      that the work is not done. So far you have failed.

      I get it now, so unless it can be proven beyond an unreasonable doubt that evolution did not take place, and that it does not have a organizing mechanism, it is impossible to use 2LOT to prove evolution did not take place.

      Furthermore, I do have evidence for the work getting
      done.  Both beak size and new appendages are such
      evidence.

      More generally, there is plenty of evidence
      for evolution literally volumes.

      Correction there is plenty evolutionary interpretation of evidence. In every case I have seen once you strip away the evolutionary assumptions the evidence does not prove evolution.

      It is after all the predominate scientific paradigm
      for the earth's biodiversity.

      But not the only one. Earth biodiversity can also be explained by starting with a limited number of kinds of animals that  that through mutation and recombination including that of existing genetic information produce more variation, but of an inferior (higher entropy) stock when compared to the original ancestors.

        "Pathetic" ?  It's not my fault if you make a
      logical error.  You are crossing the borderline into
      ad hominem.  Can't you state your case without
      personal attacks?  Please use the same decorum that
      you request of others.

      It was not intended as a personal insult. Sorry if you took it that way. I was talking about the attempt to save evolution from 2LOT by saying that even with a lack of evidence for an organizing force you can't assume that it does not exist when comparing the theory to 2LOT. It was not intended as ad hominem attack.
       

      You did it again.  You keep analyzing the mechanisms
      in isolation.  Yes, natural selection weeds out DNA,
      but mutations add DNA.  A classic example of emergent
      properties -- natural selection and mutation together
      can do things that they can't do separetely.

      But the DNA mutations adds is degenerated from that of the parents. ( higher entropy ) So all the selection it the world can't decrease entropy. You can't get a decrease in entropy by selecting from those with the smallest increase in entropy.

      Bigger is more complex because there is a greater
      number of living cells that must be coordinated and
      work together.  Thus, greater complexity.

      You are confusing reduction in entropy resulting from the growth of an organism; which has an organizing force; with a reduction in genetic entropy.

      I ask again:

      Why is it bigger? It could be related to nutrition, environment, or some other non genetic factor.

      What study found  this increase in size? What has happened to the beak sizes since?

        On fruit flies your points 2-6 are irrelvant as they
      have nothing to with complexity.  Perhaps they would
      be relevant to some other topic.

      Not relevant? A nice way of dismissing evidence against your theory.
      Lets look at them again.

      2. These  4 wing flies didn't occur spontaneously, they need to be pacifically bread from 3 other mutant
      forms that can't survive in nature.
      What this means is that even if this represents an increase in complexity it is only achieved by the intervention of intelligence.
      3. The second set of wings are non functional, because they lack flight muscles.
      What this means is that these wings are a degenerative form of an existing structure, so it represent an increase entropy not a decrease.
      4. The second set of wing replace a fully functional balancing structure called halteres.
      Here you have fully functional halteres replaced by non functioning copies of existing wings. So we have the loss of a functioning part with the addition of a non functioning copy of a functioning part, sound like the fly's genetic information is getting scrambled, (entropy increase) not getting more complex. (entropy decrease)
      5. They have difficulty flying, because of the lack of the halteres.
      6. They have difficulty in mating, meaning they would be selected out of the gene pool in nature.
      Healthy fruit flies can fly with no problem, these fruit flies have difficulty fling making it harder  for them to get food and mate, and you call this an increase in complexity? Sounds more like their DNA is being turned to hash.
       

      Your first point might be a matter of sementics.

      Lets look at it again.

      1 Fruit flies already have wings so it is at best duplication of an existing feature and not any thing new.


      No it's not if all the mutton did was send it to the wrong part of the DNA, then you have a net loss of genetic information, not a gain. And even if the DNA for the wings was copied on to the DNA for the halteres it is still a loss of information and an increase in entropy.

      The precursors, as I understand it, are not consider wings.

      By who, the fly? Perhaps not calling the halteres, wings is a mistake .

      Therefore, when the mutations changes them into wings
      they are, by definition, new structures.This is the very thing
      that you assured was impossible.

      If you look closely at these wings you will see that they don't extend from the same location as the halteres. They extend from the side of the body segment where the halteres from near the junction between the two rear segments. It is clear from a comparative picture that the second pare of wings is a degenerative copy of an existing structure not a new structure. as such it represent a scrambling of genetic information and an increase in entropy. Exactly what I would expect to happen.
       

      --- Charles Creager Jr.

       

    • thegrappler
      ... oops, I sure put my foot in my mouth on that one. Don t know what I was thinking. And I even remember reading that before! Still, this clarified things for
      Message 58 of 58 , May 10, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In OriginsTalk@y..., "Charles Creager Jr." <cpcjr@g...> wrote:
        > Actualy there is a direct matamatical relationship.
        > It even shows that the 2LOT does apply.

        > The only difference between uncertainty and entropy
        > for the microstates of a macromolecule is in the units
        > of measure, bits versus joules per respectively
        > [von Neumann, 1963,Brillouin, 1962,Rothstein, 1951].

        oops, I sure put my foot in my mouth on that one. Don't know what I
        was thinking. And I even remember reading that before! Still, this
        clarified things for me; thanks for the link. I knew there was a
        reason I come here!

        Of course, I did say several posts back that this is a side issue,
        which the rest of your quote shows

        > The entropy of a molecular machine may decrease at
        > the expense of a larger increase of entropy in the
        > surroundings. For a decrease in the entropy during
        > a machine operation:

        > http://www-lmmb.ncifcrf.gov/~toms/paper/edmm/latex/node4.html
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.