dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) (05/06/85)
This article is being posted for Ray Miller /* Written 2:35 am May 3, 1985 by miller@uiucdcsb.Uiuc.ARPA in uiucdcsb:net.origins */ /* ---------- "in Order to Order the Order" ---------- */ On the subject of thermodynamics, Yosi Hoshen writes: > Try an experiment: take some > water and freeze it in your refrigirator. That water entropy > will decrease (ice is more ordered than liquid water). However, > the enropy of its surrounding will increase! Um, not quite right for what you want to demonstrate. The problems arises from the multiple definitions of the word "order". Most of us (myself included in SOR pamphlet #2) are quite sloppy with our terms in this instance. Order can mean "geometric regularity" (which in informational thermodynamics is *worse* for the evolutionist since it carries no information content) or it can mean "functional capability". Complexity, not symmetry, is required. Evolutionists still have not demonstrated how, theoretically, codes capable of carrying information (such as the DNA program) can arise spontaneously. Indeed, every- thing we know indicates that they will degenerate, not improve, with time and mutations to the code sequences. I close with a quote from the evolutionist Hubert Yockey, in "A Calculation of the Probability of Spontaneous Biogenesis by Information Theory," Journal of Theoretical Biology, Vol. 67, Aug. 1977, p. 380: "Attempts to relate the idea of `order' in a crystal with biological organization or specificity must be regarded as a play on words which cannot stand careful scrutiny. Informational macromolecules can code genetic messages and therefore can carry information." A. Ray Miller Univ Illinois /* End of text from uiucdcsb:net.origins */ -- | Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois --+-- | "The presence of weeds in the garden is not explained by | saying that the gardener has not pulled them yet."
hua@cmu-cs-edu1.ARPA (Ernest Hua) (05/07/85)
______________________________________________________________________ A. Ray Miller, You wrote a nice little article on the meaning of the word "order". In it you said that Yosi Hoshen might have made errors in the usage of the word, since it, as you demonstrated, has multiple meanings. Unfortunately, the word, taken in the context of the original reply by Yoshi, has no poor usage in anyway. He was simply demonstrating that entropy can decrease locally, while other regions increase to at least balance the decrease, if not exceed it. You can actually compute this entropy decrease. (Please refer to any book on thermo- dynamics.) Yoshi's example is quite valid for his point. ______________________________________________________________________ Live long and prosper. Keebler { hua@cmu-cs-gandalf.arpa }
rlh@cvl.UUCP (Ralph L. Hartley) (05/07/85)
>> Try an experiment: take some >> water and freeze it in your refrigirator. That water entropy >> will decrease (ice is more ordered than liquid water). However, >> the enropy of its surrounding will increase! > Complexity, not symmetry, is required. @#*%$%#& !!!! Then why do you keep shouting about the second law of thermodynamics? So far as I know, the laws of thermoddynamics say NOTHING about complexity. > The problems arises from the multiple definitions of the word "order". > Most of us (myself included in SOR pamphlet #2) are quite sloppy with > our terms in this instance. But thermodynamics is NOT slopy in it's definition. You seem to be trying to EXPLOIT the multiple definitions people use. If you call complexity order does the second law of thermodynamics make it imposible for complexity to increase? Word games! If you call leaves money do leaves not grow on trees? For examples and analysis of how order (complexity) can arise spontainiously in simple systems written by someone who knows what he is talking about try H. Haken, _Synergetics An Introduction Nonequilibrium Phase Transitions and Self Organisation in Physics, Chemistry and Biology_, Springer-Verlag, 1983. Mostly phisics, tough going I'm afraid. Ralph Hartley
js2j@mhuxt.UUCP (sonntag) (05/08/85)
> On the subject of thermodynamics, Yosi Hoshen writes: > > > Try an experiment: take some > > water and freeze it in your refrigirator. That water entropy > > will decrease (ice is more ordered than liquid water). However, > > the enropy of its surrounding will increase! > >Um, not quite right for what you want to demonstrate. The problems arises from > the multiple definitions of the word "order". Most of us (myself included in > SOR pamphlet #2) are quite sloppy with our terms in this instance. > "Attempts to relate the idea of `order' in a crystal with biological > organization or specificity must be regarded as a play on words which cannot > stand careful scrutiny. Informational macromolecules can code genetic > messages and therefore can carry information." > > A. Ray Miller All of these problems arise from trying to apply vague natural language interpretations of the second law of thermodynamics to processes which have little to do with thermodynamics. Saying that the second law of thermodynamics requires that the order in a system decreases, and that evolution would require an increase in order sounds somewhat logical. However, it is exactly similar to saying that Newton's law of gravity says that things fall, thus explaining the fall of the Roman empire. Increasing entropy is NOT decreasing order. The change in entropy for a system is defined as: final state integral | (1/T) dQ initial state where T is temperature and Q is heat. In other words, people, the second law of thermodynamics, as the name implies, has to do with *thermodynamics*, and cannot be meaningfully applied to any other field. -- Jeff Sonntag ihnp4!mhuxt!js2j "A plot to takeover CBS was pushed today by some narrow-minded, manip- ulative, right-wing, flaky conservatives who think their weirdo views aren't being handled fairly by our more liberal and intelligent news staff!"
brian@digi-g.UUCP (Merlyn Leroy) (05/13/85)
Paul DuBois (posting for Ray Miller) writes: > >...Evolutionists >still have not demonstrated how, theoretically, codes capable of carrying >information (such as the DNA program) can arise spontaneously. Indeed, every- >thing we know indicates that they will degenerate, not improve, with time and >mutations to the code sequences.... There is the Miller experiment, which attempted to recreated the young Earth environment, ran an energy source through it (a spark gap), and ended up with amino acids, some fairly long, in only two weeks. It was rather bizarre listening to Duane Gish (of creationist fame) explain this away during a lecture of his, especially since: 1) he said evolution contradicts the 2nd law of thermodynamics (zzzz...) 2) he "amended" the second law of thermodynamics to allow an increase in com- plexity (decrease in local entropy) by adding totally arbitrary "amendments": a) needs outside energy source [HINT: this is the only one needed] b) this energy needs to be useable, not destructive c) needs something that can "use" it (i.e. plants for sunlight) d) someotherconditionIcan'tremember 3) after this, he talked about the Miller experiment, COMPLETELY IGNORING how it produced "order from disorder" without using any of his kludgy "amendments" to the 2nd law (except for the neccessary one, that of an outside energy source). Now, when a prominent creationist can't even present a prepared lecture without contradicting himself... Merlyn Leroy "Creationism is false, THEREFORE evolution is true!" :-)