Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Discussion thread for Bob and Johnny's One on One

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Thermodynamic entropy vs. information entropy

    Bob Enyart criticizes my paper "Entropy and evolution" because when I use the term "entropy" I don't distinguish between thermodynamic entropy and information entropy.

    If this is indeed a defect, then Bob is guilty of it himself. I have looked at his four essays posted December 5 through 8. He uses the term "entropy" 97 times, and 46 of those times he doesn't distinguish between thermodynamic entropy and information entropy.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Dan Styer View Post
      Bob Enyart criticizes my paper "Entropy and evolution" because when I use the term "entropy" I don't distinguish between thermodynamic entropy and information entropy.

      If this is indeed a defect, then Bob is guilty of it himself. I have looked at his four essays posted December 5 through 8. He uses the term "entropy" 97 times, and 46 of those times he doesn't distinguish between thermodynamic entropy and information entropy.
      That's probably because he is speaking of entropy in general.
      Where is the evidence for a global flood?
      E≈mc2
      "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

      "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
      -Bob B.

      Comment


      • I asked:
        Originally posted by ThePhy View Post
        If God chose to, could He make a simple modification to DNA that adds information to it?
        Stripe responded:
        Originally posted by Stripe View Post
        Yes.
        If God can make that simple change to the DNA that adds information, is there any reason the same change could not happen by mutation?

        Comment


        • Originally posted by ThePhy View Post
          If God can make that simple change to the DNA that adds information, is there any reason the same change could not happen by mutation?
          Yes.
          Where is the evidence for a global flood?
          E≈mc2
          "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

          "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
          -Bob B.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Stripe View Post
            Yes.
            What is the reason?

            Comment


            • Originally posted by ThePhy View Post
              What is the reason?
              Entropy. Information entropy in particular.
              Where is the evidence for a global flood?
              E≈mc2
              "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

              "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
              -Bob B.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Stripe View Post
                Entropy. Information entropy in particular.
                A couple of comments:
                1. Styer's post about water/ice/entropy was superb and easy to understand. The entropy = disorder is a common claim of creationists who need to dispute the real world evidence. This clearly puts the lie to it.
                2. Pastor Bob's comment about a parking lot becoming overgrown and therefore entropy rules unless there is some continuing input into the parking lot system to keep it up to snuff is silly. I suggest that an overgrown parking lot is much more complicated (has much more information in it) than a parking lot.
                3. Which brings me to----what is meant by "information entropy"? Seems to me that #2 above takes care of that issue. Haven't we gone from the nice uncomplicated parking lot (asphalt with perhaps some information in the directional arrows and parking place stripes) to a space overgrown with vegetation, with lots of critters each of whom has within its cells more information than the parking lot? And where did that information come from? Eventually that big bright ball in the sky.
                4. So Stripe, what is the issue? If it is someone's OOL (origin of life) then deal with that, but clearly it is not a current entropy issue or one which prohibits evolution as now understood.
                "Against stupidity, the gods themselves fight in vain", G. Smiley

                "Send money, guns and lawyers..." W. Zevon

                "If it is possible for something to happen, that is evidence that it did happen." Stripe on TOL

                "There but for fortune...", P. Ochs

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Stripe View Post
                  Entropy. Information entropy in particular.
                  Stripe, my apologies to you and to myself for trying this again, but...
                  Saying "entropy" is the reason for something is about the same as saying "temperature" is the reason for something. It doesn't really amount to a reason at all.

                  For example, when speaking of thermodynamics (yes, I know we are talking about other things here as well) one can say-erroneously-that the second law doesn't allow for evolution, or that it does allow for evolution, but to say "entropy" doesn't allow for evolution doesn't really mean anything.

                  Do you follow?

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Jukia View Post
                    A couple of comments:
                    1. Styer's post about water/ice/entropy was superb and easy to understand. The entropy = disorder is a common claim of creationists who need to dispute the real world evidence. This clearly puts the lie to it.
                    Disorder is a description that might be applied for an understanding of entropy. It may not be useful for specific fields or specific examples. This discussion is not solely about thermodynamic entropy. Thus while Professor Styer's example may be right on the money it does nothing to further the discussion.

                    2. Pastor Bob's comment about a parking lot becoming overgrown and therefore entropy rules unless there is some continuing input into the parking lot system to keep it up to snuff is silly. I suggest that an overgrown parking lot is much more complicated (has much more information in it) than a parking lot
                    A parking lot is a man-made space designed to accommodate cars. It is not a biological system. Adding biological systems to a car-lot might increase the genetic information residing atop the space, but it does nothing for the car-lot. You are guilty, once again, of mixing your entropies.

                    3. Which brings me to----what is meant by "information entropy"? Seems to me that #2 above takes care of that issue. Haven't we gone from the nice uncomplicated parking lot (asphalt with perhaps some information in the directional arrows and parking place stripes) to a space overgrown with vegetation, with lots of critters each of whom has within its cells more information than the parking lot? And where did that information come from? Eventually that big bright ball in the sky.
                    The information is inherent in the design. With well marked lines and a well maintained surface a parking lot's purpose is obvious. With neglect that information will only ever become obscured (even if it being obscured by something that has a greater information content within another system). Note that no amount of overgrowth will ever make a parking lot a better parking lot. You'll never see a tree grow with a spiral ramp to a 6th level parking lot.

                    4. So Stripe, what is the issue? If it is someone's OOL (origin of life) then deal with that, but clearly it is not a current entropy issue or one which prohibits evolution as now understood.
                    The issue is that the different forms of entropy are being confused every time you post something. How is anyone supposed to explain anything to you if you will not grasp the basics?

                    Originally posted by chair View Post
                    Stripe, my apologies to you and to myself for trying this again, but...
                    Saying "entropy" is the reason for something is about the same as saying "temperature" is the reason for something. It doesn't really amount to a reason at all.
                    Fair enough. Entropy is a description of the fact that every known system breaks down or defers toward an average. When I use entropy as a reason for something I am using an abstract concept to describe a common observation. Apologies if my semantics are not entirely correct. I'll work on it.

                    For example, when speaking of thermodynamics (yes, I know we are talking about other things here as well) one can say-erroneously-that the second law doesn't allow for evolution, or that it does allow for evolution, but to say "entropy" doesn't allow for evolution doesn't really mean anything. Do you follow?
                    I understood what you said. I don't agree though.
                    Where is the evidence for a global flood?
                    E≈mc2
                    "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

                    "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
                    -Bob B.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Stripe View Post
                      The information is inherent in the design. With well marked lines and a well maintained surface a parking lot's purpose is obvious. With neglect that information will only ever become obscured (even if it being obscured by something that has a greater information content within another system). Note that no amount of overgrowth will ever make a parking lot a better parking lot. You'll never see a tree grow with a spiral ramp to a 6th level parking lot.
                      I might be guilty of my own accusation here. How about we coin a new term - design entropy. Information entropy doesn't fit with what I'm saying.
                      Where is the evidence for a global flood?
                      E≈mc2
                      "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

                      "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
                      -Bob B.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Stripe View Post
                        A parking lot is a man-made space designed to accommodate cars. It is not a biological system. Adding biological systems to a car-lot might increase the genetic information residing atop the space, but it does nothing for the car-lot. You are guilty, once again, of mixing your entropies.

                        Well then, so is Pastor Bob, since I only used the example he used.
                        "Against stupidity, the gods themselves fight in vain", G. Smiley

                        "Send money, guns and lawyers..." W. Zevon

                        "If it is possible for something to happen, that is evidence that it did happen." Stripe on TOL

                        "There but for fortune...", P. Ochs

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Stripe View Post
                          I might be guilty of my own accusation here. How about we coin a new term - design entropy. Information entropy doesn't fit with what I'm saying.
                          How about we don't.
                          "Against stupidity, the gods themselves fight in vain", G. Smiley

                          "Send money, guns and lawyers..." W. Zevon

                          "If it is possible for something to happen, that is evidence that it did happen." Stripe on TOL

                          "There but for fortune...", P. Ochs

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Jukia View Post
                            Well then, so is Pastor Bob, since I only used the example he used.


                            It was you that suggested a plant's genetic code could add to the information entropy of a carpark. Pastor Enyart rightly stated that a plant would break down the entropy (type not important) of a caryard.

                            Jukia, perhaps you should stick to your useless one liners instead of trying to post anything constructive. Or at least go and practice a bit of common sense on Punisher1984 of HappyCetacean before trying to mix it with people who know what they're talking about.

                            Where is the evidence for a global flood?
                            E≈mc2
                            "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

                            "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
                            -Bob B.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Stripe View Post


                              It was you that suggested a plant's genetic code could add to the information entropy of a carpark. Pastor Enyart rightly stated that a plant would break down the entropy (type not important) of a caryard.

                              Jukia, perhaps you should stick to your useless one liners instead of trying to post anything constructive. Or at least go and practice a bit of common sense on Punisher1984 of HappyCetacean before trying to mix it with people who know what they're talking about.

                              Nice try. Enyart's comment, and the standard position of creationists is that disorder is evidence of entropy and since things always tend toward entropy, evolution (meaning becoming more ordered---although that is probably not an appropriate definition, nonetheless it is one that fundy creationists love to use because their audience seems to "understand" it) is impossible.
                              You guys love to jump on "information" these days. It seems clear to me that the example Pastor Bob gave only shows that there is more information in the parking lot space after it is overgrown.

                              And I would be glad to talk with those who know what they are talking about--who might they be? Clearly not Stripy.
                              "Against stupidity, the gods themselves fight in vain", G. Smiley

                              "Send money, guns and lawyers..." W. Zevon

                              "If it is possible for something to happen, that is evidence that it did happen." Stripe on TOL

                              "There but for fortune...", P. Ochs

                              Comment


                              • Bob;

                                Is your argument against evolution or abiogenisis?
                                Everyman is a voice in the dark.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X