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

  • Stripe
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • chair
    replied
    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?

    Leave a comment:


  • Jukia
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Stripe
    replied
    Originally posted by ThePhy View Post
    What is the reason?
    Entropy. Information entropy in particular.

    Leave a comment:


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

    Leave a comment:


  • Stripe
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • ThePhy
    replied
    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?

    Leave a comment:


  • Stripe
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Dan Styer
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Stripe
    replied
    Originally posted by Dan Styer View Post
    A common misconception -- which appears several times on this thread -- is that entropy is some measure of disorder, that "smooth" or homogeneous things have high entropy, while "everything in its place" arrangements have low entropy.

    The falseness of the "entropy as disorder" supposition is seen from this example. (To follow the argument, you must know that when something cools, it always decreases in entropy, and when something warms up it always increases in entropy. For Bob's benefit, let me say that in this and all other cases, when I say "entropy" I mean "thermodynamic entropy".) Get a cup of water and put it in your freezer. It starts out smooth. Then a few ice crystals form. More and more of the liquid water turns to ice. Eventually it becomes uniform ice. So the water goes from homogeneous to inhomogeneous to homogeneous again, yet at every step it has been decreasing in entropy.

    Now take the cup out of your freezer and smash the ice into a thousand fragments. Put them in a bowl on your kitchen counter. They will melt into smooth, homogeneous liquid water. The smooth liquid water certainly appears more orderly that the chaotic jumble of ice shards, but the liquid water has more entropy.

    There are many more examples showing that entropy is not disorder. I wrote a paper called "Insight into Entropy" about this topic, and the chemist Frank Lambert has been particularly active in battling this misconception. I heartily recommend his web site

    http://www.entropysite.com
    Professor. This discussion is about distinguishing between different types of entropy. We should all be certainly aware by now that there are specific traits that only pertain to thermodynamics. However the idea of disorder is a useful description when it comes to speaking of entropy as a general observation. Perhaps disorder is not the best or only description that might be used to describe the overall idea of entropy, but I do not see how it might be unsuitable.

    Leave a comment:


  • Dan Styer
    replied
    Entropy and disorder

    A common misconception -- which appears several times on this thread -- is that entropy is some measure of disorder, that "smooth" or homogeneous things have high entropy, while "everything in its place" arrangements have low entropy.

    The falseness of the "entropy as disorder" supposition is seen from this example. (To follow the argument, you must know that when something cools, it always decreases in entropy, and when something warms up it always increases in entropy. For Bob's benefit, let me say that in this and all other cases, when I say "entropy" I mean "thermodynamic entropy".) Get a cup of water and put it in your freezer. It starts out smooth. Then a few ice crystals form. More and more of the liquid water turns to ice. Eventually it becomes uniform ice. So the water goes from homogeneous to inhomogeneous to homogeneous again, yet at every step it has been decreasing in entropy.

    Now take the cup out of your freezer and smash the ice into a thousand fragments. Put them in a bowl on your kitchen counter. They will melt into smooth, homogeneous liquid water. The smooth liquid water certainly appears more orderly that the chaotic jumble of ice shards, but the liquid water has more entropy.

    There are many more examples showing that entropy is not disorder. I wrote a paper called "Insight into Entropy" about this topic, and the chemist Frank Lambert has been particularly active in battling this misconception. I heartily recommend his web site

    http://www.entropysite.com

    Leave a comment:


  • Stripe
    replied
    Originally posted by ThePhy View Post
    Then Enyart claimed that I “indicated that there are no known unintelligent means by which energy can be turned into information other than the means addressed by Styer.” Wow! I don’t where that came from. I don’t know what it means to turn energy into information. Is that like turning modern dance into the color red?
    Yes. Energy turning into information is like dance turning into a colour.

    Thermodynamic entropy in fact has nothing to do with most of the things in this list.
    Pastor Enyart was not speaking about thermodynamic entropy only.

    Lambert goes on to say that whatever information change may be in such rearrangements, it is not a change in thermodynamic entropy. If Bob wants to speak to messy rooms, then he is obligated to make it very clear that any associated mention of entropy is not speaking of the Second Law. Nowhere does Styer confuse the two, but in two places now Bob, and his cohort Fred Williams, have been guilty of confusing the two, the very thing that Styer (and I and Johnny) stand accused of.
    If Professor Styer does not address information entropy then his paper does not answer the updated and correct challenge to evolution from entropy. Would he be willing to respond to the new challenge?

    Originally posted by fool View Post
    I accept the nomination.


    Originally posted by Johnny View Post
    Indeed. It makes no sense for me to argue over what someone else meant when that someone else is right here among us. (but it appears I was right )
    Professor Styer agrees with your assessment that he never meant to speak about information entropy in his paper.

    Pastor Enyart still has a case to make that the paper refers to information in a way that is not properly distinguished.

    Regardless of who is correct I do think a discussion on the merits of evolution against the notion of entropy (all kinds) would be a lot more interesting.

    But that discussion would be much easier if one side or the other would concede their position with regards to the nature of Professor Styer's paper.

    Leave a comment:


  • Dan Styer
    replied
    Summary of "Entropy and Evolution"

    Originally posted by Yorzhik View Post
    Styer measures the amount of entropy required for evolution and it turns out the sun is more than adequate to provide this increase. Does that pretty much sum it up?
    That is an excellent summary. The only thing I would change is that I estimate the amount of entropy required for evolution rather than measure it. However I believe it's an overestimate, and the amount of entropy available through the sun (namely through the sun heating the earth, plus the earth heating the microwave background), is about a trillion times my overestimate. So even if my estimate is a thousand times too low (which I seriously doubt) it's still true that evolution doesn't violate the second law of thermodynamics.

    Leave a comment:


  • Flipper
    replied
    Originally posted by ThePhy View Post
    Fred: Exactly, deteriorate over time. You leave your room to, you know, to your son, and a week later, it’s a mess.

    Bob: Yeah, your kids clean their room, and what happens? You have a nice garden. Even your driveway. If you leave a drive… or a parking lot of a shopping center that gets abandoned, and if it’s not maintained, and you look at it 15 years later, it could look almost like a park. It’s like, what’s going on out there, it’s a parking lot. So things tend to break down, and even stars burn out and die.
    Yeah, my first thought when I read this was "does ice have higher or lower entropy than water in the Bob Enyart universe?"

    Leave a comment:


  • Johnny
    replied
    Originally posted by Stripe
    It would seem (If Professor Styer, Johnny, Pastor Enyart are willing) that the current one-on-one would benefit from a replacement for one of the participants.
    Indeed. It makes no sense for me to argue over what someone else meant when that someone else is right here among us.

    (but it appears I was right )

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X