Sorry. Actually, the paper didn't even make the distinction between information entropy and heat entropy that I just did. So, to realize what Styer's paper actually claimed, just delete the two bracketed words above:
that evolution on earth can appear to violate the 2nd Law locally because a decrease in entropy as a squid evolves in the sea is offset by a fluctuation of entropy in a galaxy far, far away.
Styer's paper claims no such thing. He doesn't even say that evolution appears to violate the 2nd law. In fact, he actually goes out of his way to state that the view that evolution even appears to violate the second law is based on a misunderstanding of what entropy actually is! Where are you getting that Styer says that "evolution...can appear to violate the 2nd law"? Do you have a citation? I have the paper open right in front of me. Maybe you can point me to the right paragraph.
Your first sentence was on subject. The second one was a bit of a stretch. After that was pure drivel.I like the point that Bob makes about how complex systems tend to break down instead of becoming more structured. Tends to make me think that evolutionists would be in favor of more toxic dump sites and pollution and all. Who's to know that we may be hindering the development of a cosmic mixture of elements that will produce ... It just might be my definition of healthy!! California is such a hypocritical state. Down with the EPA!!!
There are some interesting things about the argument from information against evolution. One is that Shannon's definition of information fits. Another is that the energy problem is so closely tied to the information problem because information must always be carried on a medium - it cannot exist intrinsic to itself - and the medium itself is subject to the 2nd law's tendency to break things down.
It's like a symphony of coherence against the cacophony of noise from evolutionists.
Hi Knight -- here's a little bit more about me!Has johnny ever posted any info about himself on TOL? What does he do for a living? Is he a teacher, doctor, or scientist? Johnny if you read this and you wouldn't mind telling us a bit about yourself that would be much appreciated. I only ask because it makes the One on One even more interesting knowing a bit about the participants. Thank you in advance if you choose to give us a quick bio, and if not that's fine as well. :up:
Hi Knight -- here's a little bit more about me!
I'm John (no one in real life actually calls me Johnny, it was just available here). I grew up in South Florida and attended a local private Christian school. I was raised Christian, but not really affiliated with any single denomination. My family went through different phases (baptist, pentecostal :O, non-denominational, etc.) I did my undergraduate studies at the University of South Florida, double majoring in physics (biomedical concentration) and biology, and graduating in 2005. The fall of that year I started medical school in the midwest, and I'm now a senior medical student doing my externships in south florida. Early this summer I will begin my residency training in internal medicine in south florida, and from there I plan to do a fellowship in either cardiology or gastroenterology. Currently I'm involved with a research project investigating the role of omega-3 fatty acids in cell membrane stabilization and the role of this phenomenon in secondary prevention of coronary artery disease. I'm also in the process of designing a retrospective study looking at the relationship between heart disease and inflammatory biomarkers in patients with chronic inflammation.
I've been married to my beautiful wife for nearly 2 years now. She's a staunch creationist :shocked:, but I survive. I like to watch movies, throw down a mean tennis / raquetball game, play video games, make music, and obviously I like to spend way too much time arguing here :chuckle:.
My religious views probably don't fit into the box of any one denomination, though I attend a presbyterian church. I'm an evolutionist and a determinist (settled view). I'm a pretty strict methodological naturalist, and I believe that the best path to knowledge and understanding of our physical world is through the scientific method. I am sharply critical of any pseudoscience I encounter. Faith does play a role in my life (though I sometimes struggle to precisely define exactly what role that is), as I am a believing Christian.
That's me in a nutshell!
Thank you! :up:Hi Knight -- here's a little bit more about me!
I've been married to my beautiful wife for nearly 2 years now. She's a staunch creationist :shocked:
So... you are both creationists but have differing opinions regarding the nature of that creation, correct?I am a believing Christian.
So you admit you are a nut!! :freak:That's me in a nutshell!
Yes -- I am a creationist in the sense that I believe God created the universe. She is a creationist in the sense of a young earth creationist.Knight said:So... you are both creationists but have differing opinions regarding the nature of that creation, correct?
:chuckle:Knight said:So you admit you are a nut!!
Welcome to TOL. 2 questions:Bob’s last post was awesome---pointing out that evolutionist authors are, at best, disingenuous and, at worst, intentionally misleading in their articles.
I read most of the Creation magazines and have to admit that, until now, I was unaware of the distinction between heat and informational entropy as it relates to the 2nd law. It is only human nature that scientific arguments for and against creationism will be on the wrong track from time to time. It could be argued that it is the creationists whom are more willing to change as more information come available. I’d argue as my examples how evolutionists still use the peppered moth and embryonic recapitulation arguments.
BTW, Johnny sounds like a really interesting guy. His research into omega 3 is also really interesting. In my limited knowledge of nutrition I find only vitamin C to be more important that omega 3 and I take it every day.
Hmm .. Johnny's latest post throws down the gauntlet. The challenge to evolution from entropy has to come from laws that may well exist, but have not been defined in any particular field. As I see it the thermodynamics equation can be balanced and the information equation can be balanced, but evolutionists have no way of linking the two or explaining how to convert between the types of entropy. Nor do they have any interest in doing such work.