PinoyExchange - View Single Post

Jaywalker · Jun 30, 2005, 04:41 PM

I think there’s a bit of confusion here since the definition of entropy can vary from field to field. To address some people’s claims that entropy is proof against evolution, First I’d like to point that information entropy and thermodynamic entropy are two different things. Second I would like to point that the second law of thermodynamics is one of the most misquoted of the physical laws.
As engineering students we study thermodynamics rather extensively. The second law makes no claims that “disorder” is the natural state of things. Entropy is not equivalent to disorder. Furthermore, people who claim that things naturally “disorganize” themselves obviously haven’t being observing the world around them. Put oil and water in a container and they naturally separate themselves. You mix one compound with another compound you get another compound. And the new compound shouldn’t naturally deconstruct overtime. It would remain as it is until another chemical reaction breaks the it. …order though is different from design.

a.)
/ / / /
/ / / /
/ / / /
b.)
- -//\\ - - ll\\ - - //ll
- //__\\ - ll \\ - // -ll
//- - - \\ -ll -\\// - ll
We know that letter a is ordered since the characters are laid out in a predictable pattern. Such patterns occur naturally. Letter b however seems designed. Most often we perceive something as designed if it conveys meaning. To someone who can’t read roman alphabets, letter b is just an ordered collection of characters arranged in straight lines and diagonals. To us however we know it reads AM and therefore there is a high probability that it was purposely arranged that way. Unfortunately some people extend this interpretation of meaning to objects that have no objective meaning –they look at the sunset and they see some sort of higher purpose or something like that. And then god enters the picture

Nobody is arguing against the complexity of DNA.
trypho you took IT, you probably know that it’s extremely improbable to generate even a simple working program by randomly generating characters. Analogously it’s also near-impossible to generate a complete DNA string by chance alone (at least with our current understanding of how things work). However if instead of single characters we generate random words then your chances improve a bit. And if instead of single words you generate chunks of code then your chances improve even more.
I’m not making specific suggestions on how DNA could have formed I’m merely stating what evolution has been suggesting ever since it was first introduced but seems to just be flying over the heads of lesser theists. Complex things gradually arise from more and more simple things. Nobody is saying that atoms spontaneously combined and formed the first cell as we know cells to be or that sometime ago a lungfish gave birth to a frog….


Jun 30, 2005, 04:41 PM	#87
Jaywalker quantum cat Join Date: May 2004	I think there’s a bit of confusion here since the definition of entropy can vary from field to field. To address some people’s claims that entropy is proof against evolution, First I’d like to point that information entropy and thermodynamic entropy are two different things. Second I would like to point that the second law of thermodynamics is one of the most misquoted of the physical laws. As engineering students we study thermodynamics rather extensively. The second law makes no claims that “disorder” is the natural state of things. Entropy is not equivalent to disorder. Furthermore, people who claim that things naturally “disorganize” themselves obviously haven’t being observing the world around them. Put oil and water in a container and they naturally separate themselves. You mix one compound with another compound you get another compound. And the new compound shouldn’t naturally deconstruct overtime. It would remain as it is until another chemical reaction breaks the it. …order though is different from design. a.) / / / / / / / / / / / / b.) - -//\\ - - ll\\ - - //ll - //__\\ - ll \\ - // -ll //- - - \\ -ll -\\// - ll We know that letter a is ordered since the characters are laid out in a predictable pattern. Such patterns occur naturally. Letter b however seems designed. Most often we perceive something as designed if it conveys meaning. To someone who can’t read roman alphabets, letter b is just an ordered collection of characters arranged in straight lines and diagonals. To us however we know it reads AM and therefore there is a high probability that it was purposely arranged that way. Unfortunately some people extend this interpretation of meaning to objects that have no objective meaning –they look at the sunset and they see some sort of higher purpose or something like that. And then god enters the picture Nobody is arguing against the complexity of DNA. trypho you took IT, you probably know that it’s extremely improbable to generate even a simple working program by randomly generating characters. Analogously it’s also near-impossible to generate a complete DNA string by chance alone (at least with our current understanding of how things work). However if instead of single characters we generate random words then your chances improve a bit. And if instead of single words you generate chunks of code then your chances improve even more. I’m not making specific suggestions on how DNA could have formed I’m merely stating what evolution has been suggesting ever since it was first introduced but seems to just be flying over the heads of lesser theists. Complex things gradually arise from more and more simple things. Nobody is saying that atoms spontaneously combined and formed the first cell as we know cells to be or that sometime ago a lungfish gave birth to a frog….