From twallace@trueorigin.org Thu Jul 29 22:46 EDT 1999 Received: from mail.ncifcrf.gov (mail.ncifcrf.gov [129.43.100.100]) by ncisun1-nf0.ncifcrf.gov (8.8.7/8.7.3) with ESMTP id WAA20714 for ; Thu, 29 Jul 1999 22:46:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: from floyd.qis.net (floyd.qis.net [209.150.96.22]) by mail.ncifcrf.gov (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id WAA14462 for ; Thu, 29 Jul 1999 22:47:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: from trueorigin.org (pm2-balt-124.qis.net [209.150.97.124]) by floyd.qis.net (8.9.0/8.9.0) with ESMTP id WAA22124 for ; Thu, 29 Jul 1999 22:46:42 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <37A111DA.10DE71A1@trueorigin.org> Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 22:45:46 -0400 From: Timothy Wallace Organization: TrueOrigin Archive X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Tom Schneider Subject: Re: TrueOrigin Feedback Response References: <199907292357.TAA20009@kaylor.ncifcrf.gov> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Length: 8819 Status: O Tom Schneider wrote: > > I suppose it would be possible to interpret my paragraph (above), > > isolated as it is, as implying a misunderstanding that an unisolated > > system's entropy cannot decrease. But taken in the context of the > > balance of the essay, I believe my understanding is adequately > > clarified, and I do not (to my knowledge) deny the thermodynamic > > *possibility* of the entropy decrease you describe. > > So you say that is a "*possibility*". The "*"'s suggest to me > that you think it is a low probability, but you are being vague here. Sorry, I don't mean to be vague: I mean to emphasize that by being a "possibility" it is not also ipso facto an "inevitability," or "spontaneous," or a likely "causeless event." There is a significant difference between the two, and there is no basis for taking for granted that something that is thermodynamically possible is ipso facto highly probable, inevitable, or spontaneous in nature. > Do you mean: > > 1. Such decreases might happen once in a billion years (anywhere in the > universe). > > 2. Such decreases occur once per year on earth. > > 3. Such decreases occur millions of times per second inside every one of our > cells. On what basis do you submit only these three possibilities? What cause do you have for attempting to limit my meaning in such a way? You are perhaps missing the point: It is not an issue of guessing some random frequency of occurrence over time, as you seem to have intimated with the above arbitrary choices. That the entropy of an unisolated system *can* decrease (at the expense of it's surroundings), is no basis for assuming that it therefore *must* do so (without cause), nor for assuming that it therefore commonly and/or spontaneously *does* do so (without cause), or for compelling anyone (me, for example!) to accept or define a specific rate of frequency. > > Elsewhere, of course, I believe I do indeed make a > > distinction between the thermodynamic *possibility* > > of such an entropy decrease, and the *assumption* of > > a spontaneous, sustained decrease as a necessary (but > > unobserved) corollary to evolutionary theory. > > Unobserved? By whom? Rather than ask me who did *not* observe such specific spontaneous decreases in entropy as would serve as a necessity -- and unequivocal evidence -- for the commencement and perpetuation of darwinian evolution as theorized today, it should be easier for you to rebut my position (if that is your intention) by citing exactly who *did* observe such decreases, and how these observations specifically and unequivocally substantiate the modern darwinian hypothesis. So, rather than answer your question(s) ["Unobserved? By whom?"], I invite you to answer mine: Observed? By whom? > > with the Second Generalized Law.) I have no reason to > > believe that the former serves to substantiate (or > > render probable) the latter, except by defining it as > > thermodynamically "possible". > > Again, this is too vague to mean anything. Then perhaps an illustration will help eliminate a measure of the "vagueness" for you. Suppose, for the sake of argument, that you and I lived a few centuries ago, in a world where there were no known motorization mechanisms (i.e., no propulsion machines, internal combustion engines, etc.), and human mobility were no faster than the speed a man could acheive on foot or with the aid of an animal. Now, in this older world of ours, we might well come to understand the principles of physics well enough to conceptualize high-speed movement, and the airfoil, and declare it "possible" to "defy" the law of gravity and lift massive payloads into the air, transporting them across great distances. Our calculations might be absolutely flawless (even by modern standards), but lacking the mechanism(s) for achieving the necessary motive velocity, our "possibility" remains merely exactly that -- something which "can" happen (in theory), but which does not happen without appropriate motive power. In the same way, while one may easily calculate the hypothetical entropy changes associated with the changes hypothesized in evolutionary theory, such calculations by themselves do not serve to substantiate evolutionary theory, since the hypothesized entropy changes are not directly affiliated with known, observable, mechanisms or processes which can be said to be unequivocal, compelling evidence for the initiation and perpetuation of the evolution process, whether with regard to heat entropy or informational entropy. So, to use the terminology of the illustration, the theory of flight is there on paper (looking very "possible"), but no one has thus far produced a likely engine to make it all work (leaving it, for the time being, quite "improbable"). This is what I meant when I wrote: "I have no reason to believe that the former [i.e., the calculations on paper] serves to substantiate (or render probable) the latter [i.e., the assumption that what has been calculated has actually taken place or does take place], except by defining it as thermodynamically 'possible'." > > Evolutionist theory faces a problem in the second law, > > No biologist, biochemist, physicist or thermodynamicist that I > know (and I've met hundreds) would agree with this statement... Do you know Dr. Lee Spetner? To my knowledge, he is not a creationist, yet his book "Not By Chance!" [The Judaica Press, 1996, ISBN 1-880582-24-4] seems to indicate that he agree with the statement. He is a physicist. Did you know the late Dr. A.E. Wilder-Smith? His books "Man's Origin, Man's Destiny" [Bethany House, 1975, ISBN 0-87123-356-8] and "The Natural Sciences Know Nothing of Evolution" seem to indicate that he did indeed agree with the statement. He was a biochemist. Do you know Dr. Royal Truman? His article "The Problem of Information" [http://www.trueorigin.org/dawkinfo.htm] seems to indicate that he does indeed agree with the statement. He is a biochemist. (In addition, I am associated with scientists who would agree [and have agreed] with this statement. But I don't think the issue is how many colleagues either of us can number, and those who would agree with the statement would almost certainly be in the minority.) Also, I am hard-pressed to believe that the average biologist, biochemist, physicist or thermodynamicist has expended much energy or intellect examining the dynamics of thermodynamics vis-a-vis evolutionary theory in general and the associated implications of information theory in particular. > I should also add that just because a lot of people think one > thing does not make them right. In this I can agree with you without reservation. > Notice that this cuts both ways for scientists and creationists. Whether you wish to accept the fact or not, there are scientists who subscribe to the evolutionary paradigm, and there are scientists who subscribe to the creationary paradigm (I just cited two examples of the latter above, and there are thousands of others). Your description of "scientists" as opposed to "creationists" reveals an apparent tendancy on your part away from objectivity (at best) or towards intellectual bigotry (at worst). If you truly wish to continue this dialogue, I invite you to choose your words more carefully and refrain from such unreasonable and inflammatory swipes. > > since the law is plainly understood to indicate (as does > > empirical observation) that things tend towards disorder, > > This is incorrect. > > Not everything tends to disorder. Crystal growth... I have already answered many citations of "crystal growth" as apparent "explanations" for the alleged thermodyanmic feasibility of evolution. Rather than repeat myself again, please allow me to refer you to: http://www.trueorigin.org/steiger.htm http://www.trueorigin.org/isakrbtl.htm http://www.trueorigin.org/9708.htm http://www.trueorigin.org/9801.htm Some content may be repeated among these four documents, but using the "find" function of your browser and reading (or re-reading) the passages in which the word "crystal" is located, I think you will find that the difference between crystal formation and the creation of genetic information is not so easily blurred with an experiment in which rock candy crystals are made. Kind Regards, Tim :-> -- Timothy Wallace twallace@trueorigin.org http://www.trueorigin.org “Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words shall not pass away.” — Jesus Christ (Matthew 24:35) “He is a God unchangeable. He has not altered the thing which has gone out of his mouth, nor called back one single consolatory sentence. ...Therefore, seeing that it is the word of a God so true, so immutable, so powerful, so wise, I will and must believe the promise.” — Charles Spurgeon