From toms Fri Jul 30 02:07:26 1999
Subject: Re: TrueOrigin Feedback Response
To: twallace@trueorigin.org (Timothy Wallace)
Date: Fri, 30 Jul 1999 02:07:26 -0400 (EDT)
In-Reply-To: <37A111DA.10DE71A1@trueorigin.org> from "Timothy Wallace" at Jul 29, 99 10:45:46 pm
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length: 10158     

Tim:

I am now archiving this series at:

http://www.lecb.ncifcrf.gov/~toms/twallace/

> > > 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.

I'm interpreting your statements to mean that you think that entropy
decreases don't occur often.  (We'll deal with relevancy later.)

> > 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?

There are plenty of other possibilities of course.  I chose a huge range of
cases for you to chose from.  You may fill in as many intermediates as you
chose, but probably 3 is enough for this discussion.  By making concrete
examples, we won't get stuck on vague terminiolgy.  In particular I'm
interested if you think that case 3 is true or false.

> 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.

I get the feeling that you are thinking about the case where, for example,
there is a small probability that all the air in a room will go into one
corner, or that after a bottle of perfume has been opened that the odor will
go back into the bottle.  The probability of such events is very small.  But
it *can* occur and will occur if one waited long enough.  But long is case 1
above, billions of years.

That's not what I was thinking about.  I'm asking whether you think that
there are or are not regular occurances of entropy decrease.  The scale I
made up makes "regular" something precise that we can agree, test and think
about.

> > > 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?

Well it was a silly way to ask the question, but my point is that you were
implying that nobody has ever observed entropy decreases.  The answer is that
everybody has observed it, as will be clear as we proceed with the question
of crystals.  (Again, we will deal with relevancy later.)

> 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 does this mean that one should not rely on calculations of the orbit of a
satellite?  Or whether a building will stand or an airplane will fly?  Such
predictive calculations are used successfully all the time.  We only hear
about the rare cases where someone goofed.

Also, the changes required for evolution to occur are associated with known
observable mechanisms, in particular base substitutions, effects of
radiation, transposons, illegitimate recombination and so on.  The study of
mechanisms for generating sequence variation is a huge field.

Finally, selective events occur all the time.  (I'm thinking about the
finches on Galapagos that had beak size changes, but there are lots of cases
in molecular biology.)

So variation and selection are well known, and practiced in the lab all the
time.  (I've selected mutants that could not make thymine, for example.  The
fact that I did it does not mean it didn't happen or that the same mechanism
doesn't work in nature, we've seen that too.)

> 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").

Have you heard of in vitro selections such as SELEX?  Have you heard of
genetic algorithms?  They work very nicely even from completely scrambled
starting points!

> 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'."

How much math do you know?  Do you know any calculus?

> Do you know ...

I've heard of these people.

> 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.

Yes, I'm familiar with http://www.trueorigin.org/dawkinfo.htm  It has lots of
flaws, but you might like to know that he is basically right, his question
has not been properly answered.

> > 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.

I see.  I suppose that I don't consider people who subscribe to creationism
to be doing what I call science.  When arguing for creationism, they are not
scientists, though they may call themselves that.  This is not an attack.

In particular, I have yet to learn a single new fact about the world from a
creationist's experiments.  In contrast, I learn new facts about the world
from papers by scientists all the time.  When I've had a chance, I have
verified them from myself.  (An example from a while ago: I measured the size
of E. coli bacteria, and it came out as people had said, about 1 um by 1 um
by 2 um.)  (I can, of course, learn facts that I didn't know before that a
creationist relays to me from a regular scientist.)

I'm a scientist.  What are you?

> > > 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

I thought we were going to stay focused on your paragraph.  I've looked at
those pages and they do not answer my questions.  (They are full of errors we
could get caught up unearthing, so let's stick to your paragraph.)

> 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.

One step at a time, can we agree on that?

The first question is

a. What happens to the heat that was in the jar?

Tom

  Dr. Thomas D. Schneider
  National Cancer Institute
  Laboratory of Experimental and Computational Biology
  Frederick, Maryland  21702-1201
  toms@ncifcrf.gov
  permanent email: toms@alum.mit.edu
  http://www.lecb.ncifcrf.gov/~toms/