The Problem with Christians

[Esquilax]

Radically different?

"There are close parallels between the mathematical expressions for the thermodynamic entropy, usually denoted by S, of a physical system in the statistical thermodynamics established by Ludwig Boltzmann and J. Willard Gibbs in the 1870s, and the information-theoretic entropy, usually expressed as H, of Claude Shannon and Ralph Hartley developed in the 1940s. Shannon, although not initially aware of this similarity, commented on it upon publicizing information theory in A Mathematical Theory of Communication. This article explores what links there are between the two concepts, and how far they can be regarded as connected."    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy_in...ion_theory Emphasis mine.

It's late at night and I'll get to the other posts later, but I saw this and have to ask: are you even aware of the thing we're discussing here anymore, or are you just wrapped up in attempting to prove me wrong no matter what?

I'll admit to similarities between the two definitions- it's a highly technical field and I'm not totally conversant with it- but that doesn't make you any less wrong, because the points at which the two diverge are also the lynchpins of your case. Regardless of how similar they might be, they still aren't the same thing: in the case of information entropy, decreases in entropy are still possible, and thermodynamic entropy does not apply to evolution. In the context of the argument you were actually making- rather than this crusade of yours to trip me up by quote mining texts and cherry picking single phrases out of entire articles- entropy still does not work the way you're claiming it does. You're quibbling over an irrelevancy, while the actual point you were trying to make has fallen by the wayside.

Interestingly though- and this is the problem with only reading the opening paragraph of an article and then heedlessly citing it without checking the rest- you might want to take a look at the "Negentropy" section of that page. Personally I prefer the term "syntropy" for what that describes, but what you're looking at there is- yes- a type of negative entropy undergone by living organisms, where they export entropy to the environment in order to keep their own levels of entropy- in the thermodynamic sense, since that's the only one that conceivably applies to physical objects- low. So when you asserted that evolving organisms represent some fundamental reversal of entropy... no they don't. At best, they represent a syntropic process, even if you were correct that they do reverse their own internal entropy, which you aren't (not in the sense that you were arguing) they diffuse their entropy into the surroundings. Local decrease in entropy, net increase in entropy.

... And your own article shows it.

So, to recap: you were wrong on the factual case, you were wrong within the context of your own argument, and you were also wrong regarding your ideas about the subjects you were attempting to use in support of both of those incorrect cases. You were wrong here at every possible level of your claim, and based on the absurd tangent you were willing to go on here in order to "get" me, to the point where you cited a link that includes an ironclad disproof of your claim without even realizing it, I'm fairly sure you won't really get why that is.

But holy shit, man: if anything were a sign that you should be reading the whole text and not just the first few sentences of it, this is it.