RE: The second law of thermodynamics and evolution
January 9, 2015 at 2:27 pm
(This post was last modified: January 9, 2015 at 2:51 pm by Mister Agenda.)
(January 2, 2015 at 9:35 pm)professor Wrote: Well you had 4 pages of psudo science to mull thru.
Your ability to actually understand science has been well demonstrated elsewhere on this forum as well.
(January 2, 2015 at 9:35 pm)professor Wrote: What they did not tell you is without a CODE of DIRECTION within all living things, the energy from the sun does what it does to your plastic dashboard and other things.
There's no abiogenesis model in which the first life derived energy directly from sunlight, for that very reason. The 'code' came way before photosynthesis. The usual energy source for non-biological organic chemistry is heat, and there were plenty of heat differentials in places where complicated chemistry was possible with protection from direct sunlight. The ability to derive metabolic energy from sunlight came later. And snow crystals (among others) form into intricate symmetrical patterns with no 'code' needed, driven by heat differentials.
(January 2, 2015 at 9:35 pm)professor Wrote: Cars are a good example. Have you got one?
Why yes, yes I do.
(January 2, 2015 at 9:35 pm)professor Wrote: Things tend to disintegrate over time.
Why yes, yes they do.
(January 2, 2015 at 9:35 pm)professor Wrote: Left to themselves, they do that, you fight the results of entropy all your life.
Yes. Are you somehow under the impression that life contradicts entropy? It's no exception, else you could live forever.
(January 2, 2015 at 9:35 pm)professor Wrote: But no, everything you see is wrong.Thy eyes deceiveth thyself, sayeth the experts.
In your case, it's more like thine eyes are closed tight so you don't have to see anything that might contradict your religious beliefs. Life is subject to entropy. All cells die. What science says does not contradict what you see, it is based on it. That is, it's based on reality.
(January 8, 2015 at 2:15 pm)professor Wrote: By the way, it has been pointed out that those monkeys will NEVER pound out Shakespeare.
The chances are infinitesimal, and I generally agree: there would have to be more monkeys than there are atoms in the observed universe, it would be highly unlikely to happen. If there were infinite monkeys it would, of course, become a certainty.
(January 2, 2015 at 9:35 pm)professor Wrote: A hundred years ago that BS made people drunk, but not today.
That is correct. Today we realize there has to be some sort of sorting mechanism at work for something like that to happen. For example, there's a computer program that randomly generates letters and saves the ones that fit a pre-determined phrase. It took about 40 'generations' to arrive at the this phrase from Hamlet: 'methinkis it is like a weasel'. The random letter generation furnishes the raw material while the selection mechanism supplies the information. In evolution, the reproductive environment is analogous to the pre-determined phrase, mutation to the random generation of letters, and natural selection to the program's sorting heuristic.
(January 2, 2015 at 9:35 pm)professor Wrote: I remember A.E.Wilder Smith telling that the information (genetic code) is typed IN and it is also typed OUT, the monkeys could type forever and nothing would show on the paper.
This part doesn't make sense. Why would what the monkeys' type not show on the paper?
(January 8, 2015 at 3:42 pm)Stimbo Wrote: I think our ironic prof is alluding to a study apparently done to test the monkey hypothesis (such as it is). It seems that after a few pages of gibberish, our simian cousins developed a fondness for the letter N and typed it out continuously. If true then it's an amusingly interesting object lesson in the gulf between analogy and reality, even though the experiment fell somewhat short of the infinite monkey sample size required.
Of course, literal monkeys aren't random and are likely to try to tear up the typewriter. As I'm sure you're aware, but Prof might not be, the proposed monkeys are a metaphor for a perfectly random letter generator.
I'm not anti-Christian. I'm anti-stupid.
