Discussion thread for Bob and Johnny's One on One

[Stripe]

Who said it does?

All the atheists responding to the (errant) challenge to evolution from the second law of thermodynamics.

My comments, and Styer’s paper, address Thermodynamic Entropy.

Then it is unresponsive and irrelevant.

It is clear that Enyart thinks that Styer was surreptitiously speaking of Information entropy in discussing the exchange of entropy from one place to another. But that was wrong, Styer was hard-lined to an analysis of the Thermodynamic issues involved. You are welcome to think that there are issues beyond Styer’s paper.

:idunno: I'll let you (or perhaps Johnny) thrash that out with Pastor Enyart.

It seems perfectly clear that Styer fails in one of two ways. If he was responding to the the challenge then he needed to address information entropy. You claim he did not address information entropy.

 

[Johnny]

It seems perfectly clear that Styer fails in one of two ways. If he was responding to the challenge then he needed to address information entropy. You claim he did not address information entropy.

The challenge, however, is not just from information entropy. Creationists have erroneously used the 2nd law as a challenge -- i.e. the challenge from thermodynamic entropy. Styer writes,

Does the second law of thermodynamics prohibit biological evolution?

The erroneous answer “yes” is sometimes presented in the creationist literature, and more often in creationist web sites. Henry Morris, for example, finds it “obvious that the Second Law of Thermodynamics constitutes a serious problem to the evolution model” because “every system left to its own devices always tends to move from order to disorder.” (cite: Henry M. Morris, Scientific Creationism, 1974.)​

The Henry Morris challenge from the second law is the challenge he addressed.

 

[Stripe]

Styer states exactly what challenge he was responding to. He writes, Does the second law of thermodynamics prohibit biological evolution? The erroneous answer “yes” is sometimes presented in the creationist literature, and more often in creationist web sites. Henry Morris, for example, finds it “obvious that the Second Law of Thermodynamics constitutes a serious problem to the evolution model” because “every system left to its own devices always tends to move from order to disorder.” (cite: Henry M. Morris, Scientific Creationism, 1974.)That's the challenge he addressed.

Application of the second law is part of the challenge.

I believe Pastor Enyart is saying that he could have struck down the challenge far more effectively had he shown its incompatibility and incompleteness. Just as throughout LoL's thread certain posters told me a number of times that the second law only applies to thermodynamic entropy so Styer would have been far more effective.

But I'd prefer it if y'all would thrash that out.

 

[Yorzhik]

Creationists have never questioned that energy from the sun was not available or not enough to power evolution.

What has been questioned is two-fold; on the information front, that the sun does not convert heat energy to information and so there is no source for the information content in DNA. And on the thermodynamic front, that the sun's energy must be channeled through a mechanism to start life and to create the diversity we see in organisms today.

 

[Jukia]

Creationists have never questioned that energy from the sun was not available or not enough to power evolution.

What has been questioned is two-fold; on the information front, that the sun does not convert heat energy to information and so there is no source for the information content in DNA. And on the thermodynamic front, that the sun's energy must be channeled through a mechanism to start life and to create the diversity we see in organisms today.

DNA is created by the standard chemical/physical processes that create every molecule in your body. This information/DNA argument is totally bogus.

 

[Yorzhik]

DNA is created by the standard chemical/physical processes that create every molecule in your body. This information/DNA argument is totally bogus.

Normally Jukia says nothing, but with this he says something completely uninformed and to put a proper label on it, stupid.

 

[Stripe]

Normally Jukia says nothing, but with this he says something completely uninformed and to put a proper label on it, stupid.

Leave the poor guy alone. He has a reputation to uphold

 

[ThePhy]

"Misconceptions" part of Styer's article on-line

"Misconceptions" part of Styer's article on-line

The text of the front part of Styer’s article, starting with the first sentence and going through the entire text that Enyart included in the photocopy can be seen at The Panda’s Thumb. Click on page one on the comments tab, then look down the page for the comment from Nick Matzke dated Nov 10, at 5:16 PM. The text is the entire colored block that makes up the majority of Nick’s comment.

 

[chair]

Bob Enyart:
I believe this is the first time I have tried to follow Bob Enyart in a discussion of this type. My overall impression is that he is intellectually dishonest. He misrepresents the paper under discussion, knowing that most of the audience does not have access to the paper in question.

To Stripe and Yorzhik:

Are you agreed then that the second law of thermodynamics does not prohibit evolution? It seems that you do agree with this statement. A simple yes or no would do the trick here.

If that is the case, we should move on o the next stage:
If there is a challenge to evolution from information theory, let's hear it. Please explain what the challenge is, and if is based on particular 'laws' of information theory, please tell us which.

 

[Yorzhik]

To Stripe and Yorzhik:

Are you agreed then that the second law of thermodynamics does not prohibit evolution? It seems that you do agree with this statement. A simple yes or no would do the trick here.

If that is the case, we should move on o the next stage:
If there is a challenge to evolution from information theory, let's hear it. Please explain what the challenge is, and if is based on particular 'laws' of information theory, please tell us which.

The SLoT is a problem for evolution. All heat must be controlled to keep it from breaking things down as fast as it could build things up.

 

[Stripe]

Bob Enyart:
I believe this is the first time I have tried to follow Bob Enyart in a discussion of this type. My overall impression is that he is intellectually dishonest. He misrepresents the paper under discussion, knowing that most of the audience does not have access to the paper in question.

To Stripe and Yorzhik:

Are you agreed then that the second law of thermodynamics does not prohibit evolution? It seems that you do agree with this statement. A simple yes or no would do the trick here.

If that is the case, we should move on o the next stage:
If there is a challenge to evolution from information theory, let's hear it. Please explain what the challenge is, and if is based on particular 'laws' of information theory, please tell us which.

This discussion is not dependent upon thermodynamics. No need to "move on".

Is it possible that you accuse Pastor Enyart of lying based on the fact that you don't know what is going on?

 

[Stripe]

I'd love to get some reader input on this in the discussion thread:

• Is Styer unclear as to what the misconceptions are?

He does not list misconceptions after he states there are two and then adds a third misconception. If one already knew the misconceptions then they should be obvious.

• Do you think this was bad writing on Styer's behalf?

Poorly structured and mismatched.

• Should this argument be extended any longer?

Yes. The very point of this discussion is that evolutionists do not understand the challenge. Many creationists get it wrong as well. If we are going to let poor understanding continue to produce poor explanations then the cycle will continue. This discussion should continue until either side concedes that the article is, or is not, poorly written and defends an improper challenge.

 

[chair]

The SLoT is a problem for evolution. All heat must be controlled to keep it from breaking things down as fast as it could build things up.

So you do NOT agree, then. With me, or with Bob Enyart, for that matter.

 

[chair]

This discussion is not dependent upon thermodynamics. No need to "move on".

Is it possible that you accuse Pastor Enyart of lying based on the fact that you don't know what is going on?

The paper that is being discussed is about thermodynamics. But if yoiu are agreed that the second law of thermodynamics does not make evolution impossible (again, a yes or no answer is all that is needed), then by all means please state what laws, whether physical or of information theory, do make it impossible.

A relevant answer to this post will contain:
1. a yes or no answer to the question: Does the 2nd law of thermodynamics make evolution impossible?
2. If not, what law does make evolution impossible?

Regarding Bob Enyart: It is more likely that I accuse him of being intellectually dishonest because I do know what is going on.

 

[Stripe]

The paper that is being discussed is about thermodynamics. But if yoiu are agreed that the second law of thermodynamics does not make evolution impossible (again, a yes or no answer is all that is needed), then by all means please state what laws, whether physical or of information theory, do make it impossible.

A relevant answer to this post will contain:
1. a yes or no answer to the question: Does the 2nd law of thermodynamics make evolution impossible?
2. If not, what law does make evolution impossible?

Regarding Bob Enyart: It is more likely that I accuse him of being intellectually dishonest because I do know what is going on.

Clearly you do not know what is going on. This discussion is not about whether the second law of thermodynamics works against evolution. If you're not prepared to acknowledge that then you render your contributions irrelevant.

The answer to your first question is irrelevant. Yorzhik may well have a point to make or you might be correct. The challenge to evolution is that it shows a local decrease in entropy with no means to account for that decrease.

 

[chair]

Clearly you do not know what is going on. This discussion is not about whether the second law of thermodynamics works against evolution. If you're not prepared to acknowledge that then you render your contributions irrelevant.

The answer to your first question is irrelevant. Yorzhik may well have a point to make or you might be correct. The challenge to evolution is that it shows a local decrease in entropy with no means to account for that decrease.

OK. I see an article by Dan Styer entitled:
"Entropy and Evolution"

Abstract: Quantitative estimates of the entropy involved in biological evolution demonstrate that there is no conflict between evolution and the second law of thermodynamics. …

I see a discussion going on that centers around this article, which is clearly about the "conflict between evolution and the second law of thermodynamics"- but you say that the discussion is "not about whether the second law of thermodynamics works against evolution. "

So please explain to me what you think the discussion is about.

 

[Stripe]

OK. I see an article by Dan Styer entitled:
"Entropy and Evolution"

Abstract: Quantitative estimates of the entropy involved in biological evolution demonstrate that there is no conflict between evolution and the second law of thermodynamics. …

I see a discussion going on that centers around this article, which is clearly about the "conflict between evolution and the second law of thermodynamics"- but you say that the discussion is "not about whether the second law of thermodynamics works against evolution. "

So please explain to me what you think the discussion is about.

:doh:

The challenge to evolution is from entropy. Not from the second law of thermodynamics. If Styer wishes to refute the challenge to evolution he has to answer the information aspect as well as the thermodynamic aspect. You're following Johnny in trying to insist that Styer only refers to thermodynamics. Pastor Enyart is showing that Styer includes information entropy but fails to distinguish between the two.

Regardless of who is correct Styer's paper does not address the challenge of "Entropy and Evolution". If he meant to discuss thermodynamics only (as you and Johnny claim) then he is ignoring half the challenge. If he does discuss information then he didn't do a very good job of it.

 

[chair]

:doh:

The challenge to evolution is from entropy. Not from the second law of thermodynamics. If Styer wishes to refute the challenge to evolution he has to answer the information aspect as well as the thermodynamic aspect. You're following Johnny in trying to insist that Styer only refers to thermodynamics. Pastor Enyart is showing that Styer includes information entropy but fails to distinguish between the two.

Regardless of who is correct Styer's paper does not address the challenge of "Entropy and Evolution". If he meant to discuss thermodynamics only (as you and Johnny claim) then he is ignoring half the challenge. If he does discuss information then he didn't do a very good job of it.

OK
Styer deals with the thermodynamic second law, and thermodynamic entropy. If you think he doesn't- fine. We can leave it alone.

What you are claiming, and correct me if I am wrong, is that the laws of information theory, which include a concept called "entropy", make evolution impossible. Is that right?

If I have understood you correctly, then please explain what laws of information theory make evolution impossible. I do not have a background in information theory, so references would be appreciated.

 

[Stripe]

OK
Styer deals with the thermodynamic second law, and thermodynamic entropy. If you think he doesn't- fine. We can leave it alone.

:doh:

This discussion is all about whether or not Styer's response answers the challenge.

What you are claiming, and correct me if I am wrong, is that the laws of information theory, which include a concept called "entropy", make evolution impossible. Is that right?

:nono:

Entropy, which includes different kinds like information and thermodynamic, is the challenge to evolution. If you want to segregate the discussion into those two categories you are only attempting to redefine the challenge.

If I have understood you correctly, then please explain what laws of information theory make evolution impossible. I do not have a background in information theory, so references would be appreciated.

Information theory is mostly the study of statistics and how they can analyse data and rate that data's potential usefulness. There are some simple tests one could do to show that adding noise to a sample will always increase a signal's entropy, but there are no laws written yet that directly prohibit evolution.

 

[chair]

:doh:

This discussion is all about whether or not Styer's response answers the challenge.

:nono:

Entropy, which includes different kinds like information and thermodynamic, is the challenge to evolution. If you want to segregate the discussion into those two categories you are only attempting to redefine the challenge.

Information theory is mostly the study of statistics and how they can analyse data and rate that data's potential usefulness. There are some simple tests one could do to show that adding noise to a sample will always increase a signal's entropy, but there are no laws written yet that directly prohibit evolution.

How do you manage it , Stripe? You so often seem on the verge of saying something concrete and intelligent, but somehow you just never get there. How do you do it?

It seems that you admit that there are no current laws in thermodynamics or information theory that make evolution possible- but there could and should be. Is that it? Or is it something else?