Can Evolution be possible if Entropy is true; or rather, is Evolution possible because Entropy is true!

So what is Entropy?

To follow in the tradition of Maimonides. Entropy is NOT a tendency to disorder! I need to thank Joe Felsenstein for directing me to Frank L. Lambert’s insights on a previous thread probably best left alone. Here is a great site to elucidate Lambert’s insights:

What about Evolution? Can complex systems arise naturally and spontaneously into higher tiers of complexity and order and opportunity—according to the Second Law of Thermodynamics— and all without divine intervention commonly described as Intelligent Design or Irreducible Complexity?

Sean Carroll has much to offer on this question:

Entropy and Complexity, Cause and Effect, Life and Time

Participants should refrain from arc-reflex boiler-plate diatribes echoing previously held opinion and first examine what Carroll has to say. Failure to do so will merit cyber-smack downs.

312 thoughts on “Can Evolution be possible if Entropy is true; or rather, is Evolution possible because Entropy is true!

  1. Mung:
    No, by some magic they can fold and unfold at will.

    See what I mean? Clearly, you don’t know what you’re talking about. You pick up some words, you imagine that you’ve got it, then you get back into the “it must be magic” mode that betrays your lack of understanding.

    And by some magic they just happen to choose to do so at the exact moment at which a complementary strand just happens to be floating by that by some magical means is not folded. POOF! A COPY!

    Holy crap. You truly have no idea.

    This is simply not the way that template copying takes place.

    Of course not. I never said it took place the way you describe. That’s all in your misinformed imagination.

    Don’t you get that yet? Your idea of how DNA replication takes place is laughable.

    That’s your idea Mung. Not mine. Mine is informed by an understanding about how chemical reactions take place, by understanding of the dynamics of DNA and RNA associations, with each other, with their complementary strands, with themselves, and with catalysts. My idea is also informed by the experiments where these things actually happen.

  2. Mung: Right. But only on the second pairing.

    As I said, you have no idea. Thanks for confirming, but it’s enough. Since you’re unwilling to learn, I suggest you to stop embarrassing yourself, and just move on.

  3. Entropy: He’s assuming that the first cell must have been like today’s cells. Same compounds, same needs, same everything.

    No, you’re the one assuming this. Why do you think that the DNA double helix was present in the first life?

  4. Entropy,

    So my question would be: why consider something that cannot even be described? I’d find that much more questionable than expecting an answer that involves the very same things every other answer has involved. How would we go about it? More importantly, why? What would be the justification for “we should try this question assuming something other than material answers, even thought there’s no way to test for any of it”?

    This is a very interesting and valid discussion. You are right if the explanation is not material then science stops. Since science requires limited resources to make progress I would argue that certain scientific endeavors should be prioritized over others. I am arguing until you make a reasonable case for the simple to complex model minimum resources should be spent on OOL projects.

    But I’m not doing that. I told you already: I have philosophical, scientific, and experimental validation.

    You have only validated that you have low standards for validation.

    colewd: I would expect that small catalytic activity is possible with short RNA’s. The problem is complex catalytic activity necessary for life that are currently performed by amino acid based enzymes.

    Entropy: This is what’s called “moving the goalposts.”

    You are right I committed a logical fallacy. The problem remains you are trying equate travel to the other side of the globe to travel to the other side of the galaxy.

    Even if your standards towards philosophically and scientifically reasonable answers are too high,

    And I think your standards are too low. Science is a game of limited resources and proper allocation of those resources should steer us away from investing in rainbows.

Leave a Reply