As discussed here extensively, nothing in “evolution” makes any sense: “natural selection, fitness, speciation, human evolution, gradualism, divergence of character, UCD, TOL, etc. etc.” Not one makes sense. Meanwhile, the “evolution” argument is just one big “affirms the consequent” logical fallacy, while Paley’s excellent argument has never been overturned, and an intuitive intelligent design detector can be used to easily disprove “evolution”. Is there a need for any more proofs? Not really. Are there any other proofs? You bet. Take entropy for instance…
Figure 1
Figure 2
- Second Law of Thermodynamics shows that a spontaneous process cannot also revert spontaneously. This is because spontaneous processes always increase the system’s entropy. A uniform gas in a chamber will accumulate in a corner only with external intervention and spontaneous chemical reactions can only revert if external work energy is applied. Current models of entropy assume the gas particles in a chamber to be independent (sometimes represented as pebbles on a Go board) and explains their never observed convergence on one side of the chamber as only due to that particular microstate having a very low probability(*). However, gas particles always interact with each other (Brownian motion) while pebbles do not. Thus, a reliable way to know that entropy of a system increases is if work energy could be obtained when transitioning from the low to the high entropy state while energy is always required for the reverse process.
- Total entropy of an isolated system can never decrease. Entropy is currently assumed just a statistical law. Thus, if N molecules are in an isolated system (box), the number of microstates associated with j of them being in one half while N-j being in the other half is Ω = N! / (j!*(N-j)!). If N is small, fluctuations seem possible, but before N increases to anything measurable, the probability of fluctuations rapidly decreases to nil. Furthermore, even these theoretical fluctuations, as improbable as they are, might be impossible since the statistical view does not account for molecular interaction observed as Brownian motion and as gas resistance to compression and expansion. Better fundamentals or statistics, either way entropy will never decrease spontaneously in an observable system (Fig 1.a).
- Decreasing entropy is not the reverse process of entropy increasing. That is why a broken egg coming together is easily identified as unreal and a reversed movie of its real shattering. The known laws of physics are the same forward and backward (time-reversal invariance), therefore the reverse shattering process of an egg would not violate any law, but only because these laws are always idealized. Supposedly, if just the right forces are applied to the broken pieces, the egg will come together. In reality this is impossible, and not because the unbroken egg is a highly unlikely microstate, but because entropy increase is not directly reversible even in non-isolated systems. This irreversibility holds for all heterogeneous systems, including life which is perhaps the most heterogeneous system of all. Entropy increase is directly reversible only for homogeneous systems and only if in a defined space. For instance, an expanding gas in an ideal piston creates a force that, when reversed, compresses the gas back into its original state. However, a solid cube of ice can be easily melted by increasing the temperature, but the original ice cube will not reconstitute by lowering the temperature, hence this process too is irreversible despite the cube of ice being homogeneous (Fig 1.b). As far as heterogeneous systems, even separating two mixed gases is way different than the original mixing process, hence mixing is irreversible (Fig 1.c). Entropy decrease is not only different, but also much more complex than entropy increase which is usually spontaneous. Abiogenesis is the entropy-lowering reverse of the biologic decay process, and therefore – if at all feasible – much more complex than adding chemicals and energies.
- Once in equilibrium, a “primordial soup” does not change spontaneously. Life is metastable – it requires certain forms of energy to sustain and spontaneously decays when it no longer receives that energy as well as after the end of the normal lifespan of the organism. It was hypothesized that random fluctuations can spontaneously create compounds and structures given enough time. Abiogenesis, as a reverse-decay process, cannot simply be an outcome of Brownian motion of the chemicals mix because a perpetual motion machine powered by decay and abiogenesis cycles would violate the ‘conservation of energy’ principle. Experimentally, one can confirm that chemical blends in static equilibrium never transition spontaneously into a different equilibrium state (this includes oscillating reactions after the settlement period).
- A “primordial soup” cannot generate life even if energy is applied. It was hypothesized that abiogenesis can be a product of tidal pools, deep sea hydrothermal vents, and the undersurface of ice caps where persistent and abundant energy is available in the form of thermal and electrochemical gradients. Indeed, energy can throw systems off balance and create all kind of chemical compounds and physical structures. However, as the energy applied increases, a complexity limit and hence a dynamic equilibrium is reached where molecule destruction offsets their creation and, if even more energy is applied, molecule destruction dominates, eventually leaving the experimenter with gunk and none of the desired molecules. Miller–Urey and subsequent experiments were not ended because they reached their goal – life – nor because they ran out of energy and materials, but because they reached this dynamic equilibrium, and by adding more of anything would have left them with fewer of the targeted compounds. The amino acids obtained were not the end product but the intermediate between the original molecules and the useless gunk that was the product of the Maillard reaction caused by the energy applied to the system. More complex molecules (and maybe life itself one day) can be created by intelligent designers adding targeted compounds and energies. Then “why can’t natural processes somewhere somehow just mimic the intelligent designer in this vast and almost timeless universe?” The better question is: “why insist on natural processes when the model to be mimicked is that of the intelligent designer?”
- If natural processes were capable of generating life, the environment would be full of intermediate bio-compounds. Life is so complex that laboratories have no hope of replicating it in the foreseeable future. However, if abiogenesis were an outcome of natural processes, the cell structure would be produced only from subsystems and complex biomolecules that in turn would depend on simpler molecules down to H-C-O-N, the atoms of life. A “primordial soup” capable of generating life, thus must contain all intermediate compounds from the atoms of life to the most complex biomolecules and subsystems in an ever-decreasing ratio as complexity increases. Not knowing anything about how this process would work (or even if possible), the most reasonable assumption is a normal distribution of outcomes with life being an n-sigma event (with n unknown) while the availability of the atoms of life being a 1-sigma event and anything else falling in between (Fig 2). Many x-sigma events would be required for each (x+1)-sigma event, with a good first approximation given by the normal density function. Thus, the 2-sigma event could be the basic molecules of life (water, methane, etc.), and we would expect only one of these events for every seven of the 1-sigma events. This approximation would further yield (in one scenario) 1/7 fewer molecules of life than atoms of life, 1/17 fewer simple lipids and carbohydrates molecules (3-sigma) than of molecules of life, 1/43 fewer complex lipids and carbohydrates (4-sigma) than 3-sigma events, 1/110 fewer amino acids (5-sigma) than 4-sigma, 1/291 fewer simple proteins (6-sigma) than 5-sigma, 1/771 fewer complex proteins (7-sigma) than 6-sigma and then – rule of thumb – 1/1600 (8-sigma), 1/3800 (9), 1/9100 (10), 1/22k (11), 1/52k (12), 1/126k (13), etc. fewer of each additional sigma event than previous event where 8+sigma being (this scenario) nucleic acids, short chains, long chains, organelle subsystems, organelles, other critical cell components and finally the fully functional biologic cell – the n-sigma event which is not quite life but good enough for this analysis. Then how can we test this?
- Apart from life itself, the complex molecules of life are nowhere to be found in the universe. To test the ‘natural processes’ hypothesis of abiogenesis, one must observe the intermediate components of life in nature and in the ratios estimated above (or from another reasonable estimate). In addition, one must observe the spontaneous transitions (aided by energy) from simple to complex even if not all transitions are observed at once. Earth is “polluted” with life down to the deepest ocean trenches, therefore the first focus is the extraterrestrial space where, too bad, the largest confirmed interstellar molecules have a maximum of 13 atoms (apart from C60/C70 fullerene). Back on earth we see all intermediate components, but only within life itself. Outside of the cells, aside from the simplest biomolecules, we only see products of decomposition that are never in the ratios associated with abiogenesis, meaning we never see increasing molecule complexity in decreasing ratios resembling anything reasonably expected. Abiogenesis is not happening due to the irreversibility of the entropy increase and for the same reason egg breaking, butter melting, gas mixing, etc. are not reversible processes. Humans can only create a few of the complex molecules, although most always aided by life itself, and even then the power of synthetic biology is severely restricted. The more complex, the harder these molecules are to obtain and the faster they decay instead of spontaneously combining with one another to form even more complex compounds and ultimately life.
- Miller–Urey style abiogenesis experiments are ill conceived, hence doomed from the beginning. To be more specific, they are only good for PR (public relations) given the irrelevant “organic compounds” created that raise the hopes of the believers. Trying to obtain an automobile from scratch by mixing chemicals and energy, qualifies the person attempting as delusional and the one selling such vision as charlatan. So why would those attempting the same with life – which is infinitely more complex than an automobile – not also be labeled charlatans and delusional? Abiogenesis experiments belong to the Reverse Engineering category of processes and, when done right, they are very different than Miller–Urey. Their starting point is never some “primordial soup”, but the most advanced compounds available, preferably already organized in working subsystems. Swapping organelles or parts within organelles, exposing organisms to various environments, attempting to revive dead organisms, substituting engineered subsystems and so on are part of the hard work with long tradition and already being done in medicine and many industries for other purposes than to prove abiogenesis. If and when someone will be able to reverse the decaying and dying processes, we will know that abiogenesis is possible as an act of Intelligent Design creation. To confirm abiogenesis as an “unguided process” we would have to observe reverse-decay and reverse-dying processes happening in nature, not in a lab. Yet 2nd law proves this impossible.
- Is abiogenesis not feasible because it was a unique event? If true, abiogenesis would be a “materialistic miracle” and furthermore not just one, but a long series of “materialistic miracles” since a long series of – so far unknown – events are needed to get from atoms to the simplest organism. Yet one of the tenets of materialism is “no miracles” showing the inconsistency of the materialistic “unique event” assertion. And of course, physics and chemistry transformations are never unique. And even if entropy allowed for abiogenesis, the laws of life do not follow from any priors (physics, chemistry, mathematics). Life has a drive to survive and leave off-springs which entails harm avoidance, immune system, metabolism, food seeking, homeostasis, growth, reproduction, and body structure. Without these, any cell would start decaying the instant it was formed as in fact it does as soon as it no longer is alive. Despite having lasted almost since the formation of The Earth, life is metastable – one knock and it dies and then decays. This is unlike other negative entropy machines that can be restored (rebuilding proportional with the damage).
- Other considerations.
- “Dissipation-driven adaptation of matter” (J. England, MIT) claims that life is inevitable because life “absorbs and dissipates more energy from external sources” leading to faster entropy increase. However, there is no law that entropy has to increase faster. In addition, most of the entropy in the universe is captured by black holes with life having a nil contribution to that entropy.
- Some claim they have obtained “protocells” that seem to mimic real cells at least in part. However, “protocells” are to biological cells as fool’s gold is to real gold.
- “Kolmogorov complexity is lowest at low and high entropy and high in the middle hence life is supposedly inevitable (S. Carroll)”. However, life is not complexity. Life is much more than snowflakes, vortices and chemical reactions (candle burning). And most certainly, life is not the complex swirls of cream mixing into coffee on a journey from low entropy to high entropy (both having low complexity). In addition, unless very specific external action continues to be applied to maintain those patterns, they soon disappear like in sand dunes exposed to shifting winds. The patterns therefore do no “arise”, but are created by an external force.
- “Gradients of energy in deep vents are responsible for abiogenesis”. But all organisms from these exotic places are very similar to any other ones found elsewhere, hence all likely have the same origin. In addition, no free floating organic compounds (aside from decay byproducts) have been found there to suggest ongoing abiogenesis. And, aside from the simplest molecules, no spontaneous transitions from x-sigma to (x+1)-sigma bio complexity has ever been observed around these deep vents either.
- Of course life does not violate 2nd Organisms do conform to 2nd law when they decay as soon as they die. In addition, as observed by Erwin Schrödinger, “the increase in entropy from turning our low-entropy food into our high-entropy waste is greater than the local decrease in entropy from making the well-ordered structures within our bodies”. Nothing special so far – a refrigerator does the same: creates a zone of low-entropy while the entropy of the whole system increases and for as long as it’s fed energy.
- Randomness can theoretically account for any bizarre occurrences including Paley’s watch and F. Hoyle’s 747 in baby steps if enough time is given. But no such event was ever observed. In addition, breaking down the unattainable complex system into a combination of simpler components, each with higher probability of occurrence makes it no easier as the probabilities of all subsystem have to be multiplied to get back to the complex final assembly.
- Some claim that life itself prevents abiogenesis by ingesting all intermediate molecules spontaneously formed, but this can be easily prevented in sterile labs. In addition, all complex intermediate molecules observed outside of cells are due to decomposition, not abiogenesis.
- “Evolution” corollary number 1. If abiogenesis is impossible as an undirected, natural process, then whoever is responsible for abiogenesis is also responsible for the biologic landscape past and present, therefore “evolution” is also impossible as an undirected, natural process.
- “Evolution” corollary number 2. It is easy to verify that nothing ever “evolves” in the nonliving nature. Life is said to be “just chemistry”. These two combine to: nothing “evolves” in the living either. Solar systems, geographical features, fluid eddies, chemistry, snow flakes, etc. all go through their life cycles, and all are different from each other, but the life cycles of the newer entities are no more “evolved” than the life cycles of the ancient ones.
- “Evolution” corollary number 3. Presumably, “evolution” has not ended. And if ongoing, then one must see the normal distribution of the different transitioning organisms (the intermediary), just as we would see if abiogenesis were true. If humans evolved from monkeys and “evolution” is ongoing, then humans must still be in transition especially since the human population is one of the largest of all mammals and, the more individuals, the more “evolving” opportunities. The older Darwinists replied with a hierarchy of races. But that reply is not only fashionably repugnant, but also false and, amazingly, contrary to [at least] the Abrahamic religions that have always known better.
- In conclusion, abiogenesis is nothing more than the decay process running backwards, therefore easily visualized, yet impossible according to the second law of thermodynamics. In other words, “evolution” is nothing more than imagination run wild. Expecting abiogenesis to be within reach if only the proper forces and chemical compounds were added is as wrong as expecting the broken egg to come back together if only the proper sequence of forces were applied to the broken pieces.
Summary:
- A spontaneous process cannot revert spontaneously.
- Mixtures will never ever spontaneously separate per second law.
- Decreasing entropy is not the reverse process of entropy increasing and also much more complex.
- Once in equilibrium, a “primordial soup” does not change spontaneously.
- A “primordial soup” cannot generate life even if energy is applied due to dynamic equilibrium.
- If natural processes were capable of generating life, the environment would be full of intermediate bio-compounds.
- Apart from life itself, the complex molecules of life are nowhere to be found in the universe.
- Abiogenesis experiments belong to the Reverse Engineering category of processes.
- Miller–Urey style abiogenesis experiments are ill conceived, hence doomed from the beginning.
- Abiogenesis unique event conflicts with the “no miracles” clause of materialism.
- Even if entropy allowed abiogenesis, the laws of life do not follow from any priors (physics, chemistry, mathematics).
- “Evolution” corollary number 1 – no abiogenesis, no “evolution”.
- “Evolution” corollary number 2 – no “evolution” in the inert and “life just chemistry”, then no “evolution” in the living.
- “Evolution” corollary number 3 – no intermediate “evolving” entities, no “evolution”.
- Being a decay process running backwards, abiogenesis is as impossible as a broken egg being reconstituted by the “proper sequence of forces”. “Evolution” is also nothing more than imagination run wild.
(*)R. Penrose “The Emperor’s new mind”; PBS SpaceTime “The Misunderstood Nature of Entropy”; Sean Carroll “From Eternity to Here”, etc.
Links:
Abiogenesis: The Faith and the Facts
James Tour: The Mystery of the Origin of Life
Chirality, Maillard – caramelization, characterize the structure at every step:
https://creation.com/why-the-miller-urey-research-argues-against-abiogenesis
https://evolutionnews.org/2014/06/squeezing_the_l/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21422282
Entropy of a box of molecules
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2253472/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normal_distribution#Cumulative_distribution_function
http://physics.bu.edu/~redner/211-sp06/class-engines/class25_secondlaw.html
https://www.quora.com/How-quickly-is-the-entropy-of-the-sun-changing
https://www.thoughtco.com/how-many-atoms-in-human-cell-603882
https://www.amazon.com/Mysteries-Modern-Physics-Sean-Carroll/dp/1598038699
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Elements_abundance-bars.svg – abundance in the solar system
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller%E2%80%93Urey_experiment
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proteinogenic_amino_acid
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_gene_synthesis
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/a-new-physics-theory-of-life/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dissipative_system
https://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/dynamic/exploring.html
But you do believe the mind is the output of molecules, right? How could that “emergence” happen?
How do molecules get together and “reflect”? Is my concrete pavement reflecting too? What exactly makes you so superior to your cousin, the concrete wall?
You’re not gonna blame it on the fallacy of composition again, are you? And since you’re reflecting, assuming not like your cousin, the concrete fence, reflect on why “A therefore B” is NOT the same as “Not A therefore Not B”? Haha.
Hey, whatever happened to your broken eggshell? Did you get lost in Yorkshire (I believe)? Or did you come to your senses?
On another note, here’s another bearded guru blowing smoke out of his ears about entropy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F0b8b_ykPQk . Haha.
Gurus excluded, are we all clear now that entropy is asymmetrical, hence the arrow of time and hence the impossibility of abiogenesis?
Not the output, the activity. It’s not the same. And not “of molecules”, but of some arrangement of some types of molecules (to put it simply). It’s not as if molecules are filled with thoughts that come out as farts (as funny as it would be to say that yours are farts, they’re not).
Your question seems ill-posed. But let’s try and be kind: in the same way molecules can “get together” and run, or “get together” and compute. It depends on the molecules and their arrangements.
Why would it? As far as I know, the composition and arrangement of concrete is not conducive to such an activity.
Again, not clear what you want to ask. The kindest interpretation here is that you mean to say that the concrete wall is my cousin and you’re asking about our differences. We’re not cousins in any meaningful interpretation of the word. The difference is obvious: our molecules and arrangements are not even similar.
Why not? It’s obviously a fallacy of composition. As if atoms arranged as cars were no different to atoms arranged as a bunch of pebbles. According to your position, even the most obviously physical stuff would be the same to you. You’d take a bunch of pebbles and try and drive it to the airport, for no reason, since you would also imagine that you can take the bunch of pebbles and fly to your destination. The fallacy is so clear that I don’t understand your problem. Well, actually I do understand: you seem to have problems thinking beyond your immediate intended effect. You thought you were making fun of “materialism” period. You could not think far enough to notice that you were ridiculing your intelligence instead. Now you’re stuck trying to fix your mistake, when the obvious solution is to admit it and move on.
I already know those are not the same. I also know those are far from representing the fallacy of composition you tried to disguise by changing “true” for “not true.” I suspect you know that too, only you thought I wouldn’t notice, again you being unable to see beyond you immediate intended effect.
I’m trying here. You make it hard, but I’m trying. We’ll see if you have it in you to have a conversation, or if we continue with me just pointing and laughing at your incoherence. Your choice.
Entropy,
Have to say I admire your patience, Entropy.
Alan Fox,
I have been so busy dealing with depressed students after a hard term with confinement and distance-education, that I didn’t have the mindset to make fun of Nonlin. So, I’m trying for a conversation, but I suspect that Nonlin will ruin it quickly enough.
Entropy,
I think that’s right. Another way of putting it would be to say that all talk of mind is talk about a class of formally defined functional structures, so it’s a category mistake to ask what kind of stuff mind is made of.
Same here. It’s been hell on them.
So the mind is the output of some molecules arrangement? Can you prove this in any way shape or form? What kind of molecules?
Different, yes… as cousins are. What makes YOUR molecules (or arrangement) so special? This crystal-clear question wasn’t answered. And any proof of anything?
Last I checked, molecules do NOT “get together” and run, or “get together” and compute. Can you run an experiment to prove your claim? God and WE – intelligent humans – put together some molecules and God and WE make them compute. By themselves, they do NOT. And “compute” is something only WE, the humans, need, demand, and appreciate.
What position? Asking inconvenient questions of your untenable belief is not a position.
And you clearly don’t understand how that particular fallacy works – I won’t explain yet again.
You do? Then can you formalize said fallacy as I did and show ONE statement I make that fits it? Because I’m positive we’re dealing with a fallacy of emergence instead.
I know, right? Someone hit banana-nirvana… It’s a good thing.
So back with your illiteracy: not the output, the activity. Second time I write it.
Why would I try and prove something I didn’t claim?
Holy crap! Nonlin thinks that she’s as similar to her cousin as she is to a concrete wall!
🤣😂🤣😂🤣
I gave you a crystal clear answer. You quoted it right there. Your illiteracy shall become legendary. Either way, if you don’t see the difference, the problem is neither materialism nor physicalism. The problem is you.
😏
Proof that different arrangements of different kinds of molecules display different properties!? How poor has your education being? No wonder you’re so confused about everything.
🤣😂
There I was trying to interpret your incoherence in the kindest way. But OK, since your own vocabulary is incoherent to you, let’s go back to your original “question”:
According to yourself, some monkeys just fucked and you were born. I wouldn’t be so sure that you can reflect though.
🤣😂🤣😂🤣
I’m sorry, but it’s your belief that one physical form is pretty much the same as any other physical form, not mine. Read again: you’ll see that the only one here who has trouble physically distinguishing concrete from people is you.
🤣😂🤣😂🤣
Explain? You haven’t explained anything. You’ve been trying to excuse your mistakes by making them worse. You didn’t even know about that fallacy until I told you. It’s you who needs to understand how it works. You’ve been producing examples with gusto, ridiculing your own intelligence in the process.
“Formalize”!? You call your self-ridiculing attempts at obfuscating “formalize”!?
🤣😂🤣😂🤣
I already did my illiterate entertainment. Read again. Oh. Sorry, you cannot read. You’re condemned to repeat your mistakes again and again and again. Your problem, my entertainment.
🤣😂🤣😂🤣
It’s extraordinarily ironic that this demand was followed by:
I suppose that Nonlin has run experiments proving her claim that “God and WE” put together some molecules and make them compute. I have put computers to run my programs. Not once have I asked any gods to make them run. My programs contain no prayers either. I’ve been to some computer factories, none of them had gods making computers. Lots of human workers and machinery, but no gods. Maybe they put those gods in chains and hide them in the basement when there’s visitors to the factory.
Curiously enough, the computers are physical, they obviously work physically, and they don’t look like a bunch of pebbles, despite Nonlin might have trouble distinguishing any of them from her cousins.
🤣😂🤣😂🤣🤣😂🤣😂🤣🤣😂🤣😂🤣🤣😂🤣😂🤣🤣😂🤣😂🤣🤣😂🤣😂🤣🤣😂🤣😂🤣🤣😂🤣😂🤣🤣😂🤣😂🤣🤣😂🤣😂🤣🤣😂🤣😂🤣🤣😂🤣😂🤣🤣😂🤣😂🤣🤣😂🤣😂🤣🤣😂🤣😂🤣🤣😂🤣😂🤣🤣😂🤣😂🤣🤣😂🤣😂🤣🤣😂🤣😂🤣🤣😂🤣😂🤣🤣😂🤣😂🤣🤣😂🤣😂🤣🤣😂🤣😂🤣
So no proof of anything. As expected.
In addition, you can’t articulate what exactly makes you different than your more intelligent concrete-brain cousin.
And you can’t show how the supposed fallacy applies here. But you think you can just negate a statement without changing its meaning. Haha.
Nope. The part about God is a belief plus inductive reasoning. And you just confirmed the part about “we”.
One thing is certain: molecules do NOT “get together” and run, or “get together” and compute. And of course, “compute” is something only WE, the humans, need, demand, and appreciate.
What’s the difference in your mind (I mean “activity”)?
My poor illiterate Nonlin. There’s no need to prove the obvious. We see it all the time, all around us. There’s lots and lots and lots of physically different things. That they’re physical and yet they’re different is so obvious that demanding proof that they’re different is rather silly. To put it mildly. I am therefore astounded that you have trouble physically distinguishing a concrete wall from your cousin. But how’s that my fault?
I articulated it. But there’s no need for that. Any normal person can physically distinguish between their cousins and concrete walls. Only you seem to have a problem with that. I cannot fix your brain. Sorry. I’m neither a neurosurgeon, nor a psychiatrist. If I were I would charge you though. Your problem is too difficult to try and fix for free.
I explained it very carefully. Look again. If you don’t see it, try again and again. Maybe take a course on reading for comprehension and then try yet again.
Nice try, but I never said such a thing. I laughed at your pathetic attempt at claiming that your fallacy was not of composition:
It’s not a simple negation Nonlin. Also, I dealt with it swiftly and efficiently, more than once, which is why you’re so afraid to put it in the same words you used before. You know you screwed up.
To add insult to injury, let’s see your original fallacy of composition:
You’re clearly saying that it’s true that the chemicals are mindless and conclude that it’s true that the “evolutionists” are mindless. So, let’s see you screwing it up again.
Do you ever get embarrassed when you screw up?
🤣😂😂😂🤣🤣
Then you should not demand experimental evidence from anyone else. I don’t care one bit about your silly beliefs, and your “inductive reasoning” if it were a million times better than any reasoning you perform here, would not be precisely reliable. And you did not say “we” you said “God and WE” and I have not seen a single god doing anything of the sort. Sorry.
Again, that was your wording. If you find your own vocabulary unintelligible, then I should not have given you the benefit of the doubt. It’s still your problem to fix your vocabulary. Not mine.
I doubt you’d have the literacy to understand the difference between activity and output if I explained it to you. I normally speak with people who can read for comprehension, and you’re not one. Finish kindergarten, if you can, and then we might be able to give it a try.
Though I appreciate your commitment to entertain me, now you’re too predictable and boring. Thanks anyway.
Mung,
No he doesn’t, he thinks entropy is a measure of the capacity of a system to do useful work. But how he thinks that is best represented qualitatively is by recognising that entropy increase is always accompanied by energy dispersal, and not by an increase in that hard-to-define quality ‘order’. The two ideas tie together: energy becomes unavailable for work as a consequence of its dispersal.
Which one? Just a generic one or a specific one? Thor?
Little monkey – having been cornered – writes a tome to justify the nonsense with even more nonsense. But he will not answer even ONE question. Because he doesn’t know anything about anything. Flinging poo is all he knows. Even the little angry concrete monkeys from sex with his concrete cousin puzzle him.
You’ve been cornered since your very first OP, thus it’s good to see that you’re finally catching up on it.
I didn’t know that your problem distinguishing between your cousin and a concrete wall got you trying to have sex with the wall. That sends a weird message about how you think of your cousins, who are lucky you mistake them for the wall.
OMagain,
Nonlin’s is a computer-builder god, who also makes computers compute.
Clueless little monkey doesn’t even see the entropy difference between himself and his dry concrete lover. That’s why he always ends up in the ER after sex.
Cargo cult and “molecule activity” (tennis? volleyball?) aside, his little mindless mind is partly explained by entropy. That’s right L&G, the one and only forbidder of abiogenesis.
Some people never learn how stupid they are:
…At the time, the officially atheist Soviet propaganda machine announced that Gagarin had said, “I went up to space, but I didn’t encounter God.” But that was a lie.
Finally, here’s another dummy that thinks he’s got abiogenesis all figured out… complete with a refutation of his superior adversary: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SixyZ7DkSjA
Narrator: And with that nonlin truly became indistinguishable from JoeG for the very first time and forevermore they were intertwined in bliss.
http://intelligentreasoning.blogspot.com/
I know! You, poor monkey, keep asking for proof that you and your cousins are different to a concrete wall! It’s hilarious!
🤣😂🤣😂🤣🤣😂🤣😂🤣🤣😂🤣😂🤣🤣😂🤣😂🤣🤣😂🤣😂🤣🤣😂🤣😂🤣🤣😂🤣😂🤣🤣😂🤣😂🤣🤣😂🤣😂🤣🤣😂🤣😂🤣🤣😂🤣😂🤣🤣😂🤣😂🤣🤣😂🤣😂🤣🤣😂🤣😂🤣🤣😂🤣😂🤣🤣😂🤣😂🤣🤣😂🤣😂🤣🤣😂🤣😂🤣🤣😂🤣😂🤣🤣😂🤣😂🤣🤣😂🤣😂🤣🤣😂🤣😂🤣🤣😂🤣😂🤣
You’re very good at those autobiographical sketches!
🤣😂🤣😂🤣🤣😂🤣😂🤣🤣😂🤣😂🤣🤣😂🤣😂🤣🤣😂🤣😂🤣🤣😂🤣😂🤣🤣😂🤣😂🤣🤣😂🤣😂🤣🤣😂🤣😂🤣🤣😂🤣😂🤣🤣😂🤣😂🤣🤣😂🤣😂🤣🤣😂🤣😂🤣🤣😂🤣😂🤣🤣😂🤣😂🤣🤣😂🤣😂🤣🤣😂🤣😂🤣🤣😂🤣😂🤣🤣😂🤣😂🤣🤣😂🤣😂🤣🤣😂🤣😂🤣🤣😂🤣😂🤣🤣😂🤣😂🤣
Has anyone ever seen Nonlin and Joe G in the same room together? 😮
Too risky for JoeG if he’s Nonlin’s cousin. Safe if there’s a concrete wall nearby. Nonlin would not be able to tell the difference.
Came across this while looking for something else:
http://physics.gmu.edu/~roerter/EvolutionEntropy.htm
Apologies for misspelling your name. I do make an effort to get it right, though I rather obviously sometimes fail in that. 🙂
Entropy is a measure. We agree on that.
System. Useful. Work. Energy can do more useful work if it is not dispersed. Depending on the system.
Do you think the energy dispersed from the sun does more useful work the closer it is to the sun? It seems it does more useful work here, on earth. Where it is more dispersed. But maybe that’s just me being anthropocentric.
So sort of like asking what sort of stuff God is made of.
I am confused by this, why would it be a category mistake to ask what a functional structure is made of? Is it not a thing?
Describe for us, the structure of your mind, Phoodoo.
Perhaps “thing” is too broad, encompasses too much. A formal structure is a set of rules, and a set of formal relationships. If it’s a “thing” made of something, it’s made of concepts, ideas, theoretical models. What is time made of? Or speed, or distance, or direction?
Mung,
Probably. ‘Useful’ is not a value judgement.
Energy dispersal can be intercepted, transferring a proportion of the ‘capacity to do useful work’ from one part of the overall system to another. Indeed, energy cannot do any work without dispersing.
phoodoo only jumps on command for blood money.
I never know if it’s worth answering your queries, but here it goes. The conversation was not about a functional structure. Nonlin repeatedly said that I claim the mind to be made of “mere molecules.” I answered, twice, that I did not claim such a thing. After a while ignoring my answers Nonlin finally asked then what did I think, I said that, in my experience, when we discuss the mind, we are normally talking about an activity, that I don’t claim the mind to be made of molecules for the same reason I don’t claim that running is made of molecules. They’re activities, not “things.” Thus the category error.
You or someone else linked to this before. Is it the best you have? Because the claim here is primarily that “entropy forbids abiogenesis”. Implications for “evolution” are corollaries:
12. “Evolution” corollary number 1 – no abiogenesis, no “evolution”.
13. “Evolution” corollary number 2 – no “evolution” in the inert and “life just chemistry”, then no “evolution” in the living.
14. “Evolution” corollary number 3 – no intermediate “evolving” entities, no “evolution”.
The only reason “evolution” cannot be pinned down more directly is because its claims keep shifting like the hunted fairy tale beast it is.
Useful to whom? You, Allan, God?!?
Better asked: “WTF is a “functional structure” anyway?
Is “formal” same as “functional”?
Who would do the “interception”? Can you materialistas stop referring to the Intelligent Designer you keep denying?
Molecule “activities” to be more precise. So if the mind is made of “activities” of the famous molecules, two questions come up:
1. WTF is a “molecule activity”?
2. And how are “molecule activities” not “things” when tennis (an activity) is a thing. And so is writing, playing, etc.
Grammar: The proper wording is “Molecular activities” not “Molecule activities”.
Your “precision” is a tad off, since relatively large scale activities are not necessarily decomposable into molecular activities alone. You seem to suffer from abject reductionism, which would explain your proclivity to fallacies of composition, as well as your inability to understand what these fallacies are about.
As I said, extreme reductionism. Running is not “made of” “Molecule activities” either. For example, in animals, despite molecular activities are involved in powering the muscles involved, those molecular activities are not running. Thus running is not “made of” such activities.
If you say so.
I don’t know, you invented the wording. If you meant WTF is a molecular activity, then it’s simple: an activity performed by a molecule(s). Are you truly that dumb?
You cannot be that stupid Nonlin. It’s almost as if you didn’t want to understand the point. Have you heard of the fallacy of equivocation?
While we already established that entropy doesn’t “forbid” abiogenesis, none of that follows. It doesn’t matter how life started for evolution to happen. This was already dealt with before. You seem rather impervious to reason.
Have you heard of the non sequitur fallacy?
Entropy,
It doesn’t matter how God started for God to exist. It doesn’t matter who made God for God to have made the world.
It doesn’t matter why God did something to know God did something. It doesn’t matter what consciousness is like in Heaven to know what consciousness is like on Earth.
Everything we don’t don’t know about God is irrelevant to knowing if there is a God.
But surely you must know something about your god, if only to recognize it by its spoor. As far as I can tell, your knowledge of your god is constructed by imagining what your god probably is responsible for, noticing such things, and concluding therefore your god exists. Kind of like imagining that leprechauns are responsible for rainbows, and using the existence of rainbows as evidence leprechauns exist.
This isn’t as clearly dumb as it sounds. We’re about to have a bunch of Republicans challenge Biden’s election on the grounds that there have been so many allegations of fraud. NOT that they think there WAS fraud, or that they can produce any. But with all their allegations, there must be something there, right? They are using their allegations as evidence of fraud because, well, just look at all those allegations they’ve made!
phoodoo,
Your attempt at finding non sequiturs about your imaginary friend seems to redefine it in terms foreign to any Christian, or monotheist, belief I have heard about before. Is it even worth using a capital G for the kind of god you’re describing?
False.
In order to know there is a God, you need to have evidence for the existence of God. In order to have evidence for the existence of God, you must have some expectation of what to find if God exists. In order to have expectations of what to find if God exists, you must know something about what effects a God would have on the world. Thus you must know something about God to have evidence that justifies a claim that you know He exists.
If you know (in some way) that God wants to create something X in particular, and you have no expectation that something X should exist if God does not exist, then finding X is evidence that God exists. But then you need to know (in some way) that God wants to create X, otherwise X can’t be evidence for God’s existence.
Rumraket,
In order to know how life progresses you have to know how it began.
Thank you for pointing out the weakness of your argument. Suit yourself.
Entropy,
Oh don’t be silly. Not defining God is defining it in a way foreign to others. That doesn’t even make sense as any kind of objection. God exists, based on the evidence of its creation. That doesn’t require other diversions.
I think the easiest refutation to Rumrakets point is the discovery of the antikythera device. When it was found in the water we knew it was created with intelligence, even without knowing a single thing about its origin, it’s purpose, it’s method of creation, it’s age, nothing. All we knew was that it looks purposeful. Later we figured out it’s purpose. Humans can make such observations. Some just refuse to do so because they don’t like the implications.
Don’t think this assertion is correct.
Take it ur with Rumraket. , he just gave a lengthy dissertation on why he thinks it is correct.
phoodoo,
Rumraket was talking about gods. I reckon gods are simply human imagination but if others find comfort in the idea, it’s fine by me.
But the theory of evolution begins with the assumption that there were self-sustaining self-replicators from which all extant and extinct life descends. Where and how those replicators came to be is not a part of the theory.
What is the purpose of life?
And are you sure that people refuse to do so because they don’t like the implications? What are those implications? Are you capable of detailing them?
Here’s one from me: Your god makes eye worms that blind children because it’s a cunt, worshipped by cunts like you.
How did life begin? You can’t say either.
Oh, I see! He can select the logic he wants depending on the topic. Wow, what a cool strategy. I think I will start using this. Like now!
Oh, you are talking about evolution. The theory of evolution must first prove the theory of how life started, because, well, I just decided THIS is the logic you have to use for evolution. Customized logic. Awesome!
Sadly for you nobody gives a shit about what you do and don’t decide. If you were, say, a person running a classroom where people were scored by you on what you taught them then perhaps what you ‘decide’ might matter in some way that other people would have to care about.
But the fact is you are a tiny man with no influence over anything anybody says or does. So what you ‘decide’ has no significance at all.
It’s not an objection, it’s a description of this brand new god you implied.
I don’t know of such evidence or such creation, I just disagree on using a capital G for the kind of god you implied. If anything goes, you might as well be talking about lots of “gods,” rather than just one, and explain that the word, for you, just means some beings with technologies beyond human ones.
The item looks enough like other human-made mechanisms, with enough contrast against the rest of nature, for the discoverers to infer that it was made by people like themselves. Therefore this supports Rumraket’s point, rather than refute it. In order to blame a god for something you’d need examples of what something made by this god looks like and what hallmarks to expect. You need ways to contrast such “creations” against the rest of nature. You need some evidence of the existence of such god, at least during the times when such suspected “creations” were made.
I don’t refuse to make such observations. I have made them. I have found watches, cell phones, etc, and inferred them to belong to someone. I have thus taken them to lost-and-found, etc.
There is no change in logic. You are missing the point. Rumraket’s was talking about what to expect from “God,” not about knowing where that god came from. Evolution is treated exactly the same way, with exactly the same logic. We know something about the phenomena so far inferred to be involved in evolution. Hypothesis have been drawn about what to expect given such phenomena, and tests have been performed against such hypotheses. When another phenomenon is suspected to also be involved, tests are devised for it, etc.
Well, there’s no logic police here.
M’kay…
The snag is that evolutionary theory is based on the assumption that there were self-sustaining self-replicators from which all extant and extinct life evolved. So far, there is no evidence to enable us to make more than informed guesses as to what these replicators were like or how and where they came to be. There is a window for when, though, between when Earth was cool enough for liquid water to form and the earliest indications of life on this planet, say between 4 to 3.5 billion years ago
Especially as it was discovered in the remains of a
GreekRoman shipwreck in Greek waters off the island of Antikythera dated to 70 – 60 BC.ETA
Precisely. I do so enjoy phoodoo’s attempts at reductio.
Stop hiding behind “wording”. What “activity” do molecules “perform”? And how do you get from there to the mind? Or just admit you have no fucking clue and are just making up bullshit.
Yep. That’s what you do all the time.
So your superior compadres abandoned you after making fools of themselves with various retard claims like “potential energy factors into entropy” and “entropy reduction is spontaneous in crystallization”. And “something something eggshell”… Haha.
Not to hysterical little monkeys. They get away with stealing the banana and flinging poo, but you don’t.
That’s hilarious. We talk about God /gravity /etc. because we see what God /gravity / etc. does, not because we follow your dead end contorted reasoning. Then dummies like Darwin come up with alternative explanations that obviously can’t possibly work, so in the end we have to stick with what works.
False. Read again. He clearly wrote God, not “gods”.
Correction: “So far, there is no evidence of any replicators, period”. And of course, entropy forbids all that.
You mean as the DNA looks like code Created by Intelligent Designers?
Then little hysterical monkey wasn’t completely abandoned by his superiors? That nonetheless gave up their so hilarious nonsensical claims? Now, that is “enjoyment”.
Can you name two-three hypothesis /tests for “evolution”?