Discussion:
Devolution or Evolution?
Add Reply
A***@yahoo.com
2017-11-18 18:28:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
What makes more sense?

Science says that things get worse not better on a world such as ours.


Evolution says that things started as single cells evolving to greater complex things.



So what is true, science or evolution.


Discuss.
Atlatl Axolotl
2017-11-18 18:56:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by A***@yahoo.com
What makes more sense?
Science says that things get worse not better on a world such as ours.
Evolution says that things started as single cells evolving to greater complex things.
So what is true, science or evolution.
Discuss.
Nothing other than the weary old "The Second Law forbids evolution" fallacy.

So you're saying things in a very high state of entropy --- CO2
diluted to parts per million, dissolved minerals at that level or less, and
water itself, in the chaotic liquid state -- cannot somehow turn
into a highly structured lower entropy state? Like, say, an oak tree?

Life is a far from equilibrium dissipative process, and so can
locally reverse entropy at the cost of increasing it globally.

Were this to somehow magically stop being true, you'd be dead in seconds.

This is well studied. Check out Ilya Prigogine's " Self-Organization in
Non-Equilibrium Systems" for an in depth discussion. The boy got a
Nobel for his work in this area.


AA
A***@yahoo.com
2017-11-18 19:17:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by A***@yahoo.com
What makes more sense?
Science says that things get worse not better on a world such as ours.
Evolution says that things started as single cells evolving to greater complex things.
So what is true, science or evolution.
Discuss.
Nothing other than the weary old "The Second Law forbids evolution" fallacy.
We see that there are genetic limits and we do not see innovation. We do see genetic defects and mutations - a downward spin.
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
So you're saying things in a very high state of entropy --- CO2
diluted to parts per million, dissolved minerals at that level or less, and
water itself, in the chaotic liquid state -- cannot somehow turn
into a highly structured lower entropy state? Like, say, an oak tree?
Life is a far from equilibrium dissipative process, and so can
locally reverse entropy at the cost of increasing it globally.
Were this to somehow magically stop being true, you'd be dead in seconds.
This is well studied. Check out Ilya Prigogine's " Self-Organization in
Non-Equilibrium Systems" for an in depth discussion. The boy got a
Nobel for his work in this area.
IF Ilya Prigogine's self organization material had any real impact we might of seen whole industries built upon it. It stopped there because special laboratory conditions and energy input from the scientist's brain made it happen. That's about it.
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
AA
Atlatl Axolotl
2017-11-18 19:22:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by A***@yahoo.com
What makes more sense?
Science says that things get worse not better on a world such as ours.
Evolution says that things started as single cells evolving to greater complex things.
So what is true, science or evolution.
Discuss.
Nothing other than the weary old "The Second Law forbids evolution" fallacy.
.> We see that there are genetic limits

Oooh, "genetic limits"! Maybe you can specify exactly what these
are. Andrew flees at high speed whenever he's challenged to describe
these supposed limits in technical terms.

Can you do better:



.> and we do not see innovation. We do see genetic defects and mutations - a downward spin.

So, you can't drink milk then?
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
So you're saying things in a very high state of entropy --- CO2
diluted to parts per million, dissolved minerals at that level or less, and
water itself, in the chaotic liquid state -- cannot somehow turn
into a highly structured lower entropy state? Like, say, an oak tree?
Life is a far from equilibrium dissipative process, and so can
locally reverse entropy at the cost of increasing it globally.
Were this to somehow magically stop being true, you'd be dead in seconds.
This is well studied. Check out Ilya Prigogine's " Self-Organization in
Non-Equilibrium Systems" for an in depth discussion. The boy got a
Nobel for his work in this area.
.> IF Ilya Prigogine's self organization material had any real impact we might of seen whole industries built upon it. It stopped there because special laboratory conditions and energy input from the scientist's brain made it happen. That's about it.


Wow. You have zero compunction against simply making shit up from scratch,
do you? Handsfull at a time.l

Not that this is a new phenomenon.

AA
A***@yahoo.com
2017-11-18 19:27:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by A***@yahoo.com
What makes more sense?
Science says that things get worse not better on a world such as ours.
Evolution says that things started as single cells evolving to greater complex things.
So what is true, science or evolution.
Discuss.
Nothing other than the weary old "The Second Law forbids evolution" fallacy.
.> We see that there are genetic limits
Oooh, "genetic limits"! Maybe you can specify exactly what these
are. Andrew flees at high speed whenever he's challenged to describe
these supposed limits in technical terms.
yes, it's limited to the process of replicate. The DNA, RNA and TRNA. So what's is limited? The limitation of preexisting information.
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
.> and we do not see innovation. We do see genetic defects and mutations - a downward spin.
So, you can't drink milk then?
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
So you're saying things in a very high state of entropy --- CO2
diluted to parts per million, dissolved minerals at that level or less, and
water itself, in the chaotic liquid state -- cannot somehow turn
into a highly structured lower entropy state? Like, say, an oak tree?
Life is a far from equilibrium dissipative process, and so can
locally reverse entropy at the cost of increasing it globally.
Were this to somehow magically stop being true, you'd be dead in seconds.
This is well studied. Check out Ilya Prigogine's " Self-Organization in
Non-Equilibrium Systems" for an in depth discussion. The boy got a
Nobel for his work in this area.
.> IF Ilya Prigogine's self organization material had any real impact we might of seen whole industries built upon it. It stopped there because special laboratory conditions and energy input from the scientist's brain made it happen. That's about it.
Wow. You have zero compunction against simply making shit up from scratch,
do you? Handsfull at a time.l
Not that this is a new phenomenon.
AA
Atlatl Axolotl
2017-11-18 19:38:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by A***@yahoo.com
What makes more sense?
Science says that things get worse not better on a world such as ours.
Evolution says that things started as single cells evolving to greater complex things.
So what is true, science or evolution.
Discuss.
Nothing other than the weary old "The Second Law forbids evolution" fallacy.
.> We see that there are genetic limits
Oooh, "genetic limits"! Maybe you can specify exactly what these
are. Andrew flees at high speed whenever he's challenged to describe
these supposed limits in technical terms.
.> yes, it's limited to the process of replicate. The DNA, RNA and TRNA. So what's is limited? The limitation of preexisting information.

Nope. There are multiple ways a genome can acquire new information.
Lateral gene transfer. Duplication of a gene, followed by mutation of one
of the copies. Genomic capture -- ask your mitochondria about that one.

Or, for that matter, simple mutation, deletion, frame shift, and
a number of other processes. Any alteration which results in
a protein being produced where that protein previously was not is new information.

And even in the absence of new information, modified expression
of current genes, epigenetics, and above all developmental alterations
can lead to adaptations and open new niches to exploitation.

It's not at all like buying a new car and watching it slide irreversibly
downhill. Life adapts.


AA
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
.> and we do not see innovation. We do see genetic defects and mutations - a downward spin.
So, you can't drink milk then?
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
So you're saying things in a very high state of entropy --- CO2
diluted to parts per million, dissolved minerals at that level or less, and
water itself, in the chaotic liquid state -- cannot somehow turn
into a highly structured lower entropy state? Like, say, an oak tree?
Life is a far from equilibrium dissipative process, and so can
locally reverse entropy at the cost of increasing it globally.
Were this to somehow magically stop being true, you'd be dead in seconds.
This is well studied. Check out Ilya Prigogine's " Self-Organization in
Non-Equilibrium Systems" for an in depth discussion. The boy got a
Nobel for his work in this area.
.> IF Ilya Prigogine's self organization material had any real impact we might of seen whole industries built upon it. It stopped there because special laboratory conditions and energy input from the scientist's brain made it happen. That's about it.
Wow. You have zero compunction against simply making shit up from scratch,
do you? Handsfull at a time.l
Not that this is a new phenomenon.
AA
John Locke
2017-11-18 21:57:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sat, 18 Nov 2017 11:38:50 -0800 (PST), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by A***@yahoo.com
What makes more sense?
Science says that things get worse not better on a world such as ours.
Evolution says that things started as single cells evolving to greater complex things.
So what is true, science or evolution.
Discuss.
Nothing other than the weary old "The Second Law forbids evolution" fallacy.
.> We see that there are genetic limits
Oooh, "genetic limits"! Maybe you can specify exactly what these
are. Andrew flees at high speed whenever he's challenged to describe
these supposed limits in technical terms.
.> yes, it's limited to the process of replicate. The DNA, RNA and TRNA. So what's is limited? The limitation of preexisting information.
Nope. There are multiple ways a genome can acquire new information.
Lateral gene transfer. Duplication of a gene, followed by mutation of one
of the copies. Genomic capture -- ask your mitochondria about that one.
Or, for that matter, simple mutation, deletion, frame shift, and
a number of other processes. Any alteration which results in
a protein being produced where that protein previously was not is new information.
And even in the absence of new information, modified expression
of current genes, epigenetics, and above all developmental alterations
can lead to adaptations and open new niches to exploitation.
It's not at all like buying a new car and watching it slide irreversibly
downhill. Life adapts.
...good write-up. You've already covered the basics on acquired
information quite nicely. I'll only add that there's some interesting
research into transposons which is a DNA sequence that can change its
position within a genome, creating or reversing mutations, altering
the cell's genetic identity and thus leading to new information and
possibly to a new species.
Andrew
2017-11-18 21:59:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by A***@yahoo.com
What makes more sense?
Science says that things get worse not better on a world such as ours.
Evolution says that things started as single cells evolving to greater complex things.
So what is true, science or evolution.
Discuss.
Nothing other than the weary old "The Second Law forbids evolution" fallacy.
You have been wearied because you were trying to fight against-->the truth.

Doesn't work. Science wins and the Second Law prevails; and you lost.
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
So you're saying things in a very high state of entropy --- CO2
diluted to parts per million, dissolved minerals at that level or less, and
water itself, in the chaotic liquid state -- cannot somehow turn
into a highly structured lower entropy state? Like, say, an oak tree?
You're cheating! An oak tree arises from the genetic program that
our Creator placed in the acorn. Your example fails, and you lose.
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Life is a far from equilibrium dissipative process,
The issue is what direction is it going?
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
and so can locally reverse entropy at the cost of increasing it globally.
OK, but ~only~ if there exists a Created *mechanism* for it to do so.
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Were this to somehow magically stop being true, you'd be dead in seconds.
More evidence for a Creator. He is awesome and so wonderful!
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
This is well studied. Check out Ilya Prigogine's " Self-Organization in
Non-Equilibrium Systems" for an in depth discussion. The boy got a
Nobel for his work in this area.
You need to understand that there is a difference between chemistry and
bio-chemistry. There is also a difference between speculation and reality.
Atlatl Axolotl
2017-11-18 22:20:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Andrew
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by A***@yahoo.com
What makes more sense?
Science says that things get worse not better on a world such as ours.
Evolution says that things started as single cells evolving to greater complex things.
So what is true, science or evolution.
Discuss.
Nothing other than the weary old "The Second Law forbids evolution" fallacy.
.> You have been wearied because you were trying to fight against-->the truth.

Oh, I'm -->right here, Andrew. Ready to go as many rounds as necessary.

.> Doesn't work. Science wins and the Second Law prevails; and you lost.

Science wins, the Second Law prevails, and life continues to reverse entropy on a local basis.

If not, then you're dead where you stand.
Post by Andrew
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
So you're saying things in a very high state of entropy --- CO2
diluted to parts per million, dissolved minerals at that level or less, and
water itself, in the chaotic liquid state -- cannot somehow turn
into a highly structured lower entropy state? Like, say, an oak tree?
.> You're cheating! An oak tree arises from the genetic program that
.> our Creator placed in the acorn. Your example fails, and you lose.

BZAAAP!! But thanks for playing.

My example demonstrates that life can -- temporarily -- run things
back uphill. Emergent phenomena and self-organizing complexity
are demonstrated phenomena, both in biology and in other fields.

What has not been demonstrated, by way of contrast, is your
claim about the your alleged creator and the acorn.



.> > Life is a far from equilibrium dissipative process,
.> The issue is what direction is it going?

Precisely where I've already said: increasing entropy globally
to reverse it locally.

Do you really want to get into Gibbs Free Energy here? I'm willing.
Post by Andrew
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
and so can locally reverse entropy at the cost of increasing it globally.
.> OK, but ~only~ if there exists a Created *mechanism* for it to do so.

When water freezes to ice, is that a "Created *mechanism*"?
That's an example of that very thing.
Post by Andrew
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Were this to somehow magically stop being true, you'd be dead in seconds.
More evidence for a Creator. He is awesome and so wonderful!
.> > This is well studied. Check out Ilya Prigogine's " Self-Organization in
,> > Non-Equilibrium Systems" for an in depth discussion. The boy got a
.> > Nobel for his work in this area.

.> You need to understand that there is a difference between chemistry and
.> bio-chemistry.

Oh? Please, do explain to this chemist the "difference between chemistry and
biochemistry":



.> There is also a difference between speculation and reality.

I don't see that slowing you down any.


AA
Ted
1970-01-01 00:00:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Andrew
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by A***@yahoo.com
What makes more sense?
Science says that things get worse not better on a world such as ours.
Evolution says that things started as single cells evolving to greater complex things.
So what is true, science or evolution.
Discuss.
Nothing other than the weary old "The Second Law forbids evolution" fallacy.
.> You have been wearied because you were trying to fight against-->the truth.
Oh, I'm -->right here, Andrew. Ready to go as many rounds as necessary.
.> Doesn't work. Science wins and the Second Law prevails; and you lost.
Science wins, the Second Law prevails, and life continues to reverse
entropy on a local basis.
If not, then you're dead where you stand.
Post by Andrew
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
So you're saying things in a very high state of entropy --- CO2
diluted to parts per million, dissolved minerals at that level or less, and
water itself, in the chaotic liquid state -- cannot somehow turn
into a highly structured lower entropy state? Like, say, an oak tree?
.> You're cheating! An oak tree arises from the genetic program that
.> our Creator placed in the acorn. Your example fails, and you lose.
BZAAAP!! But thanks for playing.
My example demonstrates that life can -- temporarily -- run things
back uphill. Emergent phenomena and self-organizing complexity
are demonstrated phenomena, both in biology and in other fields.
What has not been demonstrated, by way of contrast, is your
claim about the your alleged creator and the acorn.
.> > Life is a far from equilibrium dissipative process,
.> The issue is what direction is it going?
Precisely where I've already said: increasing entropy globally
to reverse it locally.
Do you really want to get into Gibbs Free Energy here? I'm willing.
Post by Andrew
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
and so can locally reverse entropy at the cost of increasing it globally.
.> OK, but ~only~ if there exists a Created *mechanism* for it to do so.
When water freezes to ice, is that a "Created *mechanism*"?
That's an example of that very thing.
Post by Andrew
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Were this to somehow magically stop being true, you'd be dead in seconds.
More evidence for a Creator. He is awesome and so wonderful!
.> > This is well studied. Check out Ilya Prigogine's " Self-Organization in
,> > Non-Equilibrium Systems" for an in depth discussion. The boy got a
.> > Nobel for his work in this area.
.> You need to understand that there is a difference between chemistry and
.> bio-chemistry.
Oh? Please, do explain to this chemist the "difference between chemistry and
.> There is also a difference between speculation and reality.
I don't see that slowing you down any.
AA
Local entropy decreases occur everywhere, all of the time, even without
life. The lying fuckwitted cretinists deliberately misunderstand the 2nd
law.
Atlatl Axolotl
2017-11-18 23:54:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ted
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Andrew
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by A***@yahoo.com
What makes more sense?
Science says that things get worse not better on a world such as ours.
Evolution says that things started as single cells evolving to greater complex things.
So what is true, science or evolution.
Discuss.
Nothing other than the weary old "The Second Law forbids evolution" fallacy.
.> You have been wearied because you were trying to fight against-->the truth.
Oh, I'm -->right here, Andrew. Ready to go as many rounds as necessary.
.> Doesn't work. Science wins and the Second Law prevails; and you lost.
Science wins, the Second Law prevails, and life continues to reverse
entropy on a local basis.
If not, then you're dead where you stand.
Post by Andrew
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
So you're saying things in a very high state of entropy --- CO2
diluted to parts per million, dissolved minerals at that level or less, and
water itself, in the chaotic liquid state -- cannot somehow turn
into a highly structured lower entropy state? Like, say, an oak tree?
.> You're cheating! An oak tree arises from the genetic program that
.> our Creator placed in the acorn. Your example fails, and you lose.
BZAAAP!! But thanks for playing.
My example demonstrates that life can -- temporarily -- run things
back uphill. Emergent phenomena and self-organizing complexity
are demonstrated phenomena, both in biology and in other fields.
What has not been demonstrated, by way of contrast, is your
claim about the your alleged creator and the acorn.
.> > Life is a far from equilibrium dissipative process,
.> The issue is what direction is it going?
Precisely where I've already said: increasing entropy globally
to reverse it locally.
Do you really want to get into Gibbs Free Energy here? I'm willing.
Post by Andrew
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
and so can locally reverse entropy at the cost of increasing it globally.
.> OK, but ~only~ if there exists a Created *mechanism* for it to do so.
When water freezes to ice, is that a "Created *mechanism*"?
That's an example of that very thing.
Post by Andrew
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Were this to somehow magically stop being true, you'd be dead in seconds.
More evidence for a Creator. He is awesome and so wonderful!
.> > This is well studied. Check out Ilya Prigogine's " Self-Organization in
,> > Non-Equilibrium Systems" for an in depth discussion. The boy got a
.> > Nobel for his work in this area.
.> You need to understand that there is a difference between chemistry and
.> bio-chemistry.
Oh? Please, do explain to this chemist the "difference between chemistry and
.> There is also a difference between speculation and reality.
I don't see that slowing you down any.
AA
Local entropy decreases occur everywhere, all of the time, even without
life. The lying fuckwitted cretinists deliberately misunderstand the 2nd
law.
Yep. Water vapor condensing to clouds. Clouds shedding snowflakes.
Amorphous carbon turning into diamonds. Global entropy increases, local
entropy decreases.

aa
Ted
1970-01-01 00:00:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Ted
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Andrew
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by A***@yahoo.com
What makes more sense?
Science says that things get worse not better on a world such as ours.
Evolution says that things started as single cells evolving to
greater complex things.
So what is true, science or evolution.
Discuss.
Nothing other than the weary old "The Second Law forbids evolution" fallacy.
.> You have been wearied because you were trying to fight against-->the truth.
Oh, I'm -->right here, Andrew. Ready to go as many rounds as necessary.
.> Doesn't work. Science wins and the Second Law prevails; and you lost.
Science wins, the Second Law prevails, and life continues to reverse
entropy on a local basis.
If not, then you're dead where you stand.
Post by Andrew
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
So you're saying things in a very high state of entropy --- CO2
diluted to parts per million, dissolved minerals at that level or less, and
water itself, in the chaotic liquid state -- cannot somehow turn
into a highly structured lower entropy state? Like, say, an oak tree?
.> You're cheating! An oak tree arises from the genetic program that
.> our Creator placed in the acorn. Your example fails, and you lose.
BZAAAP!! But thanks for playing.
My example demonstrates that life can -- temporarily -- run things
back uphill. Emergent phenomena and self-organizing complexity
are demonstrated phenomena, both in biology and in other fields.
What has not been demonstrated, by way of contrast, is your
claim about the your alleged creator and the acorn.
.> > Life is a far from equilibrium dissipative process,
.> The issue is what direction is it going?
Precisely where I've already said: increasing entropy globally
to reverse it locally.
Do you really want to get into Gibbs Free Energy here? I'm willing.
Post by Andrew
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
and so can locally reverse entropy at the cost of increasing it globally.
.> OK, but ~only~ if there exists a Created *mechanism* for it to do so.
When water freezes to ice, is that a "Created *mechanism*"?
That's an example of that very thing.
Post by Andrew
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Were this to somehow magically stop being true, you'd be dead in seconds.
More evidence for a Creator. He is awesome and so wonderful!
.> > This is well studied. Check out Ilya Prigogine's " Self-Organization in
,> > Non-Equilibrium Systems" for an in depth discussion. The boy got a
.> > Nobel for his work in this area.
.> You need to understand that there is a difference between chemistry and
.> bio-chemistry.
Oh? Please, do explain to this chemist the "difference between chemistry and
.> There is also a difference between speculation and reality.
I don't see that slowing you down any.
AA
Local entropy decreases occur everywhere, all of the time, even without
life. The lying fuckwitted cretinists deliberately misunderstand the 2nd
law.
Yep. Water vapor condensing to clouds. Clouds shedding snowflakes.
Amorphous carbon turning into diamonds. Global entropy increases, local
entropy decreases.
aa
Very good examples.
A***@yahoo.com
2017-11-19 01:35:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ted
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Ted
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Andrew
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by A***@yahoo.com
What makes more sense?
Science says that things get worse not better on a world such as ours.
Evolution says that things started as single cells evolving to
greater complex things.
So what is true, science or evolution.
Discuss.
Nothing other than the weary old "The Second Law forbids evolution" fallacy.
.> You have been wearied because you were trying to fight against-->the truth.
Oh, I'm -->right here, Andrew. Ready to go as many rounds as necessary.
.> Doesn't work. Science wins and the Second Law prevails; and you lost.
Science wins, the Second Law prevails, and life continues to reverse
entropy on a local basis.
If not, then you're dead where you stand.
Post by Andrew
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
So you're saying things in a very high state of entropy --- CO2
diluted to parts per million, dissolved minerals at that level or less, and
water itself, in the chaotic liquid state -- cannot somehow turn
into a highly structured lower entropy state? Like, say, an oak tree?
.> You're cheating! An oak tree arises from the genetic program that
.> our Creator placed in the acorn. Your example fails, and you lose.
BZAAAP!! But thanks for playing.
My example demonstrates that life can -- temporarily -- run things
back uphill. Emergent phenomena and self-organizing complexity
are demonstrated phenomena, both in biology and in other fields.
What has not been demonstrated, by way of contrast, is your
claim about the your alleged creator and the acorn.
.> > Life is a far from equilibrium dissipative process,
.> The issue is what direction is it going?
Precisely where I've already said: increasing entropy globally
to reverse it locally.
Do you really want to get into Gibbs Free Energy here? I'm willing.
Post by Andrew
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
and so can locally reverse entropy at the cost of increasing it globally.
.> OK, but ~only~ if there exists a Created *mechanism* for it to do so.
When water freezes to ice, is that a "Created *mechanism*"?
That's an example of that very thing.
Post by Andrew
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Were this to somehow magically stop being true, you'd be dead in seconds.
More evidence for a Creator. He is awesome and so wonderful!
.> > This is well studied. Check out Ilya Prigogine's " Self-Organization in
,> > Non-Equilibrium Systems" for an in depth discussion. The boy got a
.> > Nobel for his work in this area.
.> You need to understand that there is a difference between chemistry and
.> bio-chemistry.
Oh? Please, do explain to this chemist the "difference between chemistry and
.> There is also a difference between speculation and reality.
I don't see that slowing you down any.
AA
Local entropy decreases occur everywhere, all of the time, even without
life. The lying fuckwitted cretinists deliberately misunderstand the 2nd
law.
Yep. Water vapor condensing to clouds. Clouds shedding snowflakes.
Amorphous carbon turning into diamonds. Global entropy increases, local
entropy decreases.
aa
Very good examples.
No they're not. They are simple structures have no practical utility.
Atlatl Axolotl
2017-11-19 03:17:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ted
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Andrew
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by A***@yahoo.com
What makes more sense?
Science says that things get worse not better on a world such as ours.
Evolution says that things started as single cells evolving to
greater complex things.
So what is true, science or evolution.
Discuss.
Nothing other than the weary old "The Second Law forbids evolution" fallacy.
.> You have been wearied because you were trying to fight against-->the truth.
Oh, I'm -->right here, Andrew. Ready to go as many rounds as necessary.
.> Doesn't work. Science wins and the Second Law prevails; and you lost.
Science wins, the Second Law prevails, and life continues to reverse
entropy on a local basis.
If not, then you're dead where you stand.
Post by Andrew
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
So you're saying things in a very high state of entropy --- CO2
diluted to parts per million, dissolved minerals at that level or less, and
water itself, in the chaotic liquid state -- cannot somehow turn
into a highly structured lower entropy state? Like, say, an oak tree?
.> You're cheating! An oak tree arises from the genetic program that
.> our Creator placed in the acorn. Your example fails, and you lose.
BZAAAP!! But thanks for playing.
My example demonstrates that life can -- temporarily -- run things
back uphill. Emergent phenomena and self-organizing complexity
are demonstrated phenomena, both in biology and in other fields.
What has not been demonstrated, by way of contrast, is your
claim about the your alleged creator and the acorn.
.> > Life is a far from equilibrium dissipative process,
.> The issue is what direction is it going?
Precisely where I've already said: increasing entropy globally
to reverse it locally.
Do you really want to get into Gibbs Free Energy here? I'm willing.
Post by Andrew
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
and so can locally reverse entropy at the cost of increasing it globally.
.> OK, but ~only~ if there exists a Created *mechanism* for it to do so.
When water freezes to ice, is that a "Created *mechanism*"?
That's an example of that very thing.
Post by Andrew
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Were this to somehow magically stop being true, you'd be dead in seconds.
More evidence for a Creator. He is awesome and so wonderful!
.> > This is well studied. Check out Ilya Prigogine's " Self-Organization in
,> > Non-Equilibrium Systems" for an in depth discussion. The boy got a
.> > Nobel for his work in this area.
.> You need to understand that there is a difference between chemistry and
.> bio-chemistry.
Oh? Please, do explain to this chemist the "difference between chemistry and
.> There is also a difference between speculation and reality.
I don't see that slowing you down any.
AA
Local entropy decreases occur everywhere, all of the time, even without
life. The lying fuckwitted cretinists deliberately misunderstand the 2nd
law.
.> > > Yep. Water vapor condensing to clouds. Clouds shedding snowflakes.
.> > > Amorphous carbon turning into diamonds. Global entropy increases, local
.> > > entropy decreases.
aa
.> > Very good examples.
.> No they're not. They are simple structures have no practical utility.

What they are are illustrations of this:

http://tinyurl.com/y7vf2hp6

which is the single most important equation in thermodynamics.

The term on the far right has to do with the entropy of the
local system. The term in the middle involves the entropy
of the surroundings, the world, the universe. If they combine
to make the term on the left negative, then the process -- chemical,
physical, whatever -- will proceed. If not, it is forbidden.

Making it negative allows ice, snowflakes, and diamonds to form.
It also, applied one reaction at at time, is why plants can make sugar
from CO2 and water. It is why your mitochondria can make ATP.
It is why you are alive.

And it is why local systems, such as life, are not spiraling drearily downhill,
grim young earth creationists and John Sanford to the contrary.


But while you're here to pontificate to us about science, pop quiz:
why are the six arms of an snowflake identical? There's no mini genie
sitting in the middle directing them as they grow. There's no communication
among the six. So how do they turn out the same?

(hint: neither God nor Rupert Sheldrake is involved)


2A
A***@yahoo.com
2017-11-19 03:28:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Ted
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Andrew
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by A***@yahoo.com
What makes more sense?
Science says that things get worse not better on a world such as ours.
Evolution says that things started as single cells evolving to
greater complex things.
So what is true, science or evolution.
Discuss.
Nothing other than the weary old "The Second Law forbids evolution" fallacy.
.> You have been wearied because you were trying to fight against-->the truth.
Oh, I'm -->right here, Andrew. Ready to go as many rounds as necessary.
.> Doesn't work. Science wins and the Second Law prevails; and you lost.
Science wins, the Second Law prevails, and life continues to reverse
entropy on a local basis.
If not, then you're dead where you stand.
Post by Andrew
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
So you're saying things in a very high state of entropy --- CO2
diluted to parts per million, dissolved minerals at that level or less, and
water itself, in the chaotic liquid state -- cannot somehow turn
into a highly structured lower entropy state? Like, say, an oak tree?
.> You're cheating! An oak tree arises from the genetic program that
.> our Creator placed in the acorn. Your example fails, and you lose.
BZAAAP!! But thanks for playing.
My example demonstrates that life can -- temporarily -- run things
back uphill. Emergent phenomena and self-organizing complexity
are demonstrated phenomena, both in biology and in other fields.
What has not been demonstrated, by way of contrast, is your
claim about the your alleged creator and the acorn.
.> > Life is a far from equilibrium dissipative process,
.> The issue is what direction is it going?
Precisely where I've already said: increasing entropy globally
to reverse it locally.
Do you really want to get into Gibbs Free Energy here? I'm willing.
Post by Andrew
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
and so can locally reverse entropy at the cost of increasing it globally.
.> OK, but ~only~ if there exists a Created *mechanism* for it to do so.
When water freezes to ice, is that a "Created *mechanism*"?
That's an example of that very thing.
Post by Andrew
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Were this to somehow magically stop being true, you'd be dead in seconds.
More evidence for a Creator. He is awesome and so wonderful!
.> > This is well studied. Check out Ilya Prigogine's " Self-Organization in
,> > Non-Equilibrium Systems" for an in depth discussion. The boy got a
.> > Nobel for his work in this area.
.> You need to understand that there is a difference between chemistry and
.> bio-chemistry.
Oh? Please, do explain to this chemist the "difference between chemistry and
.> There is also a difference between speculation and reality.
I don't see that slowing you down any.
AA
Local entropy decreases occur everywhere, all of the time, even without
life. The lying fuckwitted cretinists deliberately misunderstand the 2nd
law.
.> > > Yep. Water vapor condensing to clouds. Clouds shedding snowflakes.
.> > > Amorphous carbon turning into diamonds. Global entropy increases, local
.> > > entropy decreases.
aa
.> > Very good examples.
.> No they're not. They are simple structures have no practical utility.
http://tinyurl.com/y7vf2hp6
which is the single most important equation in thermodynamics.
The term on the far right has to do with the entropy of the
local system. The term in the middle involves the entropy
of the surroundings, the world, the universe. If they combine
to make the term on the left negative, then the process -- chemical,
physical, whatever -- will proceed. If not, it is forbidden.
Making it negative allows ice, snowflakes, and diamonds to form.
It also, applied one reaction at at time, is why plants can make sugar
from CO2 and water. It is why your mitochondria can make ATP.
It is why you are alive.
And it is why local systems, such as life, are not spiraling drearily downhill,
grim young earth creationists and John Sanford to the contrary.
why are the six arms of an snowflake identical? There's no mini genie
sitting in the middle directing them as they grow. There's no communication
among the six. So how do they turn out the same?
(hint: neither God nor Rupert Sheldrake is involved)
2A
Crystals have random forms. Snowflakes have a basic hexagon shape surrounded by evenly spaced random appendages. Have you seen crystals form the shape of hinges, wheels on a rod, attached gears and so fourth? You'll never see it and you'll never see DNA form new things except for corruption and mutations that indicate bad.
Atlatl Axolotl
2017-11-19 03:34:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Ted
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Andrew
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by A***@yahoo.com
What makes more sense?
Science says that things get worse not better on a world such as ours.
Evolution says that things started as single cells evolving to
greater complex things.
So what is true, science or evolution.
Discuss.
Nothing other than the weary old "The Second Law forbids evolution" fallacy.
.> You have been wearied because you were trying to fight against-->the truth.
Oh, I'm -->right here, Andrew. Ready to go as many rounds as necessary.
.> Doesn't work. Science wins and the Second Law prevails; and you lost.
Science wins, the Second Law prevails, and life continues to reverse
entropy on a local basis.
If not, then you're dead where you stand.
Post by Andrew
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
So you're saying things in a very high state of entropy --- CO2
diluted to parts per million, dissolved minerals at that level or less, and
water itself, in the chaotic liquid state -- cannot somehow turn
into a highly structured lower entropy state? Like, say, an oak tree?
.> You're cheating! An oak tree arises from the genetic program that
.> our Creator placed in the acorn. Your example fails, and you lose.
BZAAAP!! But thanks for playing.
My example demonstrates that life can -- temporarily -- run things
back uphill. Emergent phenomena and self-organizing complexity
are demonstrated phenomena, both in biology and in other fields.
What has not been demonstrated, by way of contrast, is your
claim about the your alleged creator and the acorn.
.> > Life is a far from equilibrium dissipative process,
.> The issue is what direction is it going?
Precisely where I've already said: increasing entropy globally
to reverse it locally.
Do you really want to get into Gibbs Free Energy here? I'm willing.
Post by Andrew
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
and so can locally reverse entropy at the cost of increasing it globally.
.> OK, but ~only~ if there exists a Created *mechanism* for it to do so.
When water freezes to ice, is that a "Created *mechanism*"?
That's an example of that very thing.
Post by Andrew
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Were this to somehow magically stop being true, you'd be dead in seconds.
More evidence for a Creator. He is awesome and so wonderful!
.> > This is well studied. Check out Ilya Prigogine's " Self-Organization in
,> > Non-Equilibrium Systems" for an in depth discussion. The boy got a
.> > Nobel for his work in this area.
.> You need to understand that there is a difference between chemistry and
.> bio-chemistry.
Oh? Please, do explain to this chemist the "difference between chemistry and
.> There is also a difference between speculation and reality.
I don't see that slowing you down any.
AA
Local entropy decreases occur everywhere, all of the time, even without
life. The lying fuckwitted cretinists deliberately misunderstand the 2nd
law.
.> > > Yep. Water vapor condensing to clouds. Clouds shedding snowflakes.
.> > > Amorphous carbon turning into diamonds. Global entropy increases, local
.> > > entropy decreases.
aa
.> > Very good examples.
.> No they're not. They are simple structures have no practical utility.
http://tinyurl.com/y7vf2hp6
which is the single most important equation in thermodynamics.
The term on the far right has to do with the entropy of the
local system. The term in the middle involves the entropy
of the surroundings, the world, the universe. If they combine
to make the term on the left negative, then the process -- chemical,
physical, whatever -- will proceed. If not, it is forbidden.
Making it negative allows ice, snowflakes, and diamonds to form.
It also, applied one reaction at at time, is why plants can make sugar
from CO2 and water. It is why your mitochondria can make ATP.
It is why you are alive.
And it is why local systems, such as life, are not spiraling drearily downhill,
grim young earth creationists and John Sanford to the contrary.
why are the six arms of an snowflake identical? There's no mini genie
sitting in the middle directing them as they grow. There's no communication
among the six. So how do they turn out the same?
(hint: neither God nor Rupert Sheldrake is involved)
2A
.> Crystals have random forms.

Crystals have structured, defined and endlessly repeating identical units.
The only exceptions are defects. You really just make this shit up,
don't you?

.> Snowflakes have a basic hexagon shape surrounded by evenly spaced random appendages.

Yep. But each of those six in any given snowflake is a copy of the other five.
You were asked how this can happen.


.> Have you seen crystals form the shape of hinges, wheels on a rod, attached gears and so fourth? You'll never see it and you'll never see DNA form new things except for corruption and mutations that indicate bad.

A sweeping statement. Show us why this is anything other than your opinion:


And then tell us why the biologists -- Christian biologists included -- are lying to us:



AA
Ted
1970-01-01 00:00:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by A***@yahoo.com
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Ted
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Andrew
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by A***@yahoo.com
What makes more sense?
Science says that things get worse not better on a world such as ours.
Evolution says that things started as single cells evolving to
greater complex things.
So what is true, science or evolution.
Discuss.
Nothing other than the weary old "The Second Law forbids evolution" fallacy.
.> You have been wearied because you were trying to fight against-->the truth.
Oh, I'm -->right here, Andrew. Ready to go as many rounds as necessary.
.> Doesn't work. Science wins and the Second Law prevails; and you lost.
Science wins, the Second Law prevails, and life continues to reverse
entropy on a local basis.
If not, then you're dead where you stand.
Post by Andrew
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
So you're saying things in a very high state of entropy --- CO2
diluted to parts per million, dissolved minerals at that level or less, and
water itself, in the chaotic liquid state -- cannot somehow turn
into a highly structured lower entropy state? Like, say, an oak tree?
.> You're cheating! An oak tree arises from the genetic program that
.> our Creator placed in the acorn. Your example fails, and you lose.
BZAAAP!! But thanks for playing.
My example demonstrates that life can -- temporarily -- run things
back uphill. Emergent phenomena and self-organizing complexity
are demonstrated phenomena, both in biology and in other fields.
What has not been demonstrated, by way of contrast, is your
claim about the your alleged creator and the acorn.
.> > Life is a far from equilibrium dissipative process,
.> The issue is what direction is it going?
Precisely where I've already said: increasing entropy globally
to reverse it locally.
Do you really want to get into Gibbs Free Energy here? I'm willing.
Post by Andrew
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
and so can locally reverse entropy at the cost of increasing it globally.
.> OK, but ~only~ if there exists a Created *mechanism* for it to do so.
When water freezes to ice, is that a "Created *mechanism*"?
That's an example of that very thing.
Post by Andrew
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Were this to somehow magically stop being true, you'd be dead in seconds.
More evidence for a Creator. He is awesome and so wonderful!
.> > This is well studied. Check out Ilya Prigogine's " Self-Organization in
,> > Non-Equilibrium Systems" for an in depth discussion. The boy got a
.> > Nobel for his work in this area.
.> You need to understand that there is a difference between chemistry and
.> bio-chemistry.
Oh? Please, do explain to this chemist the "difference between chemistry and
.> There is also a difference between speculation and reality.
I don't see that slowing you down any.
AA
Local entropy decreases occur everywhere, all of the time, even without
life. The lying fuckwitted cretinists deliberately misunderstand the 2nd
law.
.> > > Yep. Water vapor condensing to clouds. Clouds shedding snowflakes.
.> > > Amorphous carbon turning into diamonds. Global entropy increases, local
.> > > entropy decreases.
aa
.> > Very good examples.
.> No they're not. They are simple structures have no practical utility.
http://tinyurl.com/y7vf2hp6
which is the single most important equation in thermodynamics.
The term on the far right has to do with the entropy of the
local system. The term in the middle involves the entropy
of the surroundings, the world, the universe. If they combine
to make the term on the left negative, then the process -- chemical,
physical, whatever -- will proceed. If not, it is forbidden.
Making it negative allows ice, snowflakes, and diamonds to form.
It also, applied one reaction at at time, is why plants can make sugar
from CO2 and water. It is why your mitochondria can make ATP.
It is why you are alive.
And it is why local systems, such as life, are not spiraling drearily downhill,
grim young earth creationists and John Sanford to the contrary.
why are the six arms of an snowflake identical? There's no mini genie
sitting in the middle directing them as they grow. There's no communication
among the six. So how do they turn out the same?
(hint: neither God nor Rupert Sheldrake is involved)
2A
Crystals have random forms. Snowflakes have a basic hexagon shape
surrounded by evenly spaced random appendages. Have you seen crystals
form the shape of hinges, wheels on a rod, attached gears and so fourth?
You'll never see it and you'll never see DNA form new things except for
corruption and mutations that indicate bad.
Hmm ... I'm starting to believe what Ted and Sam say about you.

Ted
2017-11-19 03:51:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by A***@yahoo.com
Post by Ted
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Ted
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Andrew
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by A***@yahoo.com
What makes more sense?
Science says that things get worse not better on a world such as ours.
Evolution says that things started as single cells evolving to
greater complex things.
So what is true, science or evolution.
Discuss.
Nothing other than the weary old "The Second Law forbids evolution" fallacy.
.> You have been wearied because you were trying to fight against-->the truth.
Oh, I'm -->right here, Andrew. Ready to go as many rounds as necessary.
.> Doesn't work. Science wins and the Second Law prevails; and you lost.
Science wins, the Second Law prevails, and life continues to reverse
entropy on a local basis.
If not, then you're dead where you stand.
Post by Andrew
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
So you're saying things in a very high state of entropy --- CO2
diluted to parts per million, dissolved minerals at that level or less, and
water itself, in the chaotic liquid state -- cannot somehow turn
into a highly structured lower entropy state? Like, say, an oak tree?
.> You're cheating! An oak tree arises from the genetic program that
.> our Creator placed in the acorn. Your example fails, and you lose.
BZAAAP!! But thanks for playing.
My example demonstrates that life can -- temporarily -- run things
back uphill. Emergent phenomena and self-organizing complexity
are demonstrated phenomena, both in biology and in other fields.
What has not been demonstrated, by way of contrast, is your
claim about the your alleged creator and the acorn.
.> > Life is a far from equilibrium dissipative process,
.> The issue is what direction is it going?
Precisely where I've already said: increasing entropy globally
to reverse it locally.
Do you really want to get into Gibbs Free Energy here? I'm willing.
Post by Andrew
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
and so can locally reverse entropy at the cost of increasing it globally.
.> OK, but ~only~ if there exists a Created *mechanism* for it to do so.
When water freezes to ice, is that a "Created *mechanism*"?
That's an example of that very thing.
Post by Andrew
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Were this to somehow magically stop being true, you'd be dead in seconds.
More evidence for a Creator. He is awesome and so wonderful!
.> > This is well studied. Check out Ilya Prigogine's " Self-Organization in
,> > Non-Equilibrium Systems" for an in depth discussion. The boy got a
.> > Nobel for his work in this area.
.> You need to understand that there is a difference between chemistry and
.> bio-chemistry.
Oh? Please, do explain to this chemist the "difference between chemistry and
.> There is also a difference between speculation and reality.
I don't see that slowing you down any.
AA
Local entropy decreases occur everywhere, all of the time, even without
life. The lying fuckwitted cretinists deliberately misunderstand the 2nd
law.
Yep. Water vapor condensing to clouds. Clouds shedding snowflakes.
Amorphous carbon turning into diamonds. Global entropy increases, local
entropy decreases.
aa
Very good examples.
No they're not. They are simple structures have no practical utility.
You weren't following the conversation. They're examples of local
entropy decrease, do you disagree?
John Locke
2017-11-18 22:21:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sat, 18 Nov 2017 16:59:39 -0500, "Andrew"
Post by Andrew
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by A***@yahoo.com
What makes more sense?
Science says that things get worse not better on a world such as ours.
Evolution says that things started as single cells evolving to greater complex things.
So what is true, science or evolution.
Discuss.
Nothing other than the weary old "The Second Law forbids evolution" fallacy.
You have been wearied because you were trying to fight against-->the truth.
Doesn't work. Science wins and the Second Law prevails; and you lost.
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
So you're saying things in a very high state of entropy --- CO2
diluted to parts per million, dissolved minerals at that level or less, and
water itself, in the chaotic liquid state -- cannot somehow turn
into a highly structured lower entropy state? Like, say, an oak tree?
You're cheating! An oak tree arises from the genetic program that
our Creator placed in the acorn. Your example fails, and you lose.
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Life is a far from equilibrium dissipative process,
The issue is what direction is it going?
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
and so can locally reverse entropy at the cost of increasing it globally.
OK, but ~only~ if there exists a Created *mechanism* for it to do so.
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Were this to somehow magically stop being true, you'd be dead in seconds.
More evidence for a Creator. He is awesome and so wonderful!
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
This is well studied. Check out Ilya Prigogine's " Self-Organization in
Non-Equilibrium Systems" for an in depth discussion. The boy got a
Nobel for his work in this area.
You need to understand that there is a difference between chemistry and
bio-chemistry. There is also a difference between speculation and reality.
..yes, so it's time for to stop speculating that there's some creator
involved with the evolutionary process and face reality.
Yap Honghor
2017-11-18 23:31:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by A***@yahoo.com
What makes more sense?
Science says that things get worse not better on a world such as ours.
That is what a mental says...not science.
Post by A***@yahoo.com
Evolution says that things started as single cells evolving to greater complex things.
We know thing evolved.
Post by A***@yahoo.com
So what is true, science or evolution.
Evolution is part of science.
Post by A***@yahoo.com
Discuss.
Loading...