Want Some Answers ???Evolutionism
>>I think your view on the implications of the 2LOT is what is technically called a 'straw man argument'. You state the core 19th century concept correctly "taken as a whole closed systems tend to disorder", and you realise this is related to the information content and complexity of systems - however you then subjectively defined the meaning of the terms 'information' and 'complexity'.<<
Your first email was based on an error. You complain as if I misunderstand the 'terms'. But I suspect you are debating for the sake of debating. Your comments about 'information' and 'complexity' doesn't change a thing.
The evolutionist argues evolution increases in 'complexity and order'. It requires additional order and complexity naturally over time. I maintain over time that information is lost, not added. Mutations occur, they are a loss of information. We never see new information added to the DNA for new structures and functions - an increase of order and complexity.
>>Your straw version on entropy ignores the last 100 years of physics.<<
It's not my version, its common and irrefutable. Without exception 'all things are running down', things progress from complex to simple, information becomes lost or damaged.
World-renowned Evolutionist and avid anti-Creationist Isaac Asimov -"Another way of stating the second law then is, 'The universe is constantly getting more disorderly!' Viewed that way we can see the second law all about us. We have to straighten a room, but left to itself it becomes a mess very quickly and very easily. Even if we never enter it, it becomes dusty and musty. How difficult to maintain houses and machinery, and our own bodies in perfect working order: how easy to let them deteriorate. In fact, all we have to do is nothing, and everything deteriorates, collapses, breaks down wears out, all by itself- and that is what the second law is all about." [I.Asimov, "In the Game of Energy and You Can't Even Break Even", Smithsonian (June 1970), p.6]. S Gasstone Ph.D writes,"The total amount at entropy in nature is in increasing" [Textbook of Physical Chemistry (NY Nostrand 1946]
There are many experts from many fields of science who reject evolution - Ph.D's in Biology, Physics, Genetics, Organic Chemistry, Mathematics, Zoology, Meteorology, Botany, Biochemistry, Medical, Geology, Palaeontology, Astronomy, Theology, etc. Some speak out.
>>You might as well argue against evolution using Ptolemaic cosmology (come to think of it this would not be entirely surprising, as you do favour an iron-age semitic cosmology.)<<
Call it what you like, the fact is the theory of evolution is an old unproven, unscientific theory. And apparently you don't realise it's based on assumptions, say-so stories while facts are reinterpreted according to the theory. If the scientific facts or evidence don't fit the theory, they are ignored.
>> the 'argument from entropy' is only logical if you accept the modern physical description of entropy.<<
The 2nd Law makes evolution scientifically untenable (All evolutionists must believe otherwise - they have no choice, they accept evolution as fact). This proven and observable law explains why everything is running down. Evolution masquerades as the grand mechanism that has produced everything from simple to complex (unobservable & unproven). The 2nd law is accepted by thousands of scientists today.
>>Physics is objective, mathematical and I assure you -definite- when describing the relationship between information, entropy and complexity.<<
Yet nothing in physics proves the 2nd Law increases information and complexity.
>>Let us compare the physics with the straw version. 1."Not so, 'the second law' proves that 'order', 'complexity' or 'information' never arise from disorder." a) hmm, try typing 'information' and 'entropy' into http://en.wikipedia.org. We learn from information theory that as the entropy of a system increases its 'information' content increases. They are calculated by the same formula (H = & #8722; p1 log2 p1 & #8722; & #8722; pn log2 pn).<<
You are not making sense. The fact is, the 2nd law proves 'order & complexity' or 'information' never arise from disorder. “....no natural process has ever been observed where information originated spontaneously in matter" Pro Werner Gitt (Physics, Information Technology). In his book 'In the Beginning was Information' Pro W.Gitt says –
"No definition of information" is possible,"...because information is by nature a very complex entity. The five-level model indicates that a simple formulation for information will probably never be found" ["In the Beginning was Information" CLV 2000 p.124] He also points out there are 3 kinds of transmitted information.  Copied Information  Reproduced Information  Creative Information. And "creative information is the highest level of transmitted information: something new is produced. It does not involve copied or reproduced information. This kind of information always requires a personal mind excising its own free will, as original course. This generally entails a nonmaterial intellectual process which thus cannot be linked to a person who has cognitive capabilities, and it represents something new." [pg113].
'Information theory ' states 'information' never arises out of randomness or chance events. Our human experience verifies this every day. How can the origin of the tremendous increase in information from simple organisms up to man be accounted for? Information is always introduced from the outside. It’s impossible for natural processes to produce their own actual information, or meaning, which is what evolutionists claim happened. Random typing might produce the string "dog", but it only means something to an intelligent observer who has applied a definition to this sequence of letters. The generation of information always requires intelligence, yet evolution claims no intelligence was involved in the ultimate formation of a human being whose many systems contain vast amounts of information.
>>b) From your knowledge of philosophy (cf. Popper) you will know that no scientific theory is ever proven. It either has or hasn't been rejected yet.<<
A number of evolutionary philosophers have moved away from Popper's ideas. And say 'evolution is a scientific proven fact'. They don't care if evidence refutes it, they believe it without question.
"Our theory of evolution has become, as Popper described, one which cannot be refuted by any possible observations. Every conceivable observation can be fitted into it. It is thus ‘outside of empirical science’ but not necessarily false. No one can think of ways in which to test it. Ideas, either without basis or based on a few laboratory experiments carried out in extremely simplified systems, have attained currency far beyond their validity. They have become part of an evolutionary dogma accepted by most of us as part of our training." Paul Ehrlich (Prof of Biology, Stanford Uni.) and L. Charles Birch (Professor of Biology, Uni. of Sydney),"Evolutionary history and population biology". "Nature", vol. 214, 22 Apr 1967, p. 352.
>>2."I believe 'order and complexity' are synonymous." Chaos theory, another product of the 1950s (along with information theory), is quite helpful here in pinning down the actual differences between 'order' and 'complexity'. A simple example of the differences - imagine two buckets of sand, one full of white grains one full of black grains. This is a highly ordered system, but not very complex (try asking "where is the white sand"? - the left bucket, simple). Empty the sand on the ground and the two piles start mixing. This is a less ordered system but is a little complex. Mix the two piles of sand and there are complex patterns of black and white sand. The system is complex and far less ordered.("where is the white sand"? - er. its in a spiral y = x tan[ln(sqr(x˛+y˛))], roughly). Keep mixing until the sand is mainly a greyish mix of grains. There are still patches of white and black. The system is now very complex, and not well ordered. The system is approaching equilibrium.("where is the white sand"? - er.. er.. right its got a fractal geometry, do you have a super computer?) When there is a completely even grey mix of sand the system is in equilibrium. The system is not ordered, it now has maximum complexity, it could be considered to be 'random'.("where is the white sand"? - give up, its basically random.)
Yes the 2nd law shows us 4 basic facts -
• usable energy is running out.
• information tends to get scrambled.
• order tends towards disorder.
• a" random" jumble won’t organize itself.
And we are asked to believe complexity and order happened in the wild by chance, not partially but completely. So I still believe order and complexity can refer to the same and be used interchangeably. When I say the human body has both order and complexity, the only one up-set by my use of these words is an evolutionist.
Sir Fred Hoyle wrote, "The chance that higher life forms might have emerged in this way is comparable with the chance that 'a tornado sweeping through a junkyard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein'" [Hoyle on evolution Nature vol.294 Nov.1981 pg.105]. A 747 in its design has both order and complexity, only a fool thinks it happened by chance, over millions of years, without a blue print.
Even E.coli bacterium refutes the idea 'life arrived by chance' - the huge amount of 'data', the equivalent to thousands of library books, and the impossibility of mutations producing this vast amount of information. "Cells are the fabric of life. Even the most primitive cells are enormously complex structures that form the basic units of all living matter. All tissues and organs are composed of cells. In a human an estimated 60 trillion cells interact, each performing its specialized role in an organized community. In single-celled organisms all the functions of life are performed within the confines of one microscopic package. There is no life without cells" (Hickman Integrated Principles of Zoology Duduque IA 1997 p. 43).
>>We better get entropy straightened out before you or I start spouting on about implications. Mail me when you have time. Andrew<<
I'm sure the 2nd law hasn't changed since we last wrote. 'Has the 2nd Law Been Circumvented?' No, says expert Frank A. Greco: "An answer can readily be given to the question. 'Has the second law of thermodynamics been circumvented?' NOT YET" [On the Second Law of Thermodynamics. USA Lab. Vol.14 (Oct 1982), p.80] "No experimental evidence disproves it", say physicists G.N. Hatspoulous and F.F. Cyftopoulos: "There is no recorded experiment in the history of science that contradicts the second law or its corollaries..." [EB. Stuart, B. Cal-Or, & A.J. Brainard eds; Deductive Quantum Thermodynamics in a Critical Review of Thermodynamics (Baltimore: Mono Book Corp, 1970), p.8].
Scientific laws that govern thermodynamics must also govern evolution. Evolution demands a universal change "upward" but the real processes of nature involve a universal change "downward." Wherever and whenever the entropy principle has been subjected to scientific test; it has always worked, with no exception. Universal evolution, on the other hand, requires that the degree of order of at least most portions of the universe must be increasing but no scientific experiments confirm this.