What can you say about the arguments of my friend?

Question

Any system, either open or closed, if energy is applied, entropy is increased as it goes to equilibrium (take note of the equilibrium). As entropy increases, disorder increases. That’s the basic science that evolutionists try to deny. While it is true that not all entropy means disorder, such notion is not observed in the thermodynamics of living systems (take note again of the living systems).

What you’re trying to imply here is that since (as you insist) that the earth is an open system and 2nd law of thermodynamics applies only to closed systems then evolution is not ruled out by (or exempted from) the 2nd law, and that is guaranteed by the continuous supply of solar energy. This is a confused conclusion.

I was implying, on the other hand, (that’s the reason I was invoking the principle of work, which evolutionists completely forget or maybe don’t know) that the continuous supply of solar energy is not enough to invoke that an open system such as the earth could maintain far from equilibrium. This energy must be directed to do work. Why? The Gibb’s free energy of high complex system is very high compared to their simple precursors. This is the physical reason why simplicity cannot proceed to complexity spontaneously. So how do living systems survive then? The solar energy is converted by plants into chemical energy as food which we eat. But that energy is assimilated by the complex function of the complex structure of the human body. And this complex function is directed by the information that is in the DNA.

I summarize, energy is not enough. It must be directed and that instruction is in the DNA.

I reiterate, there are NO observed phenomena that add information to existing DNA, and added or “discovered” function is not equivalent to added information, as I again emphasize to you, that added DNA (or large DNA for that matter) does not mean more information. Take Epulopiscium fishelsoni, the world’s largest bacterium. It is half a millimetre long and weighs in at a million times the mass of a typical bacterium. In fact no one believed it was a bacterium until genetic tests proved it. And it has a whopping 25x as much DNA as a human cell. BUT the poor is still a......... bacterium.

Added information would guarantee more complex structures that can change an individual organism from its previous state and that should be passed to off-springs. This is the phenomenon that evolution must prove to exist since there is NONE.

Answer 1

Well ... kudos to your friend for at least *trying* to make a scientific argument. And he makes one excellent point ... but he makes several bad ones by simply declaring something by fiat that is just a flat-out denial of thermodynamics. Let's take a few points one-by-one.



>"As entropy increases, disorder increases. That’s the basic science that evolutionists try to deny."



??? Who tries to deny that? What we try to point out is that equating entropy to 'disorder' risks completely misunderstanding (or misrepresenting) what thermodynamics is all about. Thermodynamics is ultimately about heat transfer, and information theory draws a correlation between entropy and order ... but Creationists often exploit a tenuous understanding of both thermodynamics and information theory, to draw conclusions. E.g. how many Creationists who claim to understand the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics can tell you what the 1st or 3rd laws of Thermodynamics are? If they can't, then they really don't *understand* thermody. and just know enough snippets to be dangerous.



>"I was implying ... that the continuous supply of solar energy is not enough to invoke that an open system such as the earth could maintain far from equilibrium."



Evolution does not require that the earth is "far from equilibrium." That is the entire *point* of natural selection. A slight deviation from equilibrium gets solidified into DNA through the act of survival ... via *selection*. Previous successes are kept. New successes are added. New failures are discarded. This is what makes DNA a phenomenal storage medium for negative entropy (and your friend can call this "order" if he wishes). It doesn't require a large expenditure of energy at any given time ... a large amount of work, or "deviation from equilibrium." A *SMALL* amount of energy (or work) can produce a small amount of stored information ... but over LARGE amounts of time, this can accumulate.



That is the point that your friend is ignoring.



>"This is the physical reason why simplicity cannot proceed to complexity spontaneously. "



This is trivially shown to be false. A snowflake is a perfect example of how simplicity *CAN* proceed to complexity spontaneously ... as long as the right energy input is present. A snowflake is caused by slow heating of water vapor, followed by rapid cooling (freezing).



What is missing in the case of snowflakes is not spontaneous complexity ... but *HEREDITY* ... the ability to store the results of previous spontaneous complexity and to build on it.



But with life, that heredity *is* present. So if there is an engine of new information (mutation), and a mechanism of heredity (DNA), then natural selection is the process by which that new information *accumulates* over time through the simple act of survival.



>"So how do living systems survive then? The solar energy is converted by plants into chemical energy as food which we eat. But that energy is assimilated by the complex function of the complex structure of the human body. And this complex function is directed by the information that is in the DNA."



That is the one good point I think your friend makes! (An argument I've not actually heard before ... kudos!) But that is exactly what evolution explains! Every complex new molecule (sugar, carbohydrate, or even new protein) produced by the evolution of plants, can be met with yet another enzyme produced by animals to digest it. I.e. the more complex ways that plants discover for storing energy, just produces more complex ways for animals to discover for *unpacking* that energy. Human DNA, as an offshoot of mammal DNA, is precisely the result of that 3.5-billion-year-old arms race between plants and plant-eaters.



(Come to think of it, I have heard this argument before in a slightly different version ... the fact that we have such complex immune systems encoded in our DNA. The answer is that complex immune systems are the results of billions of years of arms-race between diseases and immune systems. But the application of this argument to energy consumption is an interesting new twist.)



>"I reiterate, there are NO observed phenomena that add information to existing DNA"



Of course there are! It is the phenomenon called *mutation*. Creationists deny this ... and the tactic they use is to take each type of known mutation and saying "that is not added information." But they ignore the fact that mutations occur *in tandem*. A gene duplication is "not added information" because it increases the amount of information without changing it. And a point mutation (or frame-shift mutation, or transposition error, or any kind of transcription error) is "not added information" because it adds new information but loses old information. In other words, the Creationist tactic is to change the definition of "new information" every time you present an example of it.



But they cannot deny that a gene duplication followed (perhaps thousands of generations later) by a point mutation *together* absolutely *DOES* create "new information" by any definition!



>"Take Epulopiscium fishelsoni, the world’s largest bacterium. ..."



This part of his argument was bizarre. It seems to be equating the physical *size* of an organism with the amount of information it has. No evolutionist I've ever met or read equates "new information" to physical size ... so your friend is refuting a point that nobody is making!



(Aside: It is an argument I've heard before ... that a great dane is not "added information" on a wolf genome ... which is taking the "new information" argument to another level of absurdity. I've even heard the claim that a chihuahua is an example of how information is "lost" from the wolf genome!)



>"Added information would guarantee more complex structures that can change an individual organism from its previous state and that should be passed to off-springs. This is the phenomenon that evolution must prove to exist since there is NONE."



How about this one: A bacterium found in a waste pond near a factory in Japan. It has developed an enzyme that allows it to digest *nylon* ... a polymer that did not exist at all in nature until it was invented by humans in 1935. A new enzyme for digesting a new polymer is absolutely an example of "new information."

http://www.nmsr.org/nylon.htm

Answer 2

1. entropy increases in closed AND open systems? Is this true? I learned that in an open system (energy can come in) entropy may in fact decrease.



2. Even in a closed system, the TENDENCY is towards entropy, but every time ice forms, entropy is decreased (order increases) and that happens all over the planet every day.



3. the energy is directed to do work by living organisms.



4. there were steps b4 DNA, amino acids have been found in orbit around other planets. It may have gotten here and then formed into more complexe molecules.



5. "Information" in this context is meaningless. There is no definition of what is being added to DNA when an evolution denier says "no information can be added".

Answer 3

One of the greatest Creationist lies is their distortion of information theory. Although there are a number of established measures for genetic information, Creationists discard them in favor of a general denial.



If the energy input to the biosphere is insufficient, not only does evolution stop, but life does. There is no cell duplication, which is a doubling of information.



The bacterium you describe has a polygenome -- 100,000-200,000 copies of the genome to support the large cell. This phenomenon is seen in other large cells. The giant amoeba has thousands of chromosomes with mutiple copies of genes. The paramecium macronucleus is multiple copies of the micronucleus which is involved in reproduction. These cells most definitely has a high information content since they is generating mRNA to support their vast volumes.



Although Creationist assert that there is no mechanism to add information, they never define the term information. Cell duplication creates two copies. That is a doubling of information (although without novel content). From there, a point mutation is sufficient to create novel information. Point mutations are information increasing.

As mutations have been shown to increase function, the whole tirade is moot.

http://www.pnas.org/content/98/20/11388.abstract

Answer 4

Looses neither the argument nor the friend! In one of a marriage a poet was blessing the newly wedded couple with a poem. Two lines of the long poem which I remember even after 40 years, வென்றிடும் எண்ணம் வேண்டாம் விட்டுத்தான் கொடுக்க வேண்டும்! venRidum eNNam vENdAm vittuththAn kodukka vENdum! Translation: Don’t ever think to win You ought to loose only! In arguments both the parties never accept the facts as they have their biased view. Even in courts, after the arguments, only the judge deliver the verdict and looser never accepts that he lost and that feeling only prompts him to file appeal against that judgment in higher forum. In fact in friendship or in family relationship, the one loses in argument neither looses the argument nor the friendship or relationship! Argument is set aside and the friendship bondage retained by loosing the argument! In some other happy occasion it will continue!

Answer 5

There's too much here to really discuss in this type of forum.If your friend truly thinks he can defend this position,tell him to debate it at http://talkrational.org/forumdisplay.php?f=23/ I seriously doubt he'll show up.Here's a recent article detailing meaningful ways to apply thermodynamics to evolution.It's pretty simple to follow.http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/11/entropy_and_evolution.php See also http://scienceblogs.com/evolutionblog/2008/11/another_round_on_evolution_and.php As for claiming added dna doesn't mean new information,this is simply uninformed.That's because it depends on how the gene is expressed or regulated.See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_expression This is introductory genetics.There are plenty of examples of added information.Creationists just play a game of fast and loose with the word information,hoping the average person won't catch on.Again,tell your friend to come play with the big boys if he thinks he can defend his position.I almost forgot http://journals.royalsociety.org/content/50874678nw60t5l2/ I'd love to see creationists for once actually present the level of detail and honesty the real scientific community does.They won't though;they'll continue to generate garbage and congratulate each others ignorance.

Answer 6

Welcome to YA, I see it's your first day. Pretty heavy stuff to start with, don't you think? Your friend sounds like a real "fun guy."

Ask your question in YA "Society & Culture / Religion & Spirituality".

People there just drool over questions like this.