Hi CTD
Looks like RAZD is rubbing off on someone. We all know all Laws of Thermodynamics are the bane of evolutionism, most especially the second.
I guess there are some who don’t understand the laws of thermodynamics and so see them today as a challenge to ToE but there’s not many left. Given the YEC straw man that you present even biological reproduction is impossible under 2LoT but reproduction does occur and so does evolution. The fact that we observe evolution to occur destroyes this argument before we actually get into understanding why it is a foolish argument.
I don't give a hoot about your deluding yourself into seeing evolution. You don't get to change laws of science.
When you get into the guts of it you will realize that it is built on a very clever deception, 2LoT predicts an increase in order in a closed system but of course the earth is not a closed system, energy flows in and out all the time and in such an environment 2LoT predicts that work will be done, work such as reproducing, work such as evolving new organisms. It’s a very basic premise of 2LoT and has been there since the law was first formulated.
Get real. If any law only applied in a closed system, it wouldn't be a law because there are no closed systems.
This whole line is just another old evomyth. Work requires a mechanism. Life is such a mechanism, and some life (some humans, at least) know how to construct mechanisms. No mechanism, no work.
In your haste to misrepresent, you published nonsense that prevents your own fantasy. And you put it in bold, so I don't have to.*
And Heat = Entropy is a false equation. At least try to keep that straight.
But the asserted definition fails. The more "orderly" the matter, the less likely it is to contain information. Consider distilled water, or a solid brick. They're as orderly as can be. Do they contain as much information as even a first grade reading primer?
You’re getting closer to understanding this CTD but you miss a few details that will fully explain how information arose. Distilled water contains very little information but it is more ordered than a plasma of hydrogen nuclei but cool that and you get hydrogen, then stars, then heavy elements, then planets and water each a bit more ordered and containing a bit more information that the previous. Take that water a little further and cool it which is what happens as entropy drops per unit of space and it solidifies into ice. Ice is a substrate with the ability to hold information (actually distilled water can too but it’s easier to imagine it with ice so I’ll use that as an example). So we’ve gone from the early universe which was, according to the theory and all the evidence, too hot to contain matter or stable information at all to a universe which contained only the simplest of matter, hydrogen and helium neuclei, to today’s universe in which heavier elements exist. Elements capable of forming bonds and so order and so of holding stable information. Without any intelligent input these elements will connect together following the laws of chemistry. So what do we have at the end of that process. We have planets, stars, rocks, oceans, asteroids.
You tell your evomyth of creation, but you do not define information, nor do you make any case for your previous definition. Your only progress in misinforming is to try to paint an association between lack of heat and information. Might help if you figure out what order is, and quit trying to use it as a synonym for information.
What do you call the distance from the sun to mercury?
Is that not information?
It is not.
What do you call the distance between mineral grains in the rocks of Mercury?
Is that not information?
Of course not.
If not what is information?
It would be unfair of me to give a definition. You are using the term, and no definition I know will work. So anything I offer will make your statements false.
Makes more sense for me to allow you to provide a sensible definition yourself, and see if it fits. Or you may provide a mockworthy definition...
The second law of thermodynamics says in closed systems entropy will always increase but entropy will reduce locally in open systems.
No it doesn't.
Most importantly, the genetic code contains meaningful information. (That's why it's called a 'code'.) If, AS STATED, a mind is required to assign meaning, the meaningful information in DNA requires a creator.
So meaning is simply information that can accomplish something? The trajectory of a comet that will one day crash into a planet we can’t even detect has meaning then is that your thesis. This information forms the crux of the events that will occur, it determines the fate of that planet just as the DNA sequences in our gene’s determine how, in a purely mechanistic sense, our proteins will be formed. It reduces meaning to facts and figures regardless of minds which is not my definition of meaning but it is my definition of information. Maybe all we have here is a difference of definition.
Look at this jumble. It has nothing to do with what I said. I took R2's own statement and showed that it logically means life must be created. He responds with this, after he himself said meaningful information requires a mind.
By his new twist the comet requires a creator too. The distraction buys nothing. It's rather odd that we haven't heard of the "comet code", if comets contain the same type of meaningful information as DNA. At least with such logic, we can expect to be entertained if he ever gets around to defining 'information'.
But we are to endure such before he finally takes his swipe at twisting the issue.
DNA carries bases in a sequence that will drive a machine to blindly run through a process of connecting RNA bases together without understanding of the process.
A remote-control toy receives a sequence of signals that will drive the machine to blindly run through a process of maneuvering without understanding of the process.
Computers run programs without any understanding too, but that's just too easy an analogy, and may or may not involve play.
Put some man-made replicators in a vat & come back next week. Next century. Next billion years. According to the laws of chemistry, they won't evolve.
Are you really suggesting that our replicators are perfect? That’s the only way that this statement could be true. Any variations within the products of these replicators will drive their evolution.
Who writes this junk for you? Evidently they consider it impossible that variation would render them inert.
Anyhow, your propaganda is meaningless in the real world, as usual.
Replication and mutation are necessary elements of evolution, and some properties of self-replicating molecules (replicators) can be explored with synthetic structures. Selection and evolution at the molecular level require systems capable of competition and inheritable change. These phenomena have now been observed with synthetic molecules.
Competition, Cooperation, and Mutation: Improving a Synthetic Replicator by Light Irradiation
J.-I. HONG, Q. FENG, V. ROTELLO, and J. REBEK, JR. (14 February 1992)
Science 255 (5046), 848-850. [DOI: 10.1126/science.255.5046.848]
That article was quite old but then so is your complaint. It was, long ago, disproved by experiments as this article points out. There have been many more such experiments since 1992 many more experiments showing that synthetic replicators both chemical and in computers can evolve while we watch.
This article does not resolve the issue for you. It does not address "my complaint". These people state a requirement. They do not say that this is the only requirement. They do not state that the synthetic replicators could evolve into life. They just point out that
unchanging replicators would be incapable of changing into life. Duh!
But this DIRECTLY CONTRADICTS your own statement
Self replication is all that is required and the rest is up to evolution.
You say ANY self-replicating molecule would produce life. Nobody believes this.
Absolutely nobody, unless they just take some liar's word for it.
*Consider the irony of this blunder, just as an unreasonably strict requirement for absolute perfection is being applied to HY's book.
