Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to Round Table Knights Clan. Enjoy your visit!




Username:   Password:
Add Reply
The Entropic Principle; and the evolution of DNA
Topic Started: Oct 14 2005, 03:12 AM (316 Views)
Lamorak de Galis
Member Avatar

I will start this thread with the counter i posted to the entropic argument in the previous topic.
I started this new thread Charlie, because i want to hear more of your oppinion and you stated you would not post in that topic anymore.
Quote:
 
How is a defender of the entropic theory to account for the fact that the direction of increase in entropy is the same as that of the expansion of the universe from a singularity?
One answer would be to claim that the expansion of the universe itself produces the increase in entropy. The analogy here is; with expansion in ordinary thermal systems - if enlarge the container in which a gas is at thermal equilibrium, we increase the number of possible states the gas could occupy, and so we increase the maximum entropy. As a result, the gas is initially thrown in to a non-equilibrium state, before 'evolving' back into an equilibrium state at a higher entopry. If the size of the container is continually increased at a suitable rate, then the gas will always be in a non-equiilibrium state of increasing entropy. Could this be the account of why the entropy of the universe is so unusually low, and of why the direction of increase in entropy is the same as the direction of the universe's expansion?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Charlemagne Of Aachen
Member Avatar

Quote:
 
The difference between a faith in God and a faith in science is that science pressumes nothing.


Actually one of my priciple points is just the opposite Mar. In many instances in order to explain universal phenomenon, science does exactly that, make a presumption. As a matter of fact you did just that in your opening staement when you say

Quote:
 
How is a defender of the entropic theory to account for the fact that the direction of increase in entropy is the same as that of the expansion of the universe from a singularity?


How can you prove that the universe's big band was caused by a singularity in the first place? Well obviously you can't. Your whole explanation for creation is based upon that initial presumtion or suppostion and built from there. I don't make light of it, I simply point out that there are huge jumps from the known to unknown that science makes at times. In regards to the universe's creation I choose to believe in Gods explanation vs mans, thats all.

Quote:
 
I am simply trying to fathom the world around me, and i will not except that a question with no obvoius answer proves the existence of god.


I have not tried to prove the existence of God in this or the other thread, and will not. I am just examining the evidence for evoultion and the big bang. I'm comparing and contrasting a few of sciences basic laws and theories and making observations.

Quote:
 
The whole idea of science is about seeking answers to questions we except we do not really know the answer to, and therfor coming to logical conclusions to explain them. It takes no leap of faith to believe something that looks pretty damn obvious to me. :P


One of the points I make is that what is obvious to one side is not to the other. One persons half full is anothers half empty. For me its quite obvious how much a stretch it is to imagine something as complex and beautiful as the earths ecosystems and the human body "evolving" out of the big bang. You say its a stretch to believe in the existence of God, and I simply disagree.

Each of us is making a personal choice in what he believes to be the correct universal paradigm.

Quote:
 
Religion asumes that all the facts are in place and we should never 'question' this, despite how improbable the answer is.


Say's who? Although I am abelieving christian I don't simply check in my brain at the door. Ther is nothing wrong with crtitical evaluation of either science or religion. As a matter of fact some of the most brilliant creation science speakers I've heard started of as atheist or agnostic. One of the factors that helped move them to believe in a creator was science itself. :)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Aelwyn of Breconshire
Member Avatar
Retired Knight
Charlemagne Of Aachen,Oct 13 2005
11:50 PM
How can you prove that the universe's big band was caused by a singularity in the first place? Well obviously you can't. Your whole explanation for creation is based upon that initial presumtion or suppostion and built from there. I don't make light of it, I simply point out that there are huge jumps from the known to unknown that science makes at times.

No person can prove anything in regards to this matter....of course. But the Big Bang theory is supported by the discovery of background radiation that is equivalent in temperate and intensity in very opposite parts of the universe...and all places tested in between. This radiation was thought to be created at the singularity...otherwise differences in local particle composition/random chance would make it extremely hard to account for this phenomenon.

Sure, you could attribute anything and everything to pure act of God...
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Charlemagne Of Aachen
Member Avatar

Quote:
 
Sure, you could attribute anything and everything to pure act of God...


Or you could attempt to attribute it to a singularity as well. In either case you have to make a jump from what is known, to the unknown. :)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Aelwyn of Breconshire
Member Avatar
Retired Knight
Charlemagne Of Aachen,Oct 14 2005
01:17 AM
Or you could attempt to attribute it to a singularity as well. In either case you have to make a jump from what is known, to the unknown.  :)

If you're trying to come up with the truth in comparison between possibilities, many times the first things thrown out are common variables, as they don't help distinguish which side is more correct...they are equal in both counts, and don't add to the validity of one theory over another. So... :P (if you get my drift)

Anyways, I agree with you in:

Quote:
 
Ther is nothing wrong with crtitical evaluation of either science or religion.


IMO its when one is followed strictly on faith, even if there is a much greater chance that the other possibility is true that the choice is made blindly. I know, this takes away the underlying reason for having faith...oh and I never said which is more true, just so we don't go that route, as I don't know myself. I too find it hard to believe that things could be the way they are simply by chance...but the opposite is difficult to understand/accept as truth also.

The thing I wonder about is, what scientific evidence is their for the existence of God? I ask simply because I haven't done any research, and find it hard for someone to prove the existence or absence of God. And I do mean Prove, not theorize.

Eh. I'm going to have some chips and watch TV. And I can prove that. :P
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Charlemagne Of Aachen
Member Avatar

Quote:
 
If you're trying to come up with the truth in comparison between possibilities, many times the first things thrown out are common variables, as they don't help distinguish which side is more correct...they are equal in both counts, and don't add to the validity of one theory over another. So...  :P (if you get my drift)


Well my point was in either case either science or religion their are certain pre-suppositons. In Christianity there is the presuppostion of an eternal God. And in science there is the pre-suppostion of an eternal energy force or forces that created the big bang. It takes a certain ammount of faith to believe in either.

Quote:
 
I too find it hard to believe that things could be the way they are simply by chance...


I agree with you on this

Quote:
 
The thing I wonder about is, what scientific evidence is their for the existence of God?


Well if you like we could examine the historical evidence of the existence of Jesus Christ.
:)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Viktor of Astaroth
Member Avatar
Retired Apprentice
(someone in the podium speaks)....the relativity adds to the remainder of the plutonic abstract, that of which who is divided by the relativity of the "bing-bang"...and to which its originally and potentially elevated to the maximun exponent that in the end will only result in the mix between religion and physics, that of course will without a doubt give us the most major "baloney" of all times...

(Viktor looks confused):if by now one has notice, that which i wrote right now, was a bunch of nonesense., hoping you could had figure it out.

*Ppl, people plz.!!, for the luv of Jebus, speak some english plz...i got lost before i was able to find myself in all this "jibby-jibba".
Can it just be dropped.?, i mean really...guys this is all about "fun", it doesnt matter if you are Jew, Catholic, Muslim, Pagan, or watever other religion i cant think of right now :P .

Seiously now, guys stop it already...this argument is nice right now...but if it continues its gonna end up in a big bunch of baloney, which obviously wont like noone..l. :(
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Lamorak de Galis
Member Avatar

Firstly, Charlie, thx for continuing the debate. :D

I will begin by quoting a few of my posts from the last thread.
Quote:
 
Ok it is a fact that all bodies in the universe are all moving at massive speeds away from a central point. We can PROVE this by using 'red-shift' (as light moves away from us it stretches turning slightly red, if it moves towards us it shifts slightly blue) to map all the glaxies we can see their speed, their trajectories, and more inmportantly thier origins..... the same place. This leaves no other explanation that there was an explosion of immense force with a massive amount of matter in the same exact point in space. 'The Big Bang'
There is no question as to if it happened, the question is how it happened.


Quote:
 
I will conclude by saying; all that i have said above are laws and processes of our universe and the physics that apply there.
If i see a car travelling along a road I can measure it's speed and it's direction of travel without making any further assumptions. I could not know how it moves, why it moves or any other detail for cirtain.
What i said above is purely and observation with no assumption


Quote:
 
I ask you as 'the devils advocate' what other possible explaination could there be, unless for no apparent reason all the galaxies appeared from nowhere moving at massive speeds away from each other carefully measured to one single point in space and time. Then answer me what is all that background radiation we get from every point in the sky?

I will say though there is a micro possibilty that something else did happen but based with the facts we are talking a probability of 10 to the power of 10 times 10


Now what you have said in your posts is both thought prevoking and intelligent and i do not seek to undermine your oppinion.
I must say however, that the big bang is a logical conclusion when considering the above evidence and i must except the most probable when any other explaination is so improbable. (thats what i meant by 'damn obvious') In the unlikely event that was proved wrong of course i would abandon the idea, which is why i have no 'faith' in it. A true faith would imply i throw down all conjecture.

I must go with the logical conclusion when confronted with this evidence despite how much i'd love to believe in God. (I refer to the big bang only)

*All my theories of how the big bang happened are only theories, i do not presume to know the answer to this. I have no great faith in my oppinion on this. If you imply that simply entertaining the idea of other dimensions is no more far flung than entertaining the idea of god. Well i strongly disagree.

Your respectfully, Page_Marauder.

Ps i am away for the weekend so I'll catch up on monday.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Lamorak de Galis
Member Avatar

Victor you posted that just before me. This is not an argument but a debate. Other peoples oppinions are extremely valuable to me, they do not anger me. What use is there of an oppinion if it doesn't stand up to public debate?

One of the problems with the world today is that not enough people even form oppinions.

See you all monday. *gathers his notes and tattered old books and leaves room*
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Viktor of Astaroth
Member Avatar
Retired Apprentice
I have no problem wiith this, butt :P ...watching so many ppl arguing and debating at the same time about the "same, and the same"...its just like trying to find the straight line on a circle..O :lol:

I mean really, like stated before...its all about how you act, even if there's really a god, whats the diff.?...its okay to beleive in something, but why not beleive on You.?, it is you who "was there, its here, and will be there" soon enough... is truly you the one that has in their hands the keys to change and mold the path you take. You must, and always must show...that you are here 'cuz its you who has control of your life, and you must decide that in the end all the concequences you receive are gonna be provoked by you, and you only. ;)

P.d: remember, its You who has the keys, beleive in Yourself always.!!! :lol:

(raises and puts "big" cross on his back, *walks away) :P

Thanks,

Page_Viktor "the Saint"

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dinadan of Logris
Member Avatar
Master of Spam
Quote:
 
Dinadan,

1. U said...
Quote:
 
zero possibility is not at all equal with impossibility in mathematics, and the value was near zero anyway.


If I rememebr correctly, in probabilities, if something is like 1 and 10 to the 10th power it is considered impossible. (not sure of the exact figure, but its something around there). In otherwards, if that is the chance of something happening, you may as well write it off as "forgetaboutit" :P ....in science/mathamatics jargon. So, the chances of DNA was somewhere around 1/10 to the 250th power! :P Like Crick said, it is like a Miracle!

The other interesting factoid that I failed to mention was that proteins are made up of amino acids. Amino acids are both right handed and left handed (facing). They both appear equally in nature. But, only left handed amino acids can be used in the chain to make a protein for living things. The chances of that happening are off the charts. You not onlt need a special sequence, as you mentioned, but need them all to be left handed. Its quite a random feet really to get just one small one!

2. That sorta brings me right into the next thing you said...
Quote:
 
Furthermore, that the sequence is as it is is not due to mere chance in the evolutionist's theories.


Now help me out here, but if there is no grand designer, than Evolution is just a random, purposless event done by mere chance. In fact, that is the definition of Evolution...mere chance. So maybe I misunderstood what you said there.

[...]

Respecfully,
Galahad


Galahad,

I'll just repeat again that impossible is not a correct term for a very very very low probablility (nor for 0 probability in general), but you are free to use "forgetaboutit" :P

As to the quote from Crick, that is the probability of randomly selecting a sequence of the length of 200 with 20 equally probable possibilities on each place. This has nothing to do with evolution. An exact sequence today was not the only exact sequence made, it is one that survived. The (survival) selections in evolution are not made by equal chances. Some entities have a high chance to survive ("to work"), and others have a low chance. Evolution is not defined as mere chance in the way you think of it.

This gives several answers to your amino acid problem.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB040.html
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
galahad of jerusalem
Member Avatar
Retired Knight of the Round Table
thnx fer that link Dinadan.....it will take me a long time to absorb it. :huh: Kinda technical...but if I take er slow, i can get through it...check back here in a year for my review. :D Seriously, i will study it and what what different scientists have to say on this issue.

As to the Crick explanation, you made an effort to be claer and I thank ye for that, but I am still not clear :( ....I don't mean to bug ye, but can you better clarify what you mean there.

I am under the assumption that when Crick is saying that the formation of these rather small strands are improbable as to be equated as a Miracle...it sorta is self explanitory. Evolution is a system whereby random mutations happen with out rhyme or reason to organisms, right? And admittingly, most mutations case harm, not something good and benefitial, right? But once in a while, I guess your say ing that a good mutation will happen, strengthen that organism, and because they now will be dominate, they will florish while the lesser ones die off thereby progating the stronger species, right? So even though its a low chance to alomost impossible, because it only hyas to happen once, that makes up fpr it?

Again, im all confused and would love clarification here...would hate to miss the point. :D
Respectfully,
galahad
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dinadan of Logris
Member Avatar
Master of Spam
Well, I can't really clarify more, but I can answer the questions :)

Quote:
 
Evolution is a system whereby random mutations happen with out rhyme or reason to organisms, right?

No. If a change is caused by events we can't model (yet), it might be random to us in a sense, but at the same time it has had its natural cause.

Quote:
 
And admittingly, most mutations case harm, not something good and benefitial, right?

That's feasible.

Quote:
 
But once in a while, I guess your say ing that a good mutation will happen, strengthen that organism, and because they now will be dominate, they will florish while the lesser ones die off thereby progating the stronger species, right?

That's about the theory of natural selection I guess.

Quote:
 
So even though its a low chance to alomost impossible, because it only hyas to happen once, that makes up fpr it?

I was saying the chances don't look that way. I wouldn't know if what you say would make up for 20^xxx if that was correct, I have no idea of the numbers needed to tell.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Charlemagne Of Aachen
Member Avatar

Quote:
 
If you imply that simply entertaining the idea of other dimensions is no more far flung than entertaining the idea of god. Well i strongly disagree.


So I am to assume Mar that you feel that believing in unknown, unseen dimensions, that are not proven to exist, is more logical than an unseen God that has not been proven to exist? As I said before,

Each of us is making a conscious choice in the creation paradigm he wishes to believe in

BTW I am sorry to hear you lost your mother at a young age, as I lost mine at age 11 m8.... :(
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dinadan of Logris
Member Avatar
Master of Spam
Charlemagne Of Aachen,Oct 16 2005
11:17 AM
So I am to assume Mar that you feel that believing in unknown, unseen dimensions, that are not proven to exist, is more logical than an unseen God that has not been proven to exist?

I would say that's exactly the case, it's more logical. Remember, the word "dimension" marks something we can actually understand and even "see", but the word "God" maks something we can neither understand nor see. That does makes it more logical to assume the existence of another dimension than to assume the existence of God; it's a fact that dimensions do exist.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Lamorak de Galis
Member Avatar

Well, we currently exist within 4 dimensions, is it not a logical presumption that a 5th exists, or even a 6th,... 7th, 8th etc?

This is not evidence but it is logical, unlike God.

Respectfully, Marauder.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
galahad of jerusalem
Member Avatar
Retired Knight of the Round Table
.....sounds like faith to me ;)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dinadan of Logris
Member Avatar
Master of Spam
How about "logical assumption based on facts"? :lol:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Charlemagne Of Aachen
Member Avatar

Quote:
 
Remember, the word "dimension" marks something we can actually understand and even "see",


Oh I did'nt realise we were having a conversation with someone who had actually seen the 5th dimension.... :o

Quote:
 
How about "logical assumption based on facts"?


As a science major I make the logical assumption that the universe as we know it could not have been created by random chance. Various fundamentals of science lead me to this conclusion.

Quote:
 
Well, we currently exist within 4 dimensions, is it not a logical presumption that a 5th exists, or even a 6th,... 7th, 8th etc?


In a word from my perspective ... NO ;)

Quote:
 
How about "logical assumption based on facts"?


Based upon what I know of the Biological and Physical sciences the assumtion that God exists seems perfectly logical to me. The complexity and intricacy of the universe that we live live in, and the sentient creatures and ecosystems within it, cry out Intelligent Design to me.... :)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
galahad of jerusalem
Member Avatar
Retired Knight of the Round Table
Well, what Laws of Nature do those other dimentions operate under? :blink:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dinadan of Logris
Member Avatar
Master of Spam
Charlemagne Of Aachen,Oct 18 2005
11:06 PM
Oh I did'nt realise we were having a conversation with someone who had actually seen the 5th dimension....   :o

That would be funny, if it didn't miss the point :)

Quote:
 
As a science major I make the logical assumption that the universe as we know it could not have been created by random chance. Various fundamentals of science lead me to this conclusion.

I don't need to be a science major to know that anything in nature, that someone calls "random chance", would in fact only be called that because the event couldn't be modelled well enough, not because there were no determining factors. Nothing suggests to me that there is any actual "random chance" to be found in reality. The anti-creationist theories don't do that either.

Quote:
 
In a word from my perspective ... NO   ;)

What prespective would make it illogical (i.e. not based on valid reasoning)?

Quote:
 
Based upon what I know of the Biological and Physical sciences the assumtion that God exists seems perfectly logical to me. The complexity and intricacy of the universe that we live live in, and the sentient creatures and ecosystems within it, cry out Intelligent Design to me....    :)

God is not a logical answer to the questions inspired by the complexity of the world. Instead, God is an idea that stops you from seeking a logical answer, casually giving the ultimate solution for everything: omnipotence. This is not logic, it's an escape from logic.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dinadan of Logris
Member Avatar
Master of Spam
PS. (in case it's not clear what I mean under the 2nd quote) Scientific anti-creationist theories aren't based on "random chance" even if they are based on something that couldn't be exactly modelled when the theory was formed. You only say chance if you can't determin an outcome with your current models.

galahad of jerusalem,Oct 18 2005
11:23 PM
Well, what Laws of Nature do those other dimentions operate under? :blink:

We don't even know what laws apply to the first few ones for sure. They are still there :)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
galahad of jerusalem
Member Avatar
Retired Knight of the Round Table
As an example of what some of us have been saying....check out this short article...

http://www.bible.ca/tracks/converted-to-cr...mer-atheist.htm

;)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
« Previous Topic · The Portcullis · Next Topic »
Add Reply

The Round Table Knights