The myth of 1%

[Dan From Smithville]

I said: "I would doubt the 2LOT before the evolution of living systems. That is actually my point."

Now I have another. 'You dont read very well.'

In his defense, I must not read very well either, since I have trouble deciphering your posts also.

 

[Bthoth]

Intent and instinct are not synonyms. You'll have to explain what you mean about the criteria for instinct.

Look it up. " a way of behaving, thinking, or feeling that is not learned "

Another angle suggests stimuli cause a reaction.

Changes in diet that you are referencing do not arise from a change in the genes.

Quite the opposite. The intake can affect the genetic make up along with environment. Temperature etc....

In reference to people do you mean they changed or just recognized and followed the preferences they were born with regardless of societal views.

Grizzly bear mating with polar bear. AS for people, sure many change based on a variety of factors. Lousy topic though

It seems you know better now.

Sure...... Unless i am willing to write for the next week I should just accept that I know better.

 

[Bthoth]

In his defense, I must not read very well either, since I have trouble deciphering your posts also.

Yes sir.......!

I Should have known better.

 

[siti]

If I had a perfect set of words to correct the problem, I would write them.

Well you didn't answer any of my very specific and straightforward questions, but not to worry...I probably wouldn't have read them very well if you had!

Anyway, I'll just respond to this:

Because of how it is used, just like 'heat'. Unless describing the statistics of a group of elements.
That frame does not address causal rational or the why. Except to extrapolate a reduction of state (energy).

Entropy is not intended to address causality...in fact causality implies an external influence acting on the system whereas entropy explicitly refers to "spontaneous" processes...so now (unless I am not reading very well again) you seem to be objecting to the second law because it doesn't answer a question that it was never meant to answer!!?

And for the record (though I suspect I'm banging my head against a brick wall at this point), I can't make sense of "extrapolate a reduction of state (energy)" - energy is conserved, order is not - unless the system is at equilibrium in which case both are conserved.

...a wave on a pond is not just falling to equilibrium but entangling more mass. Just as the sun is doing when it shines.

..."entangling more mass"??? Sorry, not reading very well again.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Yes sir.......!

I Should have known better.

Again, no idea what that means.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Look it up. " a way of behaving, thinking, or feeling that is not learned "

Another angle suggests stimuli cause a reaction.

I don't have to. You just defined it as not by intent.

Quite the opposite. The intake can affect the genetic make up along with environment. Temperature etc....

No.

Grizzly bear mating with polar bear.

The change in behavior would be due to existing genetics. The offspring would be hybrids with different genes, but that has no bearing on the genetics of the parents. Cart before the horse.

AS for people, sure many change based on a variety of factors. Lousy topic though

Sure...... Unless i am willing to write for the next week I should just accept that I know better.

I have no idea on the information provided so far.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Again, no idea what that means.

Misplaced sarcasm. But I could see that he was saying that he trusted evolution more than the SLoT. I can understand that since entropy can be hard to understand. Look at how many creationists get it terribly wrong.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Misplaced sarcasm. But I could see that he was saying that he trusted evolution more than the SLoT. I can understand that since entropy can be hard to understand. Look at how many creationists get it terribly wrong.

Thanks for translating. I was not following the posts very well. I was interpreting it as evolution was not consistent with the SLoT.

I've seen that claim raised a number of times in the past.

 

[siti]

Its funny how things evolve sometimes...

This thread has gone from chimp-like arguments about how un-chimp-like chimp-like primates are to doubting the veracity of thermodynamics...

Out of order, chaos! Entropy in action!

 

[Heyo]

Misplaced sarcasm. But I could see that he was saying that he trusted evolution more than the SLoT. I can understand that since entropy can be hard to understand. Look at how many creationists get it terribly wrong.

Look how many physics professors get it wrong. Dr. Moriarty needed 3 attempts to explain it:

 

[exchemist]

Probably - so he got one wrong and one right. I suppose that means 2LOT has a 50/50 chance of being correct...or am I straying into statistical thermodynamics now


Forgive me...as you say:


But you seem now to be saying...well, er, what exactly are you saying?


This was in response to another poster who stated (correctly) that "evolution conforms to thermodynamics". So help me out here...what are "they" and in what sense do they "fail"?

And how is "entropy" in any sense "worse" than any other concept in physics?






Forgive me again, but what exactly am I not reading very well?

Well done, you have more patience than I in trying to work out exactly what this poster is claiming.

I look forward to any clarification that may be forthcoming. Though not with huge optimism, it must be said.

 

[exchemist]

Thank you.

I prefer helping people than fighting with the know-it-all professors.

You won't "help people" by making false statements about biological (which means chemical) thermodynamics.

I am just setting the record straight, for those interested to follow it. I make no claim to be a "know-it-all professor", but I do have a degree in chemistry from a good UK university. If there are things n my post about the thermodynamics of life that you disagree with, or don't follow, then we can certainly discuss that. What I take issue with is the assertion of things that are clearly false.

 

[Valjean]

A life. Dog, cat, tree, you and I. The living system can be a cell or an organism.

the life as a unit and observe the 'intent' to survive.

Intent implies conscious awareness and planning. I don't think bacteria, mushrooms or potatoes "intend" to survive. They acquire and display protective responses or behaviors naturally selected for.

Once started the living process intends to live, and will evolve to survive.

Again, you, me and my cat "intend." I doubt if the weeds in my yard do.
Intent is not one of the accepted mechanisms of evolution.

 

[Valjean]

Keep reading. The sources was found and it was embarrassing. If you have the time I posted a link to a long video by a student scientist in the field, she just passed her orals and now only (hah! there is an understatement) has to write her thesis. But by the time one passes one's orals on is well on one's way to being a PhD.. At any rate she goes into detail and what they did wrong and some of the embarrassing mistakes that they made. The source of course was a creationist "journal" (perhaps that should be spelled 'urinal").

I love Gutsick Gibbon. Her videos are detailed, well explained and easy to understand. I could say the same about Forrest Valkai, whom I'd also recommend.

 

[Bthoth]

Again, no idea what that means.

I have no intent to dig up the past work to explain my point.
I did wake up remembering my big picture:

Mankind is Defining Itself.

 

[ratiocinator]

Mankind is Defining Itself.

And this means..........?

 

[Bthoth]

I don't have to. You just defined it as not by intent.

The life is performing even without knowing (thinking about it)

No.

YES..... i see now, by that response, that you are just wanting to fight me and not consider evolution in the first place.

Again, YOU have no idea how evolution works but are like many; it's an accident (random).

The change in behavior would be due to existing genetics. The offspring would be hybrids with different genes, but that has no bearing on the genetics of the parents. Cart before the horse.

The parents are the life within the offspring. You have it backwards again.

Genes are just the vehicle, the life (living process) is using the mass to exist/live.

You are literally showing your hand.

I have no idea on the information provided so far.

I know, I am a bit different with comprehending natures processes. I observe the living system based on the energy (light) upon the mass. Not that living systems are random chemical reactions.

I doubt that anything that I write will help you. But I am awaiting the attacks.

 

[ratiocinator]

Again, YOU have no idea how evolution works but are like many; it's an accident (random).

From what I've seen of your posts, it seems you have no idea how evolution (the very well supported scientific theory) works. Nobody thinks it's random. Variation is (effectively) random but natural selection is not.

 

[Bthoth]

And this means..........?

That although you have not come to the same conclusion with rational thought it is 'Basic common sense'.

Life exists within nature. Mankind is conscious life within existence/nature.

Mankind is mass/energy 'aware of itself' (conciousness).

Mankind created words, math, symbols and the recording of information to written form.

As time has moved forward with the recorded information. Each generation wrote what was learned, the next picked up from there and recorded new unfolding knowledge.

Eventually, a pinnacle will be reached: Understanding.

The process is about natural but in summary: Mankind is Defining Itself.


Stupid easy!


The rude will claim 'word salad' because I comprehend the scope and the majority had never gone that far to see the big picture.


I have a bunch of them summary principles that are completely esoteric to most as I have a completely different view of how nature works.

 

[Bthoth]

From what I've seen of your posts, it seems you have no idea how evolution (the very well supported scientific theory) works. Nobody thinks it's random. Variation is (effectively) random but natural selection is not.

What is selecting? That backwards frame of wording is exactly what is being used against me with Life INTENDS to survive.