[alancalverd (OP)]

I will take seriously any argument that debunks evolution, if and only if it is proposed by someone who looks exactly like both of his/her parents. Anyone else is an embodiment of evolution.

[Bored chemist]

They can only possibly look like one of their parents since their parents will not look identical. That's OK, I'm sure you would accept that looking like one of the parents would be a good enough criterion.
But it would only work if it was universal.
Even if 99% of the population looked exactly like their mum or dad, the rest of the population would still drive evolution.

[puppypower]

I will take seriously any argument that debunks evolution, if and only if it is proposed by someone who looks exactly like both of his/her parents. Anyone else is an embodiment of evolution.

The second law states that the entropy of the universe has to increase. Evolution is driven by the 2nd law since the constant increase in entropy will increase complexity over time. Life has to evolve since it is also under the 2nd law.

Entropy is also a state variable, meaning any given state of matter will define a fixed amount of entropy. Water at 25C and 1 atm has an entropy value of 188.8 Joules/(mole K). This is the same no matte who measures it and at what time in history. What this also means is the random models used to describe and model a moles of water at 25C and 1 atm, always adds up to a constant entropy value.

The question is how can a mole of water molecules; 6.022 x 10²³ units, each modeled with random arguments all somehow add to a constant amount of complexity? It has to due with determinism of the state; constant entropy, leading the random by integrating it. That many random events would never maintain a constant. The constant needs to lead, so the entropy value does not change over time, and can remain a constant.

The random assumption of changes on the DNA; mutations, violates the second law. The cell is a state with the entropy within all its parts having to add to that constant. What appears to be random to the bias of traditions, is an aspect of an integrated state of constant entropy.

This does not disprove evolution, it only disproves the random assumptions of biology, since the sum of all this apparent randomness is integrated into a constant entropy, for any given state of matter. The dice are loaded by entropic determinism. Mutations are part of an integrated state defined by a constant.

[Kryptid]

The random assumption of changes on the DNA; mutations, violates the second law.

No, it doesn't.

[Bored chemist]

That many random events would never maintain a constant.

To a very good approximation, it does.

Why do you keep posting your ignorance of entropy?

[Bored chemist]

, it only disproves the random assumptions of biology,

No, it doesn't.

[Kartazion]

I will take seriously any argument that debunks evolution, if and only if it is proposed by someone who looks exactly like both of his/her parents. Anyone else is an embodiment of evolution.

Your post implies that it is nearly impossible to prove explain a viable model of evolution. Indeed, the scientific arguments on this subject are almost non-existent. We then fall into the speculative domain.

[Kryptid]

Scientific models aren't ever proven anyway.

[Kartazion]

Corrected.

[Origin]

Does this answer evolution-deniers?
Since the doubt in evolution is not based on logic, logic cannot be used to convince them.

[puppypower]

Water was and is still critical to evolution. This can be inferred by the observation that enzymes, DNA and RNA will not work properly without water nor will they work if water is substituted by any other solvent. Life evolved, from scratch, in water; abiogenesis, even before the bias of replicators. Water was the original and continuing source of natural selection at the molecular scale.

Life in other solvents, such as alcohol, would never have selected DNA, since this molecule does not function properly within the nanoscale potentials set by alcohols. Even if you assume it appears randomly it cannot be selected since this would bottleneck further evolution; dead in the solvent. Much of the erroneous random approximation in current models is due to not including water based potentials when looking at life. This big hole within thinking, is approximated with organic cards and card tricks.

Entropy is a state variable, meaning any given state of matter will define a constant amount entropy. We model states using random based models like wave functions. The question becomes how can a wide range of random events, such as wave functions for a large number of interacting atoms, add up to a constant amount of entropy? It would being like saying we have 6.022 X10²³ dice and will throw all these dice at the same time, a thousand cycle. What we finds is each time we do this, they will add to the same total amount of constant entropy. This defies all known properties of statistics, but this is observed. The deniers need to wake up.

One way to model this state phenomena, would be to treat the state like it is a closed container, so the free energy in the state always remains constant. This places a limit on the sum of all random events, since we lack any extra energy for things not to always add up. The smaller atomic parts can each fluctuate in value, even in a random way, but only as as long as somewhere else there is an opposite fluctuation to help balance this out. Mutations are part of this balancing act within the closed container approximation. 

I am not denying evolution. I am denying the validity of the current models for evolution. These have conceptual flaws and I cannot just close my mind, memorize and repeat. I am not a good science bureaucrat, but tend to get bogged down by company politics. I like to use the power of reason and often find flaws at the conceptual level, even if this is not good politics. I can not accept the current half baked science. Any gambling addict can convince themselves that playing the odds is a way to success since people win jackpots all the time. This type of reasoning should not be called science, but an odd form of religion.

In terms of water, water forms hydrogen bonds, with hydrogen bonding unique in that has both polar and covalent bonding properties. In this respect, the hydrogen bonds of water can act like binary switches, with each of the two switch settings, defining different amounts of entropy, enthalpy and volume. Fluctuations in water's hydrogen bonding allows a way for larger states entropy to remain constant; glass of water. Water can show constant properties while still allowing dynamic internal fluctuations, like pH, which are often seen as random events. In this case these are ordered via a constraining ordering principle; constant entropic state. If we add organics; water and oil affect, which can alter the hydrogen bonding of water; surface tension, the water state parameters will lower entropy and will need to make adjustments to restore the constant; phase separation. This is highly ordered and not random.

[Bored chemist]

It would being like saying we have 6.022 X1023 dice and will throw all these dice at the same time, a thousand cycle. What we finds is each time we do this, they will add to the same total amount of constant entropy. This defies all known properties of statistics, but this is observed. The deniers need to wake up.

If I throw a mole of dice the total score is going to be very close to N_A times the average score for a single die which, I think, is 21/6 or 3.5.
How far from that value would you expect the score to be?

The property of stats that answers that is this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_large_numbers
and the answer is that it's so nearly a constant that we can't hope to measure the difference.

When someone says

Why do you keep posting your ignorance of entropy?

it isn't a rhetorical question.
Why do you keep posting stuff that shows that you do not know what you are talking about?

[puppypower]

It would being like saying we have 6.022 X1023 dice and will throw all these dice at the same time, a thousand cycle. What we finds is each time we do this, they will add to the same total amount of constant entropy. This defies all known properties of statistics, but this is observed. The deniers need to wake up.

If I throw a mole of dice the total score is going to be very close to N_A times the average score for a single die which, I think, is 21/6 or 3.5.
How far from that value would you expect the score to be?

The property of stats that answers that is this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_large_numbers
and the answer is that it's so nearly a constant that we can't hope to measure the difference.

When someone says

Why do you keep posting your ignorance of entropy?

it isn't a rhetorical question.
Why do you keep posting stuff that shows that you do not know what you are talking about?

The problem with your analysis of dice, is you are assuming an average over time but not the observed constant value of entropy over any smaller interval of time. I cannot go to the casino and roll two dice, to get the roll I need, all the time. The casino knows that although averages may work, less time or fewer roles, will not allow the averages to appear. The entropy remains constant for every roll of the dice,; average or not. The laws of statistics may extrapolate properly over longer internals of time. However, if there is not enough time to get to the average, random will not work. If a casino gave me all afternoon to roll the lucky seven I needed, I would have enough time to win, based on averages. But I get one roll of the dice, which they know is not enough time for averages to appear, allowing the house to win in the gap between averages.

As far as my understanding of entropy, I hear some members  say I do not understand entropy, but nobody seems to follow through and explain it better. It comes down to the politics of denial, which is subjective and uninformative.

The term entropy was originally coined by engineers to describe the lost energy that was observed during the development of steam engines. If one did an energy balance, the energy did not add up properly. There was always missing energy, that was called entropy. This was/is a measurable value and not just a theoretical value derived from math. This is still measured today and was found to be a constant value for any given state of matter. You can see the values in the CRC handbook. 

Water at 25C and 1 atm have a constant amount of entropy. This has to do with a constant amount of lost energy that is being made use of, that constrains the state in a certain way. It appears to be connected to the energy balance that defines the integration of the state. The randomness of the state is contained by a fixed amount of lost energy. The lost energy of entropy is type of information; instructions.

The 2nd law states that the entropy of the universe has to increase, with this entropy increase absorbing energy as a function of temperature; TS=Free energy. For the second law to be valid over time, this means the universe is bleeding free energy that cannot be easily reused. This increasing pool of lost energy is conserved and appears to play a role in defining states of matter as a type of information that constrains the random of states. This is a way to load the dice of the universe, so we have persistence of states, even though they may be defined with random events.

If we could extract the entropic energy within a mole of water molecules, the order would break down and it would look more random to the naked eye. But with the entropic energy/information in place, we get the persistent foundation needed to build upward and onward. The second law adds to the pool of lost energy, allowing states to gain entropy, thereby creating more state complexity, in terms of how randomness can be constrained. Mutation are part of this ordering principle so life can evolve.

[Kryptid]

To answer the topic question, I'm going to say no. Children being different from their parents would be what creationists call "change within a kind" or just "micro-evolution". What they deny is "change between kinds" and "macro-evolution". I'm sure the specifics vary between different creationists, but the difference between micro-evolution and macro-evolution in their opinion seems to be whatever they think constitutes the creation of new information.

Their argument goes like:

(1) Macro-evolution requires the creation of new information.
(2) Random mutations can never create information, they can only destroy it.
(3) Therefore, macro-evolution is impossible.

This is, of course, wrong.

[Bored chemist]

The problem with your analysis of dice, is you are assuming an average over time but not the observed constant value of entropy over any smaller interval of time.

No
The problem is that you don't understand statistical mechanics.
Imagine that there's a casino and they have already rolled a thousand dice and added the scores.
How far from 3,500 do you expect that sum to be?
If they had a million dice, how far from 3,5000,000 would you expect the outcome to be?

And if there were 10^23 dice?
Do you think you could measure something to that precision?

That's the point.
Essentially every "roll of the N dice" gets an answer very close to 3.5N and it's the same with measurements of entropy (which, incidentally, is practically never measured directly).

As far as my understanding of entropy, I hear some members  say I do not understand entropy,

Believe them.

If one did an energy balance, the energy did not add up properly.

Yes it did- if you did it properly.

If we could extract the entropic energy within a mole of water molecules, the order would break down and it would look more random to the naked eye.

The energy associated with energy is calculated as T delta S.
If you drop the temperature near to absolute zero, you drop the energy associated with the entropy to near zero.
And what actually happens is that you get a more ordered structure-  a solid, rather than a gas.
This is why we say you don't understand entropy.
It's because you keep getting things like that wrong.

[puppypower]

Entropy still exists at absolute zero. The free energy term for entropy is  TS, where T is temperature in degrees K, and S is entropy. The free energy will be zero at absolute zero; 0 K, since T=0. But S can be any value, since any value of S, multiplied by T=O will still have zero free energy connected to its entropy.

Matter does not disappear at absolute zero since entropic states are able to linger even at zero free energy. This energy* in entropy is connected to the universe bleeding free energy due to the second law. We cannot retrieve this lost energy* in a net way. When the universe cools to 0K, entropic information will still exist. This lingering entropy value is connected to the pool of energy that bleeds from the universe due to the second law.

When we have a state of matter, such as water at 25C, the free energy is TS. There is constant entropy S that defines the state, and a constant free energy G, since the constant state is defined at constant temperature T=25C; TS=constant. 

In practical and experimental engineering terms, entropy does not increase if we have a reversible reaction or phenomena, since any change in state will return to the same original state defined by a constant amount of entropy. For an atomic state to maintain constant entropy, the electrons, for example, will need to move in reversible ways instead of irreversible ways. We will get fixed electron orbitals, which are not draw as changing due random changes over time.

The constant entropy of the orbital state requires the shapes of the orbitals need to be reversible but also remain fixed over time. The TS of water at 25C, is also constant. and therefore also has a fixed amount of free energy that has to shared by the entire state; like a closed system based in fixed informational entropy and fixed free energy. Random is contained within the order required by constant entropy and constant free energy.

Again if we chilled water to absolute zero, some entropy will remain, even though we lose all the free energy. This left over entropy, even at absolute zero, implies a type of information that is not dependent on heat or free energy. It is less about matter; enthalpy or internal energy, and more about information and command lines. The universe bleeds energy that it cannot reuse, since entropy will increase and will remain, even when there is zero free energy left in the universe; cools to absolute zero, so there is no practical energy left.

If we assumed a cyclic universe, this implies zero entropy change. How do we get the 2nd law active if a reversible universe implies fixed entropy or no entropic change? Ooops!. The universe cannot be cyclic. The second law implies the need for an irreversible universe that can increase entropy over time, such as one that will expand and then continue to expand.

[Kartazion]

Entropy still exists at absolute zero

How then to define the entropy when it is at zero? The entropy of a system at absolute zero is typically zero.

[puppypower]

Entropy still exists at absolute zero

How then to define the entropy when it is at zero? The entropy of a system at absolute zero is typically zero.

The equation for free energy is G=H-TS, where G is the free energy, H is enthalpy or internal energy, S is entropy and T is temperature in degrees Kelvin. When T=0 K, or absolute zero, the free energy associated with entropy or S times temperature, has to be zero. However, this does not mean entropy has to be zero, since any amount of entropy times zero; S times 0, is still zero. Any amount of entropy at absolute zero will not show any free energy. The entropy is there but is not something we can extract energy from. It has zero free energy at absolute zero.

The entropy part of the equation is written -TS. This is implicit of the second law that states that entropy has to increase. Increasing entropy causes the free energy of the universe to decrease due to the minus sign. The increasing entropy of the second law permanently absorbs free energy as a function of temperature, causing universal free energy to decrease; the universe is bleeding energy into increasing entropy at finite temperatures. This bleeding will stop at absolute zero, since T=0 times entropy is zero free energy loss.
 

[Kartazion]

The entropy of a pure crystalline substance at absolute zero temperature is zero and there is no disorder at all. But it is true that there is the ground state of the atom: At absolute zero the system must be in a state with the minimum possible energy. Entropy is related to the number of accessible microstates, and there is typically one unique state (called the ground state) with minimum energy.

But we can learn that: The third law of thermodynamics states that the entropy of a system approaches a constant value as the temperature approaches zero. The entropy of a system at absolute zero is typically zero, and in all cases is determined only by the number of different ground states it has. Specifically, the entropy of a pure crystalline substance at absolute zero temperature is zero. https://courses.lumenlearning.com/introchem/chapter/the-third-law-of-thermodynamics-and-absolute-energy/

[puppypower]

The entropy of a pure crystalline substance at absolute zero temperature is zero and there is no disorder at all. But it is true that there is the ground state of the atom: At absolute zero the system must be in a state with the minimum possible energy. Entropy is related to the number of accessible microstates, and there is typically one unique state (called the ground state) with minimum energy.

But we can learn that: The third law of thermodynamics states that the entropy of a system approaches a constant value as the temperature approaches zero. The entropy of a system at absolute zero is typically zero, and in all cases is determined only by the number of different ground states it has. Specifically, the entropy of a pure crystalline substance at absolute zero temperature is zero. https://courses.lumenlearning.com/introchem/chapter/the-third-law-of-thermodynamics-and-absolute-energy/

There is an explanation for this. At absolute zero, the -TS term is zero for any value of entropy. This means there is zero free energy within any value of entropy S. There is nothing for us to measure, since we depend on free energy changes, to know something is there. Since there is no free energy, in any amount of entropy, we cannot see ΔS via any type of energy change.This is called zero based on experimental limitations.

The second law states that the entropy of the universe has to increase. This means the universe is losing free energy via the constant entropy increase; -TS.  For entropy to always increase, in a net way, -TS lowers, the free energy stockpile of the universe has to decrease; universe bleeds free energy. If we could get all the free energy loss back, that is generated by the second law, the second law would be proven wrong. There has to be ever increasing loss universal energy to be consistent with the second law; -TS over billions of years. Entropy only increasing in irreversible systems meaning the universe is not reversible or the second law is invalid.

Here is where that technical problem lies. We can still reverse entropy, on the local scale, such as freezing liquid water to make ice cubes. The refrigeration needed will use energy to lower local entropy, allowing us to retrieve some of the lost energy of the 2nd law. But this phase change occurs above absolute zero, where all states of matter still contain some free energy within their entropy; G=+TS. We can see that change via the heat given off in heat of fusion at 273 K.

But at absolute zero the amount of reversible free energy within entropy is zero. This is why we call it absolute zero. There will be no energy change even if entropy changed or not. The second law still requires universe entropy be a large increasing positive value, but without any free energy value or expression at absolute zero to measure. The tools are not infallible if they are the wrong tools for the job.

There is a difference between universal entropy and local entropy. Local entropy can be reversed. However, universal entropy, as defined by the second law, always has to increase. At absolute zero, we may reverse entropy of local systems down to zero based on states. At absolute zero we will no longer see any free energy change. However, the universal entropy has to be larger today than yesterday or the second law is made void. Experiments at absolute zero are about a local decrease in entropy, until we reach the state at T=0. This state stops showing free energy change via entropy change, so more entropy appears not be be there. But second law laws says universal entropy still have to increase but in this case without free energy; reorganize data.

The current models for cosmology and the creation of the universe are not early enough to make this make full sense. If we started the universe at the speed of light reference, where space and time are dissociated, this analysis makes all the sense in the world. With dissociated space and time, a state of infinite entropy occurs, which is the drive for the second law in our universe. The universe is heading back to where it began, where space and time are not connected, the same way as inertial space-time.

As far as evolution, I can accept evolution in the sense of change in all aspects of nature. These are created by the second law. With ever increasing entropy comes more and more complexity in life. While an increase in entropy implies irreversible systems, which makes sure evolution move forward and not backwards. I can also accept that states of matter show constant entropy. This is experimentally proven.

This constant entropy is like a container of entropic information about the state and free energy that requires the apparent randomness of wave functions to become ordered or else the entropy and/or free energy of the state could not remain constant; TS.  This means that in states called cells, mutations do not occur in isolation, but are part of an integrated state, the sum of which has to add up to constant entropy and constant free energy.  If the dice roll there one way the mutation will see dice roll the complimentary way, so TS is constant.

This its more consistent with the observation of nature. If we had a purely random driven mutation model there would do more wrong choices than good. Under random laws, the earth would be full of sick mutants, instead of strong and healthy lifeforms all integrated in 3-D eco-systems; larger entropic states of constant free energy and entropy.

Natural selection is a type of container and not a random process; state variable. The current model uses a closed container; natural selection, to get rid of the bad mutant choices. My model says that even natural selection is based on states of constant entropy, that will have an impact on other states of constant entropy, This allows better coordination and integration of mutant choices based on external and internal potentials.