Jump to content

cypress

Senior Members
  • Posts

    812
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by cypress

  1. As I said before there are several researchers who claim to show that much of the modern warming (1800-2003) is natural and also due to cyclical oscillations. If you start a new thread, I will walk you through it. If you are looking for evidence to explain the full extent of modern warming including uncertainties then I will take a pass as it would be a fools game to try to explain everything. In the new thread, please make your expectations clear so we don't get into a shouting mach over what you asked for.
  2. Heat energy flows from high temperature (lower entropy) to low temperature (higher entropy). Wrong again Skeptic. You don't have any experience with mass and heat transfer principles I take it. Here is a reference that addresses diffusion of heat and molecular diffusion. Carslaw, Conduction of Heat in Solids, Oxford University Press, 1959. Ouch, Skeptic now you are zero for three. Have a look at the reference above. Also Chemical Engineers are generally expert at thermodynamics, particularly when one works with compressible gasses for 20 years. Excellent my job is done here. Finally we agree that the odds of life forming by chance alone is unreasonable. Thank you for that admission. Speculation cannot substitute for probabilistic resources and probabilistic resources that do not act on an event can't improve the odds of that event. You have demonstrated nothing. The balance of your argument is as vacuous as the errors you have already displayed. It is enough that now you agree life from non-life by chance alone is a non-starter. Thanks for that. Nonsense. We cannot assign probability to a speculation. A source that you misinterpreted and is wrongly applied is of very little help. I described your errors previously. More nonsense. The observable universe is finite. Evidence exists that it had a beginning and there is no evidence available to indicate directly what lies beyond the observable universe. The inflation model allows for speculation about an infinite universe but it is just so. I don't think I need a reference to describe the various cosmology models. Nearly any credible discussion of cosmology will confirm what I just said and there are thousands of them on the web, have a look if you wish. http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=cosmology+models&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8 Ifs and could be's don't help your case. I thought we were discussing science not metaphysics. Again I do appreciate the fact that you admitted my argument that chance alone is a non-starter. This thread seems done. I don't see anything relevant to the discussion here. In addition your bias is starting to show. Please remember that it was Skeptic who claimed that life from non-life by chance alone was a reasonable position. I have always maintained it was not. My use of Hoyle was intended to make a point that even someone many naturalists seem to despise can be correct (about life from non-life being unreasonable) once in a while. Does it bother you that the two of you agree on this point?
  3. No I am not saying the most accurately and extensively tested theories are full of uncertainty. Relativity, QM and host of others though include enough uncertainty to allow for detractors with solid arguments. Do you have anything relative to the topic to contribute?
  4. Yet all of these examples include a fair degree of uncertainty. Topics that are uncertain enjoy detractors. Those with political, moral and religious influences are all the more. Cherry picking a few manufactured issues does not make the entire issue manufactured. One can play this game of both sides of this issue. I can easily provide a list of manufactured alarmist claims too. I think I have a range of choices. The previous poster said the he has not seen any evidence that should cause someone to be skeptical. I provided a rationale some skeptics use to support their position so my only obligation is to show that skeptics make this argument since this was my only claim. You asked me to support that the skeptics are correct in their claim; something beyond my response and I wanted to be sure I was not wasting my time. Looks like I made the right choice not to go off on a wild goose chase.
  5. At one time it was quite popular. Even now there are supporters. see Koonin, "The Cosmological Model". Beats me, perhaps you should ask Koonin, or why Skeptic wanted to advocate for this scenario, because as I said, I do not accept it.
  6. Sounds like an opinion to me. I have not seen any better. Most Origin of Life researchers reject life by chance alone and don't even attempt to provide an estimate. I reject it also but Skeptic wanted to make an argument for it thus the thread. I would be surprised if you advocate Life by chance alone.
  7. Reality is easy to support and describe. If AGW was reality it would be clear and there would be no controversy. No, AGW is a difficult and complex idea without clear support. An opinion of yours no doubt. Do you doubt it? Before I go through the trouble of putting together an argument, please tell me the number you think is credible and also define what it means to be credible because if you reject my material out of hand, it would be a waste of time for me to hunt it up, right?
  8. Indeed, however in this analysis we have our best offered probability at 1 in 10^41000 and fewer than 10^140 total trials possible. this leaves us thousands and thousands of orders of magnitude short. In this case the number of trials is miniscule compared to the probability. The number is unimaginably small. The quoted material lacks context. It speaks of numbers in the range of 10^40 for a hypothetical peptide self replicator but that is a far cry from a biological system. Ignoring the whole picture to make it seem plausible does not help us discover truth. It is not even in the same ballpark. when one pieces in a more complete picture the probability approaches the number Hoyle uses for any hypothetical path. No I am not speak of a closed system. I speak of imported order so I am allowing for an open system. In an open system do you believe entropy of that open system can decrease without import of a source of order? If so, please offer an example because this would be a violation of the law. Entropy is a measure of the probability state of systems influenced by random processes. The law states that systems acted upon by random events migrate to the highest probability state over time and in proportion to the resources available. It does not matter if the system is open or closed, only the form of the state equations change. When speaking of natural systems influenced by random events, it is inevitable that one must consider entropy. Any error Hoyle may have made would have to be in context with the argument that it supports. Newtonian physics is erroneous but it is still very useful for certain purposes. Let's take a look at the claimed errors and see if they apply to this case: It is the best information we have about what it takes to construct and operate a biological system. If this is a fallacy then one would be able to offer a better set of components required for minimal biological activity. It is easy to suggest that something is wrong when nobody knows what is "right". Furthermore we now know a great deal about what it means to be biologically active and to suggest that ancient systems should be different ignores the knowledge we do have. At the time that Hoyle did his analysis he presumed there were limited fixed sequences. Douglas Axe and several others have since confirmed this. For a protein sequence 150 acids in length, about 1 in 10^74 are capable of forming stable tertiary structures and active binding sites required to be biologically active. The number drops as the size grows. Nonsense. The analysis is independent of timing or sequence. Nonsense. Please demonstrate the misunderstanding. These are empty words. Accusation without substance. Again Douglas Axe disposed of this criticism with his work on what it means to have stable and functional biological components. At the time of Hoyle's work, this argument may have been valid, however today it is not. Your critiques are doing very poorly moontanman. Stay focused on the areas Cap'n and Skeptic address, they are at least looking at the weaker and easier to attack arguments.
  9. Controversial ideas require uncertainty in order for two sides to keep an argument going. Skeptics have identified natural causes for all but 0.2-0.4 degrees of warming. Even if 100% of the unaccounted for energy rise is caused indirectly by humans, behavior change is not a particularly good idea.
  10. Well yes you can. This is how fresh rain water free of minerals is deposited in the mountains and it is the principle behind distillation. You needn't test, it you have just reinvented the still, or distillation device. It works like a charm.
  11. Nonsense. they are treated as combinatorial events that can happen over any time period and most any order, with any number of precursor events. Observation of ordered systems acted on by random processes confirms that on average these systems move to high probability states thus systems that would require a steady supply of low probability outcomes (life from non-life by chance alone perhaps unless it was a single event which you have rejected) does not occur and would violate the physical principles that drive systems to low order high entropy states.
  12. Huh? The second law of thermodynamics sets the direction of flow of order from high to low in the absence of an external driver for systems that proceed by random processes. Brownian motion is a random process that drives heat transfer and chemic processes and molecular diffusion. The physical law constrains the average heat energy flux to flow from low entropy areas to high entropy areas and in the process increases total entropy of the system. Analogs exist for molecular entropy and information entropy. This behavior is observed to be true for all similar systems involving random processes. It is possible that I misspoke somewhere though I doubt it, so please explain exactly where entropy principles do not require any aspect of what I described in any of my posts. It's not that I don't like them. They simply apply to other situations. They are red herring arguments. I did not say you are wrong. I actually think you are more often correct, but that you simply do not address the topic at hand. This is why I call them red herrings. some are arguments about formation of amino acids but Hoyle stipulates availability of all required amino acids. Others deal with pre-biotic conditions, but again the analysis grants that for tjis analysis conditions are taken to be as required. In this way these items are not relevant to the points.
  13. In molecular diffusion, entropy applies to concentration gradients independent of thermal entropy. Thermodynamics is the most common application of entropy laws but not the only application. Information entropy has also been widely validated, particularly as it applies to cosmological events, but also when dealing with information encoded by material objects transcribe on neutral carriers. Writing on a page is an example. Digital codes imbedded into electronic carriers is another. Nucleotide bases on a ribose carrier is a third. Sorry no. One can easily demonstrate that crystallization forms by deterministic processes once brownian motion provides the random event suitable for ordering. This is an isetropic event with respect to molecular entropy. The before and after states are equivalent. there is no net increase in molecular order since the probability of forming the crystal is 1. It is a vernacular that seems to describe the situation even if it is not completely accurate. Forgive my prose unless you truely do not understand what I meant by this. Systems degrade and increase entropy without intervention. However one does require a source of higher order in order to decrease the entropy of the system. To claim that entropy drops without a source of higher order is equivalent to thumbing your nose at physical laws. I read my posts and truly see them as explanations. If you would more clearly identify where you do not understand, rather than counter that I am wrong, I may be able to focus on that issue rather than just provide a retort.
  14. Of course, but the number Hoyle used stipulated availability of all necessary precursors so it is irrelevant to this discussion as I said before. I am aware that the earth is not a closed system. Please note that my statement does not stipulate a closed system. I allow for import of any resource but one must identify a resource that provides molecular order. The thermal energy from the sun does not seem to be a source of molecular order. If you can show that it does provide molecular order then you will have demonstrated that my statement is false. Of course, but in order for information entropy or molecular entropy to act on the contents of the tube you must have a source of low entropy. What and where in natural systems is this source? Right, these are all red herring issues some of which are simply incorrect and others that don't bear on the subject at hand.
  15. I have a worldview that is open minded about how life arose from non-life. I do note that at this time the evidence points more strongly to intervention from a mind but I would like to think there is a natural explanation that is consistent with the evidence and has a causally adequate explanation. Now let's see if I am off base about probability. Only if the physics of the lottery game were set up to guarantee a winner (a net sum game) would this be true. Life by chance alone is not a net sum game. One error on your part, false analogy. One indication that it is you who is off base. I agree with your statement that each variable can be tried repeatedly. This is why I talked about probabilistic resources. These resources among other things, include the number of opportunities to achieve intermediate and final outcomes. I included this factor and discussed it thoroughly. Now two indications that you are off base, you are not doing well with your argument. Were this correct and the "absolute truth" you claim it is then you would be able to offer a real observed example of these truths. First off, the long odds. Please offer a more realistic scenario in contrast to my "false" (which I take to mean unrealistic, since I agree that life did not happen by chance alone) scenario involving generation of the minimal set of functional components of life followed by random assembly of these components that does not involve deterministic assembly since this is a chance only discussion. Second provide a real example where energy without any source of molecular order does drive simple molecular order to more complex (lower entropy) molecular order. Please keep in mind that deterministic processes are generally isentropic. I predict you will fail on both counts. I addressed this above where I note that the current evidence indicates an intelligent agent (a mind) was involved. I do note however that the evidence does not allow us to determine the character of this agent so describing it as some "God" seems unwarranted. It is quite impossible to show that a particular contributing cause for the universe is unnecessary when one cannot show how it actually or even could have formed without this cause. Please start a new thread on this if you disagree and I will be happy to show you your error there too. My contention is that life from non-life by chance alone is not a reasonable position. I have backed it up by refuting the areas you and others claim I have made errors. In your case especially, the errors are on you. I do however appreciate the challenges and the discussion. The evidence from this reality is that events do not violate the laws of entropy. Our observations and uniform experience confirms this. In addition, observation and uniform experience confirms that probabilistic resources that do not act on an event cannot influence the outcome. I am standing on firm ground here. Those who dispute these offer speculations as opposed to observation and experience. Finally, Hoyle's analysis provides the best case hypothetical scenario for life from non-life by chance alone. Nobody has offered a better one with improved odds. The evidence for my claim that life from non-life by chance alone is not a reasonable position is before us. Please don't change my claim into something it is not. I have no intention here of making the claim that some "God" had to have created life.
  16. A couple of peer reviewed articles does not change the argument much. There is evidence suggesting a range of early atmospheres and nothing definitive. But even if we stipulate that all required amino acids were plentiful the primary issues have nothing to do with availability of amino acids so it changes nothing. I would hope not. At one time life did not exist and now it does. The question is how? Physics does help us with this question though by eliminating explanations that lack causal adequacy. Life by chance alone is eliminated by the physical constraints of probability and entropy. Your statement betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of the laws of entropy and what it means to have improbable events occur that generate low entropy systems from higher entropy systems. It may be true that improbable events that are entropy neutral occur (though I am skeptical even of this) however improbable events that generate low entropy without an external source would overturn the physical law. Are you suggesting that these laws are incorrect?
  17. In addition to what the others have said, note that HCO3-1 is not an equal base... It is actually a weak acid that further dissociates a bit to provide a bit more H+ as Skeptic indicated. Think of it this way, If it were a base of equal strength to the H+ acid, it would associate all the H+ it could until it was in solution as H2CO3.
  18. In one article they talk about resources on the order of 10^40 to 10^50 to generate a protein by chance but they never tell you the protein's total ratio of workable to non-workable combinations is on the order of 1 in 10^168 and less so they are short resources by a factor of ~10^120. Likewise the other articles conceal the actual challenges behind attractive sounding speculations. They are designed to fool the uncritical thinker into believing that they have done a proper scientific and mathematical analysis when in reality it is nothing more that imagination. It is nearly meaningless that one can generate some amino acids since the acids cannot self assemble into functional components. If anybody here believes that the articles provide anything compelling and does think that life by chance alone is realistic, please bring the article again so we can take it point by point. Skeptic and Cap'n are at least on the right track to recognize that the real challenge for life by chance alone is to bring in resources to shore up the odds. Those who think that order can come from disorder without a source of even higher order continue to ignore a fundamental reality of the physical laws of our universe. Deterministic processes provide efficient mechanisms to capture and conserve entropy (but not create new order) when a random process imports that preexisting order. This is how crystals are formed without decreasing net entropy. The water cycle on earth is a good example of a reversible cycle that never accumulates net molecular entropy. So far as I know crystals do not accumulate any information and thus do not reduce information entropy at all. Those who attempt to eliminate the long odds of life by chance alone by noting that "life happened" therefore the overall probability had to be close to 1 are conflating all the ways life from non-life could have occurred, including chance alone, necessity alone, chance and necessity, and seeding/design. This post is about chance alone. Perhaps later we can discuss the more realistic possibilities in another thread. With respect to the estimated odds of life from non-life at less than 1 in 10^41000, That number is the combinatorial probability of a minimal set of all the known precursor systems being generated and brought together in no particular sequence or time frame by random processes. The analysis did not include the odds that a biologically active system could then be assembled from these components so the odds are in reality much much lower than even this number. Cap'n points out that through repeated tries one can improve the odds so one must include the "tries" or probabilistic resources in the analysis. The observable universe contains about 10^81 protons and is bout 15 billion years old. From this we get fewer than 10^142 total macro events having ever occurred in the observable universe. The earth has far far fewer resources available than this and thus we are thousands of orders of magnitude short of the resources required. Skeptic wishes to bring in more resources by hypothesizing an infinite universe with infinite mass. Trouble is that most infinite universe scenarios are contradicted by observation, the ones that are not contradicted are pure speculation since they enjoy no evidence for the part of the speculation that allows for an infinite past universe. An equally significant issue is that these additional resources, if they do exist, cannot influence the probability of life from non-life on earth. This is the point Emilio Primo properly makes. It is significant because entropy laws preclude extraordinarily low probability events from occurring that exceed the availability of the resources to allow them to occur. To counter Emilio's argument one would have to show that the law of entropy is false.
  19. Right. Although mathematics allows us to construct combinatorial probabilities of independent events and although the results of the constructs of these model the combinations, the results of the these constructs are still artificial. So there is no analog in reality to suggest that non-interacting resources do influence the ability of improbable events to actually happen. As a point of fact, it is not clear that any real random events have outcomes with probabilities lower than what would be expected by applying just the resources directly acting on the event. This observation is consistent with what one can conclude from the laws of entropy.
  20. Thermal entropy indeed requires and outside source of thermal order (energy), molecular entropy requires an outside source of molecular order (coherent ordered systems), and information entropy requires an outside source of information. There is no indication that thermal energy is able to generate molecular or informational order.
  21. I read it, and I understood the claims. A flat universe is theoretically eternal (not the same as infinite) into the future, but it is not infinite in the past and is not infinite with respect to mass. Only the models that provide for infinite mass at the time of the event we are considering can influence outcomes. Please reread my posts where I made both of those distinctions. The ability to invent independent models alone does not improve probability of past events. I will return to your other points in a bit.
  22. I agree, but others do not. this thread is intended to have a discussion with those who do not agree and this is why I suggested you start a new post. Not that you were trying to hijack the thread, I think this is another topic that is worthy of discussion on its own. Your link relies on a very precise and altogether different definition of "chaotic system" then what you described as "chaos". No sorry there is no objective evidence to suggest that order arises from disorder (what you called chaos). Entropy laws require that order requires equal or higher ordered sources. To claim otherwise is to thumb your nose at thermodynamics. Yes and how it happened is the question at hand. This thread is intended to investigate chance alone. Yes I know you were not. I have read many of your posts and I find them always relevant. Sorry to imply otherwise. I simply thought your point was worthy of a thread on its own. Ordered systems can be modified into equally ordered system by chaotic processes. This is what your link describes. HOwever, order does not arise from disorder by chaotic systems or by disorganized processes (chaos). Your second link is speculation. It does not provide any real observed examples of chemistry and energy generating complex systems like RNA or DNA. Ifs and ands, what-ifs and maybes. By all means though please start a thread on life by deterministic processes if you like.
  23. As ajb indicates, Shannon provides a good measure of information content when one is wishing to compare the quality and efficiency of systems that transcribe, translate and transmit encoded streams. In this case one has an objective standard in measuring information based on the ability of the system to reproduce the original stream. I don't see how data and information can be treated as synonyms as you are suggesting though. There are many kinds of information though as well. The compression algorithm is a form of information in that it is an instruction set that when executed it regenerates a stream of data. There are two objective measures in this case. One is in terms of shannon information and the ability of the instruction set to reproduce the original stream, the other is based on the degree of compressibility. This is another kind of information in that it informs. It eliminates alternatives. The challenge in measuring information content by Shannon's formulations is to know the size and probability distribution of the entire set of alternatives. In some cases this is known but in others it may not be known. This thread is an outgrowth of a topic from the religion section that dealt with a particular kind of information which is digitally encoded functional information. These words for example are digitally encoded and they inform in that they eliminate alternatives but they may not always generate functional systems when processed. Computer code is functional and encoded. How information can be generated would depend on the kind of information to be generated. If we were to accept your definition that information is data (which seems quite clearly false since data is data and requires analysis before it has any objective meaning) there are countless ways to generate data. However Information that informs by eliminating options and is coherent in that when processed generates functional systems and is encoded and is transcribed onto a neutral carrier is unique in that the only known source of this kind of information is an intelligent mind.
  24. I might be wrong, but inventing a model that is molded to fit some limited number of observations (so one can claim it enjoys evidence) and also is molded to infer an infinite universe is not the same as finding observations that are directly consistent with and fit having infinite mass in this universe. I describe these kinds of models as metaphysics masquerading as science. It is a form of confirmation bias to my way of thinking. Good point. An infinite universe can only influence the outcome if the probabilistic resources from this hypothetical space can be brought to bear and act on the events in question. if these resources do not interact, they are isolated and irrelevant so you cannot multiply them since they are not dependent.
  25. The reservoir was another 13,000 no 16,500 feet below the sea floor.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.