Topic: How the Scientific "Consensus" on Evolution is Maintained

[The God Delusion]

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/04/how_the_scienti059011.html
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/04/double_censorsh058981.html

Can someone please point out the stupidity of those two articles above, I am debating a creationist and need some help.
Thank you very much.

[AngleWyrm]

The AML withdrew the right to publish that paper, based not on any errors in his findings, but because "our editors simply found that it does not consist of the kind of content that we are interested in publishing."

The paper's extract:

It is commonly argued that the spectacular increase in order which has occurred on Earth does not violate the second law of thermodynamics because the Earth is an open system, and anything can happen in an open system as long as the entropy increases outside the system compensate the entropy decreases inside the system.

However, if we define ‘‘X-entropy’’ to be the entropy associated with any diffusing component X (for example, X might be heat), and, since entropy measures disorder, ‘‘X-order’’ to be the negative of X-entropy, a closer look at the equations for entropy change shows that they not only say that the X-order cannot increase in a closed system, but that they also say that in an open system the X-order cannot increase faster than it is imported through the boundary.

Thus the equations for entropy change do not support the illogical ‘‘compensation’’ idea; instead, they illustrate the tautology that ‘‘if an increase in order is extremely improbable when a system is closed, it is still extremely improbable when the system is open, unless something is entering which makes it not extremely improbable’’.

Thus, unless we are willing to argue that the influx of solar energy into the Earth makes the appearance of spaceships, computers and the Internet not extremely improbable, we have to conclude that the second law has in fact been violated here.

The third paragraph asserts that this finding eliminates a commonly used misconception -- which, if true, is always a good thing. Just because the argument he is debunking is used in debates by those supporting Darwinian evolution should not matter if his point is valid.

[Desert Fox]

To me, the first article is what I would describe as "Baffle with Bullshit"

[Beleth]

The third paragraph does not follow from the second. The notion of improbability comes out of nowhere. Also, the probability of something occurring, given that it has already occurred, is 1.

[VK-machine]

Retraction Watch has been covering the issue.
http://retractionwatch.wordpress.com/?s=sewell

The questions I have is
a)why a math journal would agree to publish a thermodynamics paper anyway and
b)how come that no one at the journal noticed that Sewell has no clue what he's talking about.

Frankly, if Sewell had any sense of shame he would have thanked the journal for not immortalizing his stupidity.

ETA: The answer to both questions is probably 'because it's a crap journal desperate for content.' Too lazy to look up the impact factor.

[Shadow Of A Doubt]

I don't see what the second law of thermodynamics has to do with the likelihood of computers. Does photosynthesis violate the second law? (hint: no) All the second law has to say about that is that without the sun pumping usable energy into the biosphere life would not exist. Does the second law forbid errors in copying? (hmm  ) No, so mutations (ie variety) will occur. Does the second law prevent more offspring being born than can be supported by the environment? Does the second law stop competition? No and no. So how exactly does the second law stop energy from the sun being turned into humans and computers?

[AngleWyrm]

Does photosynthesis violate the second law? (hint: no)

I think the author's point is that photosynthesis does violate the second law of thermodynamics. Complexity has arisen on Earth from a state that was less organized. Which is the exact opposite of things tending towards maximum entropy.

At this point, people often argue over the rule's scope. Claims are made that the Earth is not a "closed system" and that the rule only applies to closed systems. This paper attempts to prove that argument invalid by demonstrating the math is the same for open systems as well.

It will take a person with some advanced education in physics and math to make some sense of that claim.

[Desert Fox]

Trouble is that, as a universe, perfect disorder would also violate the second law of thermodynamics. It would, in effect, be its own form of order.
With some randomness in the disorder, it would cause events to occur such as particles atracting each other and forming stars.

[Shadow Of A Doubt]

Well that's just silly. It's also inconsistent unless he thinks burning fuel in cars violates the second law. And I disagree about needing an advanced degree in physics to work out this is wrong - he's very clearly misunderstood the point of the second law.

"No process is possible whose sole result is the transfer of heat from a body of lower temperature to a body of higher temperature"

or equivalently

"No process is possible in which the sole result is the absorption of heat from a reservoir and its complete conversion into work."

So please do explain how photosynthesis could be such a process! The mathematics has to be equivalent to those statements or you are not talking about the second law any more. On the other hand I can "violate" the second law too if you let me plug my perpetual motion machine into the mains! 

[Soldier of FORTRAN]

"A second look at the second law" is flat out stupid.  I now think Granville Sewell is a stupid person. 

It is probably fair to say that the majority of view of science today holds that physics explains all of chemistry, chemistry explains all of biology, and biology completely explains the human mind; thus, physics alone explains the human mind, and all it does.

The information content of the laws of physics are smaller than the information content of the human genome. The principles of biology cannot be derived from the laws of physics.  His logic doesn't even work on its own terms, and everything he says there is wrong.

In fact, since there are only four known forces of physics, this means that these four forces must explain everything that has happened on earth, according to this majority view.

This is god damned horrible.  I skimmed bits and pieces but I have to stop here for actually reviewing his points.  This is repugnant.

"Baffle with bullshit" is on point.

edit: Also, he's conflating entropy of the physics sort (distribution of energy across a system) with shannon entropy, from information theory, which is a measure of uncertainty and changes with randomness, which has implications regarding orderliness and complexity.  Also, he screwed up the relationship between ordiliness, complexity and randomness, too:

Thus the equations for entropy change do not support the illogical ‘‘compensation’’ idea; instead, they illustrate the tautology that ‘‘if an increase in order is extremely improbable when a system is closed, it is still extremely improbable when the system is open, unless something is entering which makes it not extremely improbable’’.

That's the paragraph where he shifts what Entropy he's referring to.  If Information Theory used a different term this argument never would have been invented because it's straight BS.

[Gareth]

I am debating a creationist and need some help.

I think the most practical advice is just to stop

[Shadow Of A Doubt]

Also, he's conflating entropy of the physics sort (distribution of energy across a system) with shannon entropy, from information theory, which is a measure of uncertainty and changes with randomness, which has implications regarding orderliness and complexity.  Also, he screwed up the relationship between ordiliness, complexity and randomness, too:

Thus the equations for entropy change do not support the illogical ‘‘compensation’’ idea; instead, they illustrate the tautology that ‘‘if an increase in order is extremely improbable when a system is closed, it is still extremely improbable when the system is open, unless something is entering which makes it not extremely improbable’’.

That's the paragraph where he shifts what Entropy he's referring to.  If Information Theory used a different term this argument never would have been invented because it's straight BS.

Oh two sorts of entropy, I can see why that could get confusing if you weren't paying attention, or deliberately trying to confuse people. Still, if your maths disproves the second law I suggest you look at it again until it doesn't.

[Plasmodium vivax]

Thus, unless we are willing to argue that the influx of solar energy into the Earth makes the appearance of spaceships, computers and the Internet not extremely improbable, we have to conclude that the second law has in fact been violated here.

Don't you know improbable events are impossible?  That's the definition of improbable!

[hfleming]

At this point, people often argue over the rule's scope. Claims are made that the Earth is not a "closed system" and that the rule only applies to closed systems. This paper attempts to prove that argument invalid by demonstrating the math is the same for open systems as well.

The math isn't the same for open systems. Open systems are extraordinarily different from closed systems. All physicists know this. Moreover, the behavior of open systems has been studied quite a bit.

Trouble is that, as a universe, perfect disorder would also violate the second law of thermodynamics. It would, in effect, be its own form of order.

No.


In reply to the OP, this paper fails to pass common sense from the abstract. Take the last sentence of the abstract and argue:

"Thus, unless we are willing to argue that the influx of solar energy, water and nutrients into the acorn makes the appearance of trees not extremely improbable, we have to conclude that the second law has in fact been violated here."

The conclusion is stupid. There are numerous processes where entropy decreases locally - many have nothing to do with biology at all. So either the details are incorrect or the assumptions are incorrect.

In this case, the details of the paper are extremely incorrect:

Equation 1 is wrong: There should be a flux integral, not a divergence. Something like the following

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_conduction#Integral_form
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flux#Flux_definition_and_theorems_2

Equation 3 is wrong: (i) Terms are missing from differentiation. (ii) Entropy is not a state variable and cannot be integrated without supplying a thermodynamic process. (iii) The very language "distribution of heat" also betrays a lack of understanding. There is no such thing in this context. (iv) The integral is incorrect in several different ways. (v) The units are incorrect.

I'm not going to read any further. The author is an idiot, has no understanding of thermodynamics (even for closed systems), cannot perform basic calculus operations, cannot produce equations with correct units (high-school level physics), and cannot think logically.

[hfleming]

Dear god, this man is teaching calculus.

http://www.math.utep.edu/Faculty/sewell/

He couldn't even setup basic derivatives and integrals in his own crank paper. I wonder if he had a stroke or something. That happened to someone in my old physics department. The signs of his stroke were visible.