Cells and entropy

[Aqueous Id]

Life itself is a local reversal of entropy

One way to see how evolution means lowering entropy is to look at the internal components of the cells, such as enzymes

So then we are agreed that the discussion of entropy is irrelevant to the validity of Natural Selection?

The argument used by creationists that life violates entropy is absurd, wouldn't you agree, since Natural Selection is not a system, much less a closed system?

 

[wellwisher]

The lowering of entropy, observed within life's many systems, is the basis for natural selection, since natural selection is about efficiency under any set of conditions. Regardless of circumstances there is a sweet spot in terms of efficiency. Nature does not routinely pick the most inefficient for natural selection, which is why random explanations are not correct, since random implies higher entropy. An ecosystem is an efficient organization of life composed of many aspects that are efficient both internally and externally.

In chemistry, Gibbs free energy allows entropy to decrease, as long as the enthalpy or the energy within the living system is favorable. This will take energy to do. The induced loss of entropy, due to enthalpy changes, also implies efficiency which also implies natural selection. Natural selection is a superficial output, but entropy is what is behind the scenes.

An interesting application of the Gibbs free energy equation G = H -TS, to life, is connected to T or temperature. The most advanced life on earth is warm blooded. This means the TS aspects is maintained at a higher average level. There is more average free energy within the entropy times temperature contribution in warm blooded than cooled blooded critters. There is an extra entropy push within the order and efficiency of the warm blooded critter. This is partially reflected by the brain. For example, more free energy for entropy within the firing of neurons could provide alternate ways to behave; increasing exposure for learning.

Bearing young live also benefits by the extra free energy within entropy. The mother, rather than lower the enthalpy of food all the way to waste, makes use of this higher entropy contribution, to alter enthalpy of food, so the food goes only part way so it can feed the growing embryo over a long period of time.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

An interesting application of the Gibbs free energy equation G = H -TS, to life, is connected to T or temperature. The most advanced life on earth is warm blooded. This means the TS aspects is maintained at a higher average level. There is more average free energy within the entropy times temperature contribution in warm blooded than cooled blooded critters. There is an extra entropy push within the order and efficiency of the warm blooded critter. This is partially reflected by the brain. For example, more free energy for entropy within the firing of neurons could provide alternate ways to behave; increasing exposure for learning.

Just enough knowledge to be dangerous....

 

[Billy T]

... Nature does not routinely pick the most inefficient for natural selection, which is why random explanations are not correct, since random implies higher entropy.....

You seem to be confused about the role randomness plays in evolution theory. It is the variations that are random - in modern terms genes not copied correctly for the offspring - i.e. suffer random change. What is incorrect about that?


NOT nature selecting at random which will prosper. No one is suggesting that.

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

Nature does not routinely pick the most inefficient for natural selection, which is why random explanations are not correct, since random implies higher entropy.

Nature does not "pick" anything. Mutation happens by chance. Cosmic rays, etc.

The ones that are viable may survive to reproduce, the rest won't. You don't seem to understand mutation.

 

[billvon]

Nature does not routinely pick the most inefficient for natural selection

Correct. Nor does it pick the most thermodynamically efficient. Evolution does not care about entropy or thermodynamics - it only cares about the ability to survive and reproduce.

 

[Aqueous Id]

The lowering of entropy, observed within life's many systems, is the basis for natural selection

In your opinion, but the accepted basis is selected mutation.

I disagree that just because the product of a process is more organized or complex that entropy has been reversed. Vast wells of energy were drained over billions of years. This is why you have to close the loop before measuring entropy. Look at all the soil, the sediment, all the by-products of every biosphere that ever was, the work done on the atmosphere. Consider solar and chemical energy spent to produce these. You haven't begun to measure total energy or organization. It's beyond calculation anyway. The best you can try to do is to is measure some infinitesimal contributor, and for some folks, that becomes their life's work.

Which leads us back to evolution by selected mutation, the theory that stands undisturbed by the demolition squads that periodically try to blow it into kingdom come (literally and figuratively).

 

[Billy T]

... Evolution does not care about entropy or thermodynamics - it only cares about the ability to survive and reproduce.

wellwisher just has too much (but still little understanding) exposure to thermodynmics and is essentially ignorant about the most fundamental aspects of evolution.

To give one of thousands of illustrations that what you say is correct and what he claims (Nature picking the most thermodynamically efficient, lowest entropy etc.) is false.

I have a Cockatiel:

* Don't get one if you will lock it in the cage. They need hours of TLC and give the same back.
Note the aerodynamically inefficient top of head feathers with unique structure that hinder flying (more drag and negative lift).
Note the bright orange spots on side of head. They require special coding in the DNA, special chemistry for dye production, more detailed information and processing to put these spots in that location compared to just being uniformly yellow (or with body white as this one is).

Why does nature destroy the lower entropy uniformity of only one color) (make a complex color mix) and make all this extra biological (energy waste) effort burden on flying and metabolic processes??

Answer: Because it is sexy as hell (even from a human POV & a huge turn on for other cockatiels.) Nature only cares about reproductive success, not low entropy.

All cockatiels have these inefficiencies (and are very smart)*.

* We love each other dearly. Mine has some dark grey in wings too - more complex dye production and control in DNA, less efficient than this white yellow** + orange spots one. I understand about half a dozen of her requests and she knows the meaning of a dozen or so phrases (in English and half a dozen in Portuguese!) For example, If I am leaving the room she is in and say "I'll be right back." she will wait a few minutes for my return. Otherwise she will fly to my shoulders to go where I am going. She thinks she is the owner of the house and will verbally complain if you interfer with her wishes.

She also likes to imitate sounds. Today I needed to fine chop some oats in the rarely used (~ once per month) blender, which sits on a back corner of the kitchen sink counter. I had not even touched it, only its electric plug, when she made a reasonably accurate "GRRRR..." from my shoulder !

** I'm not sure but think their heads are always yellow, even the more common in nature ones that have gray bodies.

 

[wellwisher]

Where I differ from existing evolutionary theory, is that I base my explanation of evolution on two laws of science; energy and entropy. Existing evolutionary theory, begins with a couple of theories. Theories are not as certain as laws of science. A law is definitive while a theory needs work because it is often mixed with subjectivities. These subjectivities is what make people think they need to fight religion. All you need to do is upgrade the foundation premises from theory to law and that ends. The fight is there to compensate for subjective doubts due to theory.

Why does nature destroy the lower entropy uniformity of only one color) (make a complex color mix) and make all this extra biological (energy waste) effort burden on flying and metabolic processes??

Answer: Because it is sexy as hell (even from a human POV & a huge turn on for other cockatiels.) Nature only cares about reproductive success, not low entropy.

With natural selection, you don't look at only individuals. The reason is, efficiencies can often mean in individuals in conjunction with groups and eco-systems, since energy and entropy applies at all levels, from individual to the eco-system. The machine has overall efficiencies as well as efficiencies of its parts. DNA tends to focus on one critter at a time, which can dissociate the critter from the bigger picture. A genetic change will not last, if it is not conducive to the needs of the broader picture of system wide free energy.

According to the Gibbs free energy equation, the free energy can lower in two ways; by lowering enthalpy or increasing entropy. There are times when genetic entropy, allows free energy to lower. Changes in the DNA can become connected to the overall free energy within the wider based system and can become the focal point for entropy to increase, as long as the free energy is decreasing. It is not exactly random if you look at the larger free energy picture.

In the case of the cockatiels, although its genetic change may not provide individual efficiencies in terms of flight, it does make the larger male-female system more optimized, at the level of the brain; sensory input to trigger propagation. In this case, the overall free energy is based on a larger picture. In an assembly plant for making cars, each machine station plays a role in final production. We might need to slow one machine down, and take a hit on that machine's efficiency, to allow the next machine more time to work, so there are fewer mistakes. The overall line is better.

The DNA alone is too narrow to explain why eco-systems can reform quickly even after drastic changes to the environment. All the ducks line quickly up in a row based on overall system free energy. This might require changes in behavior in time frames where there is not enough time for DNA trial in error.

 

[wellwisher]

I was actually going to use a free energy analysis to explain the Cambric explosion. The free energy was favorable for this higher entropy change.

In terms of something analogous to visualize, let us consider a stem cell. This is a very plastic cell which can differentiate to almost any differentiated cell that uses that particular DNA. Unlike differentiated cells, which are fixed into a low entropy states of high efficiency limitations, the stem cell can undergo much higher levels of entropy to become any of hundreds of cells.

Inherent within stem cells is biochemistry that allows the entropy side of the free equation to become very significant. This high entropy cellular plastic state is working in conjunction with the overall order within the growing multicellular life form, which is growing into a highly integrated and efficient machine of many parts. The overall free energy is optimized using stem cell entropy.

Getting back to the Cambric explosion, all that would be theoretically needed would be something similar to multicellular version of stem cells such as stem mothers. Her eggs would need to be very plastic ,analogous to the high entropy designed into stem cells.

There would need to a high level of entropy potential stored within the free energy of the biochemistry of the stem mother's eggs, leading to wide generic diversity. It is not exactly random, since the entropy, although increasing like stem cels, is flowing down paths that optimize overall system free energy. Most of the plastic change might have been limited to body style, since that is all you can easily infer from fossils. The motor and drive train of the stem mother may have been conserved (insides), with the entropy more restricted to the superficial body style, such as stem cell changes into more bone, muscle, nerve, skin, etc.

 

[Billy T]

Where I differ from existing evolutionary theory, ...

Probably, if not just ignorant, because you have near zero understanding of it. - Evolution is not some group dynamic concerned with reduction of the entropy of the group or even of the "bigger system" - group plus its enviroment.
Quite the contrary the more inclusive you make the system the more certain is that the total entropy will increase. Evolution is ONE (not a group) individually having a very rare beneficial copying mistake in the DNA it passes to its off springs, which then may over generations become dominate in the group.

... With natural selection, you don't look at only individuals. The reason is, efficiencies can often mean in individuals in conjunction with groups and eco-systems, since energy and entropy applies at all levels, from individual to the eco-system. ... It is not exactly random if you look at the larger free energy picture.

No it IS the individual random DNA change, but of course 99.99+% are selected against and many of these random copy errors IN INDIVIDUALS don't even result in a viable organism.

In the case of the cockatiels, although its genetic change may not provide individual efficiencies in terms of flight, it does make the larger male-female system more optimized,

That must be your way of addmiting it is sexual selection (followed by survival advantages) benefit, not entropy reduction, that makes evolution proceed.

... The DNA alone is too narrow to explain why eco-systems can reform quickly even after drastic changes to the environment. All the ducks line quickly up in a row based on overall system free energy. This might require changes in behavior in time frames where there is not enough time for DNA trial in error.

Yes the random change in DNA is just the starting point. It must result in greater probability of being reproduced in the subsequent generations - not in lower energy requirements (although that may help, especially if food is limited) and certainly there is no pressure to lower entropy. In fact as the cockatiels (and thousands of other creatures) show in their evolution, normally inefficiencies become common IN THE ENTIRE GROUP. Perhaps you don't read well either. I made the point of prior post and now again in larger type below:

.... To give one of thousands of illustrations that what you say is correct and what he claims (Nature picking the most thermodynamically efficient, lowest entropy etc.) is false.
... Note the aerodynamically inefficient top of head feathers with unique structure that hinder flying (more drag and negative lift).
Note the bright orange spots on side of head. They require special coding in the DNA, special chemistry for dye production, more detailed information and processing to put these spots in that location compared to just being uniformly yellow (or with body white as this one is).

Why does nature destroy the lower entropy uniformity of only one color) (make a complex color mix) and make all this extra biological (energy waste) effort burden on flying and metabolic processes??

Answer: Because it is sexy as hell (even from a human POV & a huge turn on for other cockatiels.) Nature only cares about reproductive success, not low entropy.

All cockatiels have these inefficiencies ...{higher energy requirements, higher entropy design.}

 

[wellwisher]

Like I said, if you base evolution on fuzzy random based theory and not science laws, you will need to use subjective rhetoric to make it seem correct.

Sexual selection of birds is a brain phenomena, since animals are not blind folded making random choices. Rather visual and audio signals enter the brain to be processed. These signals are compared to instinctive templates in the brain. The brain is the most progressed part of the life form, since it makes the interactions between the animal and the environment possible. Minimizing inefficiencies via the brain is important part of natural selection.

If you ever fell in love, once triggered there is a strong usage of energy, since it causes a significant change in free energy. The bond also lowers entropy since you can't look at anyone else. If the female's bird's brain is triggered by the sensory triggers from the male, this optimizes the release of free energy and lowers their combined entropy. If not there, the free energy is maintained in both with entropy higher; open the options.

If there is a blockage, such that there is no trigger to release the enthalpy so free energy can lower, the entropy side can be used. The result can be a generic change, or change of mind, to take advantage of the situation.

Where we differs is I place free energy ahead of the DNA. The current theory magically has the DNA leading out of the context of free energy. That defies two laws of science based on theory. When you chose theory that defies known laws, it always appeared like a religion to me.

 

[Billy T]

... Theories are not as certain as laws of science. A law is definitive while a theory needs work because it is often mixed with subjectivities. These subjectivities is what make people think they need to fight religion. ...

You are not fooling anyone. Many before you have attacked the idea that evolution is RANDOM change followed by selection. That is the first necessary step required before you can introduce "intelligent design" concepts etc.

Certainly "religion" is not scientific law based, not nearly as firmly established as the truth as evolution is. If it were, it would not come in several dozen mutually contradicting versions.

 

[Billy T]

... If the female's bird's brain is triggered by the sensory triggers from the male, this optimizes the release of free energy and lowers their combined entropy.
Where we differs is I place free energy ahead of the DNA. The current theory magically has the DNA leading out of the context of free energy. That defies two laws of science based on theory. When you chose theory that defies known laws, it always appeared like a religion to me.

The thinking does not get much more subjective and fuzzy than your statement now made bold.
That is your idea of a theory that follows "scientific laws" !!! - You should be posting this in the "Jokes and Funny Stories" thread.

BTW - name even one "scientific law" (not one of your fuzzy concepts) that the theory of evolution violates,"defies known laws"

 

[wellwisher]

One problem that constantly occurs, which may not be clear to many people, has to do with practical science. Statistics and probability were originally a mathematical tool that allowed one to model complex situations where the cause and effects were hard to model. We could still get good results using less brain power. You no longer needed a Sherlock Holmes to make cause and effect connection, but only needed this useful method and data collection. It was a labor saver tool. You lost the need for logic, but the trade off was you could more, faster.

As an example, we would take a situation where the cause and effect is well known. Instead of saying it is known, we will pretend it is not known. We can run a statistical model and achieve good predictive results even while being dumbed down. If you never understood the original logic, which might get subtle, you can still apply the stat model and achieve a type of bottom line relationship. It is a useful tool, like a chain saw instead of a hand saw. But chain saws can't do delicate cuts. However, they can cut more wood, faster.

Originally, it was well understood that this was a tool that made it easier to do more things, faster, compared to old school cause and effect for everything. As time went on, the practical utility of this tool, had its own cause and effect altered ,to where science assumed, since statistics works so well in so many cases, the universe had to be random, since this is how the tool works. The cart was placed before the horse. You can still use the hand saw for the delicate cuts but that seems to violate the assumption of random. However, random is all one can expect of the chain saw therefore delicate cuts are assumed impossible.

The idea of energy and entropy is based on cause and effect laws that appeared before the chain saw approach to science. There is a logical explanation based on these two laws. The problem is, I am not using the tool that is also used by gambling casinos, based on random and chance. Sure you can win large jackpots, but most of the time, the subjectivity of random luck is all there is. I am not into gambling but prefer a logical approach based on cause and effect reality.

Do a history check of statistical modeling to see the transition into the cart leading the horse and thinking random is natural. Darwin saw order in natural selection not chaos. Chain saw science can't even see the paradox it has created. Darwin was part of the age of reason, where reality was expected to be logical. Random was considered the stuff of superstition.

 

[billvon]

With natural selection, you don't look at only individuals.

Agreed. You look at the likelihood that that individual will reproduce.

The reason is, efficiencies can often mean in individuals in conjunction with groups and eco-systems, since energy and entropy applies at all levels, from individual to the eco-system.

Also agreed. However, evolution has nothing to do with efficiency. Peacock tails are extremely INefficient when it comes to the energy needed to keep a peacock alive. But they appeal to the opposite sex - so those traits are preserved and amplified.

A genetic change will not last, if it is not conducive to the needs of the broader picture of system wide free energy.

Genes do not really give a shit about "the broader picture of system wide free energy." Species often drive themselves into extinction, or near-extinction, because of their overuse of energy (food.)

The DNA alone is too narrow to explain why eco-systems can reform quickly even after drastic changes to the environment.

DNA, and the structures it encodes (like the HOX gene complex) is precisely why organisms can adapt quickly to drastic changes in the environment.

 

[Aqueous Id]

Where I differ from existing evolutionary theory, is that I base my explanation of evolution on two laws of science; energy and entropy.

which is invalid since
(1) the 1st law of thermodynamics applies to total energy, which you ignore
(2) the 2nd law of thermodynamics only to closed systems, which you ignore

Existing evolutionary theory, begins with a couple of theories.

Theory doesn't begin with theory. It begins with evidence.

Theories are not as certain as laws of science.

You are ignoring the defintion of "theory" and "law"

A law is definitive while a theory needs work because it is often mixed with subjectivities.

False.

These subjectivities is what make people think they need to fight religion.

Your subjective rationale for fighting science is evident from your writings.

All you need to do is upgrade the foundation premises from theory to law and that ends.

Your rationale that theory is untenable is false and ignores the definitions.

The fight is there to compensate for subjective doubts due to theory.

Your subjective doubts are invalidated by ignoring the definition of theory, and the facts.

With natural selection, you don't look at only individuals.

And you don't look only at thermodynamics.

The reason is, efficiencies can often mean in individuals in conjunction with groups and eco-systems, since energy and entropy applies at all levels, from individual to the eco-system.

Only in closed systems, which you continue to ignore.

The machine has overall efficiencies as well as efficiencies of its parts. DNA tends to focus on one critter at a time, which can dissociate the critter from the bigger picture. A genetic change will not last, if it is not conducive to the needs of the broader picture of system wide free energy.

A variation or mutation will not survive if the critter can't survive, period. Natural Selection.

According to the Gibbs free energy equation, the free energy can lower in two ways; by lowering enthalpy or increasing entropy.

Gibbs free energy applies to a thermodynamic system at contant temperature and pressure, which you ignore.

There are times when genetic entropy, allows free energy to lower.

Genetic entropy is an invented term.

Changes in the DNA can become connected to the overall free energy within the wider based system and can become the focal point for entropy to increase, as long as the free energy is decreasing.

Changes in DNA are connected to probability densities.

It is not exactly random if you look at the larger free energy picture.

You are ignoring the fact that DNA varies randomly over populations and individual gametes.

The DNA alone is too narrow to explain why eco-systems can reform quickly even after drastic changes to the environment.

You introduce a claim that eco-system reforming is time critical, but no evidence.
DNA explains inheritance, period. Natural selection explains evolution by inheritance, period.

All the ducks line quickly up in a row based on overall system free energy. This might require changes in behavior in time frames where there is not enough time for DNA trial in error.

What is your concern about time frames? You throw this in without justifying it.

I was actually going to use a free energy analysis to explain the Cambric explosion. The free energy was favorable for this higher entropy change.

Your concern over the Cambric is unfounded. You are ignoring the explosion that occured just at the end of the Pre-Cambrian: the end of the reducing atmosphere, the beginning of both aerobic and anaerobic respiration, sexual reporduction, diversity in monocytes, cell clustering, etc.

Like I said, if you base evolution on fuzzy random based theory and not science laws, you will need to use subjective rhetoric to make it seem correct.

Fuzzy to you, clear to scientists, who deal with random processes daily. It's fundamental to math and science, including thermo. Nothing subjective is required, for example: I can say "Normal", "Uniform" , "Rayleigh" and "Poisson" and most scientists will know what kind of random process I am talking about. The statistics of a process are in the data it exhibits, it's as objective as it gets.

Where we differs is I place free energy ahead of the DNA. The current theory magically has the DNA leading out of the context of free energy. That defies two laws of science based on theory. When you chose theory that defies known laws, it always appeared like a religion to me.

Where we differ is "we" don't deny science and you do, by inserting inapplicable laws from the unrelated field of thermodynamics, and magically ahieving your desired effect of denial of science.

Since you have neither proven a thermodynamic system exiists, that is a system at all, that it is a closed system, or that is is at constant temperature and pressure, your analogy falls flat and all of your conclusions are invalidated and therefore your entire argument against the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection fails.

Please feel free to post my rebuttal at the Neo-Creation-Science forum of your choosing.

 

[Billy T]

... Darwin was part of the age of reason, where reality was expected to be logical. Random was considered the stuff of superstition.

The bold is NOT true. More of your inventions. The study of random probability was one of the more advanced sciences!

Probability, because of its importance to gamblers like Chevaliers de Mere, a prominent member of the French court and avid gambler. He prompted an exchange of many letters between Pascal & Fermat discussing probability – Questions like how many rolls of two die together are need to make “box cars” (a pair of 6s) more likely to occur than not? Or another was if four die are rolled, is it more or less likely that a six will appear? Etc.

The chance of getting at least one 6 in four rolls is only very slightly* better than 50/50 i.e. 671/1296 to be exact; and more than 24 rolls of two die are on average required to get box cars. You want to try to show that? that was known mathematically, not the "stuff of superstition."

*Far less than the 2/3 the simple minded often guess. With slight odds in your favor you can make money betting there will be no 6, even in four rolls.

 

[wellwisher]

Also agreed. However, evolution has nothing to do with efficiency. Peacock tails are extremely INefficient when it comes to the energy needed to keep a peacock alive. But they appeal to the opposite sex - so those traits are preserved and amplified.

You need to extend the concept of efficiency to more than just biochemistry. The tail of the peacock has an impact on the female at the level of the brain; appeal. The brain is at the top of the hierarchy in terms of the animals overall control system. Optimization changes in the brain can lead to overall system efficiencies.

Picture an assembly line with a robot arm that choses particular objects to send down the line. Improvements in selectivity can optimize the system, even with the rest of the assembly line the same.

The idea of those traits preserved and amplified does not explain where the energy and entropy comes from to do this? It relies on a nebulous version of energy in the ethereal world of chaos. I am trying to get past that subjective veil.

Random changes on the DNA is implicit of higher entropy. The enthalpy increase is associated with the higher potential implicit of improper base pairs. The hydrogen bonded has residual energy/enthalpy. This is consistent with free energy, but needs energy beyond the DNA to add up. I am looking beyond the DNA so it does not look as random to me.

For example, after the DNA is duplicated, the nuclear membrane and other features in the cell disperse. This reflects a high entropy induction, that is times, as cellular order changes into disorder. This transitions implies there is a lot of entropy potential in the cell at that time. Some was used by the DNA, previously, with the cell generating this potential way before the DNA is even replicated. This potential is being filtered through the context of the cell so mutations have a better batting average than would a purely random change to the entire DNA.

There are parts of the DNA that are conserved and parts that are more subject to change during DNA duplication. This, by itself is not implicit of random. There is no need to change that which is already optimized. How the DNA know which is which so it can restrict some genes more than others? It has to do with free energy and that which is more or less favorable for entropy.

 

[wellwisher]

The bold is NOT true. More of your inventions. The study of random probability was one of the more advanced sciences!

Probability, because of its importance to gamblers like Chevaliers de Mere, a prominent member of the French court and avid gambler. He prompted an exchange of many letters between Pascal & Fermat discussing probability – Questions like how many rolls of two die together are need to make “box cars” (a pair of 6s) more likely to occur than not? Or another was if four die are rolled, is it more or less likely that a six will appear? Etc.

The chance of getting at least one 6 in four rolls is only very slightly better than 50/50 i.e. 671/1296 to be exact; and more than 24 rolls of two die are on average required to get box cars. You want to try to show that? that was known mathematically, not the "stuff of superstition."

There is another side to this. Gambling can also involve cheating, such as loaded dice. In this case, we can add weight to certain sides so they will appear more often. The DNA does not uniformly change along its entire length in a random way. Some areas of the DNA is loaded to these side appear more often. Other genes are more highly conservative, with these mutating with less frequency. This is loaded dice that uses the weight of free energy.

By superstition I meant that random allows anything to be possible since there is a finite possibility for selling anything. This allows fairies and pixies since these can randomly appear even in violation of cause and effect. The DNA has loaded dice based on cause and effect called free energy. The random or entropy is restricted to what is needed to minimize free energy.