Cells and entropy

[Aqueous Id]

Life has a plan.

Apparently that plan included the deprivation of your ability to read, understand and draw inferences from any of thousands of technical books and articles on science.

Apparently the plan was for you to walk right past the mountains of evidence that would bury you if you tried to even unturn a single stone.

Apparently the plan was for you to wander aimlessly in the desert of your own confusion, ranting about your insane imagined personal view of reality.

Was that a plan imposed on you, or do you also do the planning?

 

[Billy T]

... To gain cellular efficiency from 5% to 85%, cell entropy had to fall in the open system earth. It is not magic but simple math. ...

entropy had no causal effect here. Yes during times when food was limited, more efficient systems were Darwinian selected.

One can note that may have lowered entropy, for living system, just as one can note that firetrucks are often found near fires.

Fire truck don´t CAUSE fires, ENTROPY REDUCTION does not CAUSE OR GUIDE evolution. Both are consequences, not causes.

To think otherwise one must be very ignorate of how the world works.

 

[billvon]

Fire truck don´t CAUSE fires, ENTROPY REDUCTION does not CAUSE OR GUIDE evolution. Both are consequences, not causes. To think otherwise one must be very ignorate of how the world works.

When your only tool is a hammer, all problems look like nails. (Or more accurately, when your only tool is entropy, all problems look like basic thermo.)

 

[Aqueous Id]

When your only tool is a hammer, all problems look like nails. (Or more accurately, when your only tool is entropy, all problems look like basic thermo.)

Yes but in this case he's trying to pull out what's been nailed down, and his hammer has no claw, since he never closes the system, in fact, he never has a system at all, and he's unable to connect ideas like heat with ideas like Natural Selection, because, of course, there is no connection...which is of course exactly what you mean by having only one tool. It brings to mind a child hammering away innocently at anything that he can reach. The difference is that wellwisher is obviously an adult--just one that prefers to engage the world as of we are all children. What an odd bird.

 

[wellwisher]

I understand the 19th century theory of natural selection put forth by Darwin. I also respect this accomplishment. It offered a humanistic explanation of the process of change observed in life. However, it did not address questions like what is the physical basis for natural selection? Darwin's theory appeared before physical chemistry and thermodynamics were developed. It is a toy hammer. If that is all you got I need to treat you like children.

Explain to to me the logic behind natural selection using hard science. I am not looking for recitation of this toy hammer tradition as though this is root science like a natural law. Explain this in terms of chemistry or physics, since these underly such phenomena on the earth.

I stick to entropy because natural selection has no mechanism based in science. Do sprites cause this or does mother natural do it?

As far as an open system, don't cells limit free movement into and out of the cell via transport proteins? Why is the cell avoiding the open environment criterion and reducing the open amount of possible entropy? What was the mechanism for this, without using 19th century humanism?

 

[wellwisher]

For the experts in entropy, let me show you something new. This is important to life since it indirectly explains one of the whys of natural selection. I have no problem with natural selection other than it is not a law of nature. It is a beginning or toy hammer, but not the end. If Darwin has formed his theory 100 years later he would have taken ti to the next step.

I will begin with oil and water in a beaker. The oil floats on top of the water forming two phases. Next, I will add energy to increase the entropy, through agitation. The increase in entropy will be reflected by the increased complexity and increase in information needed to describe the system. We will go from two phases to thousands of little water and oil bubbles randomly floating in various stages of collision and breaking.

Although I have added energy and increased entropy, I went to far for this system and made too much entropy. What will happen is the system will move toward less entropy, less complexity, defined by less information, as the bubbles combine and ultimately reforming the simple two layer system.

The physics system has an entropy limit due to surface tension between water and oil. I can increase it, but this will not remain stable but will reverse back to the system entropy limit. This is a natural selection.

I will stop so you can digest that.

 

[Aqueous Id]

I understand the 19th century theory of natural selection put forth by Darwin. I also respect this accomplishment.

And now you will equivocate:

It offered a humanistic explanation of the process of change observed in life.

And thus my point is proven: you address your readers like children.

However,

This is the conjunction of equivocation

it did not address questions like what is the physical basis for natural selection?

You are dead wrong. Mutation is physical. Competition for resources is physical. Selection is physical.

Darwin's theory appeared before physical chemistry and thermodynamics were developed.

Bullhonkey. Re-read your history.

It is a toy hammer. If that is all you got I need to treat you like children.

If that was worthy of something I would call it patronizing. Unfortunately you don't even make it through the first wicket.

Explain to to me the logic behind natural selection using hard science.

Are you kidding me?

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_25

http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/globalchange1/current/lectures/selection/selection.html

http://anthro.palomar.edu/evolve/evolve_2.htm

That's all you get for now. I've got millions more. You probably won't read them anyway. You're punking us, aren't you?

I am not looking for recitation of this toy hammer tradition as though this is root science like a natural law.

You're not looking for the hard science, as presented in university science courses? Then it's not science, and you're just trolling.

Explain this in terms of chemistry or physics, since these underly such phenomena on the earth.

No, you said hard science. That's all you get, nothing more, no "my way or the highway". You have to bite the bullet and go with hard science.

I stick to entropy because natural selection has no mechanism based in science. Do sprites cause this or does mother natural do it?

Right. Hard science equals sprites. Got that.

As far as an open system, don't cells limit free movement into and out of the cell via transport proteins?

Are you finally going to acknowledge you error in treating entropy outside of a closed system? Makes me practically want to get down on my knees and thank the Lord.

Why is the cell avoiding the open environment criterion and reducing the open amount of possible entropy?

You have to be freaking kidding me. You aren't by any chance taking Thorazine, are you? If so, forgive me, for you know not what you do. Really, dude, that has to be the CRAZIEST thing you have said so far.

YOU ARE ERRONEOUSLY APPLYING A THERMODYNAMIC PRINCIPLE TO AN OPEN SYSTEM. THE PRINCIPLE IS INVALID IN AN OPEN SYSTEM. YOU HAVE TO CALCULATE THE TOTAL EXCHANGES ACROSS THE BOUNDARY THAT ENCLOSES THE SYSTEM. READ AND UNDERSTAND ANY INTRODUCTORY STATEMENT ABOUT ENTROPY TO CORRECT YOUR ERROR.

What was the mechanism for this, without using 19th century humanism?

Give me that hammer before you hurt someone. Now go read.

 

[Aqueous Id]

For the experts in entropy,

This from the guy who leaves the gate valve open when measuring pressure.

let me show you something new.

which 100 people have already told me is wrong, and which is diametrically opposite of all literature and teaching in science. Millions of experts need to sit down and shut up, because here's the Big Answer.

This is important to life since it indirectly explains one of the whys of natural selection.

In case any one had any doubt that DNA and the struggle for survival were in any way suspect.

I have no problem with natural selection other than it is not a law of nature.

He's a lawman! He wants a property deed! None around? He's going to stake a claim!

It is a beginning or toy hammer, but not the end. If Darwin has formed his theory 100 years later he would have taken ti to the next step.

Translation: Darwin waited 30 years to publish, fearing the nitwits that couldn't understand the simplest ideas of a naturalist. But I know he would have come my way. And so would millions of scientists who will someday understand me, good citizens of Athens, when I awaken them to their folly.

I will begin with oil and water in a beaker.

Which has NOTHING TO DO WITH BIOLOGY but who cares? I'm talking now.

The oil floats on top of the water forming two phases. Next, I will add energy to increase the entropy, through agitation. The increase in entropy will be reflected by the increased complexity and increase in information needed to describe the system. We will go from two phases to thousands of little water and oil bubbles randomly floating in various stages of collision and breaking.

Although I have added energy and increased entropy, I went to far for this system and made too much entropy. What will happen is the system will move toward less entropy, less complexity, defined by less information, as the bubbles combine and ultimately reforming the simple two layer system.

The physics system has an entropy limit due to surface tension between water and oil. I can increase it, but this will not remain stable but will reverse back to the system entropy limit.

Translation: all of my ideas about evolution came from the science hints in the back of a comic book.

This is a natural selection.

*POOF* and the wizard is gone in thick cloud of greasy black smoke. But wait! An axe is thrown at you! There is an anrgy elf in the room with you! You run, dropping your lamp, setting the Hall of the Mountain King ablaze! There is no escape. You wave your rod, holler PLUGH! but nothing!

Then you wake up, having fallen asleep not at your GameBoy, but at - yes, boys and girls - the noble hall of SciForums, home of all things science, and, MUCH MUCH MORE!

I will stop so you can digest that.

*gag*

**bwaaarf***

 

[wellwisher]

YOU ARE ERRONEOUSLY APPLYING A THERMODYNAMIC PRINCIPLE TO AN OPEN SYSTEM. THE PRINCIPLE IS INVALID IN AN OPEN SYSTEM. YOU HAVE TO CALCULATE THE TOTAL EXCHANGES ACROSS THE BOUNDARY THAT ENCLOSES THE SYSTEM. READ AND UNDERSTAND ANY INTRODUCTORY STATEMENT ABOUT ENTROPY TO CORRECT YOUR ERROR.

I hear rhetoric but I still don't hear any mechanism. Why is that? The reason is there is none. This smoke is no substitute for real science.

Evolution has two aspects which are being merged and confused. The first is the genetic aspect, which is well developed science. The other aspect is natural selection which is a toy hammer, where sound rational thinking is replaced by conformity to dogma.

Let me demonstrate the dogma of natural selection with an example. Say we start with a group of ten male animals competing for reproduction. After the competition natural selection results in the strongest animal doing the deed. This is just a basic example of say deer.

If we look in terms of the future complexity or information, the possible genetic information that is passed forward to the offspring has been reduced to roughly 10% by natural selection, since only 1 or 10 gets to breed. There is a loss of entropy/complexity and information into the future. Natural selection, by means of its process of "elimination", reduces the information and entropy with respect to the future.

Again there are two things, genetics diversity and natural selection. The genetic aspect increases entropy (10 competitors), while natural selection skinnies this down to 10% in the above example. This eliminates 90% of the theoretical future entropy and is therefore 90% efficient in lowering future entropy.

I used the water and oil example because it parallels natural selection or rather natural selection parallel the basic potentials in the water/oil. The genetic aspects is like the agitator which increases the entropy of the oil/water to form an emulsion with more information and more complexity. Natural selection is breaking the bubbles until we are down to two phases. This makes the toy hammer more like a older child's metal hammer. It is hard to go to adult hammer when the basics are beyond an entire branch of science.

The irony is Evolutionary science will probably still deny truth in an attempt to perpetuate its myth using the ever predictable and boring PC smear approach based on alternate reality. Since I figured this out that makes me the smartest person, in evolution theory history, besides Darwin. This is why I treat the naive who rudely protect the irrational traditions, as children.

 

[Billy T]

As examples of the dominate role of natural selection and unimportant role of entropy consider the leopard and zebra – both have coats of mixed colors – a higher entropy state than uniform color.

It is survival and mating that are important, not lower entropy.

But don´t let "ugly facts" destroy your "beautiful theory" - keep your non-scientific beliefs.

 

[wellwisher]

To quote myself

The irony is Evolutionary science will probably still deny truth in an attempt to perpetuate its myth using the ever predictable and boring PC smear approach based on alternate reality. .... This is why I treat the naive who rudely protect the irrational traditions, as children.

Do the math. We start with a herd of zebra. In the ideal world of evolutionary entropy all would breed assuring maximum genetic entropy is passed forward. But natural selection will reduce this to a fraction of those genes. Do the math instead of get bogged town in humanism.

In my example, we start with ten and natural selection picks one, reducing theoretical information (if all could breed) to 10% entropy=complexity=information. This loss of entropy=complexity=information leads to efficiency of about 90% but we still have 10% entropy.

This 10% can still lead to complexity=information and entropy, but only 10% of the original 100%, since 90% of the original genes are lost forever.

The slow boat of evolution is because although the DNA can generate mutations and diversity, this level of entropy does not remain. Natural selection will reduce it to a small fraction. Darwin would have figured this out if the concept of entropy had been around in his day. It came after him with me able to figure it out and honor the teacher by exceeding him.

 

[billvon]

I understand the 19th century theory of natural selection put forth by Darwin. I also respect this accomplishment. It offered a humanistic explanation of the process of change observed in life.

It is not a humanistic approach. Indeed it has nothing to do with human values or concerns. This is often misunderstood by creationists who feel that evolution "imposes a secular view of the world on people" or something. It does no such thing. It merely explains how organisms evolve.

However, it did not address questions like what is the physical basis for natural selection?

Simple. Death. Organisms that are selected against die and do not propagate their genome.

Darwin's theory appeared before physical chemistry and thermodynamics were developed.

Given that it's still valid, that is an excellent argument that evolution requires neither physical chemistry nor thermodynamics to be valid.

I stick to entropy because natural selection has no mechanism based in science. Do sprites cause this or does mother natural do it?

There is no "mother natural" nor are their sprites. It is simple selection.

If you'd like to learn more about it, google it and pay particular attention to genetic algorithms that use it. There are a great many out there. (And if you contact the scientists who work on it and claim that "there's no basis for selection in science" you'll probably learn more than you ever cared to know about the science behind it.)

Some other terms you might want to use in a Google search about selection:

stochastic universal sampling
tournament selection
truncation selection.

As far as an open system, don't cells limit free movement into and out of the cell via transport proteins? Why is the cell avoiding the open environment criterion and reducing the open amount of possible entropy?

Because cells that remain open to the environment cannot maintain homeostasis, and thus die. This removes them from breeding populations, and their genomes are lost.

 

[river]

doesn't cells increase entropy , since it breaks down "food" which is ordered

 

[river]

so the importance of order and entropy to the cell is important for life to exist

 

[Aqueous Id]

I hear rhetoric but I still don't hear any mechanism.

All you hear is the sound of your own voice. You claim to be taking a known parameter, entropy, and applying it in a useful manner, but you are violating the fundamental principle that entropy is a measure of TOTAL order, and so this foolish nonsense lives on in your mind because you think you are some kind of prima donna with a magic bullet that is going to revolutionize the world. But it's just a dumb lame excuse for you to vent, nothing more. You think you are immune from error, while you sit on a mountain of error. All because you refuse to listen. You refuse to read, understand and learn. That should be an alarm for you by itself. But you've turned off the alarm system long ago. Your posh little castle is lying in a pile of ashes and you're still gloating about how quaint and comfy it is.

Why is that? The reason is there is none. This smoke is no substitute for real science.

You wouldn't know real science if a book on thermodynamics fell off the shelf and hit you in the head. So far you are the quintessential example of pseudoscience.

Evolution has two aspects which are being merged and confused.

By you alone, no typical scientist is confused about it at all

The first is the genetic aspect, which is well developed science.

Do you actually know any of the principles of genetics? Can you describe what Gregor Mendel learned about it, how he set out to explore the question, and why? This is freshman material, wellwisher. You're talking to people who took these courses already. They see you refusing to even open the book. Hasn't that notion gotten through to you yet? You have to learn before you can teach.

The other aspect is natural selection which is a toy hammer, where sound rational thinking is replaced by conformity to dogma.

Here we go with the rant. Always substitute rant when lacking in fundamental principles. wellwisher's 1st law of thermodynamics.

Let me demonstrate the dogma of natural selection with an example.

Fallacy of implied conclusion: dogma.

wellwisher's 2nd law of thermo: grind the gears and rave on using an utterly inane invented parable that is supposed to model an analogy, but it never does:

Say we start with a group of ten male animals competing for reproduction. After the competition natural selection results in the strongest animal doing the deed. This is just a basic example of say deer.

If we look in terms of the future complexity or information, the possible genetic information that is passed forward to the offspring has been reduced to roughly 10% by natural selection, since only 1 or 10 gets to breed. There is a loss of entropy/complexity and information into the future. Natural selection, by means of its process of "elimination", reduces the information and entropy with respect to the future.

Again there are two things, genetics diversity and natural selection. The genetic aspect increases entropy (10 competitors), while natural selection skinnies this down to 10% in the above example. This eliminates 90% of the theoretical future entropy and is therefore 90% efficient in lowering future entropy.

I used the water and oil example because it parallels natural selection or rather natural selection parallel the basic potentials in the water/oil. The genetic aspects is like the agitator which increases the entropy of the oil/water to form an emulsion with more information and more complexity. Natural selection is breaking the bubbles until we are down to two phases. This makes the toy hammer more like a older child's metal hammer. It is hard to go to adult hammer when the basics are beyond an entire branch of science.

The irony is Evolutionary science will probably still deny truth in an attempt to perpetuate its myth using the ever predictable and boring PC smear approach based on alternate reality. Since I figured this out that makes me the smartest person, in evolution theory history, besides Darwin. This is why I treat the naive who rudely protect the irrational traditions, as children.

And that's it. Not one shred of science.

 

[Aqueous Id]

doesn't cells increase entropy , since it breaks down "food" which is ordered

OK this is a valid, because you pose it as a question. And see how that question is going to lead to what wellwisher is avoiding. Because the amino acids taken in will be reassembled to make cell proteins, which may or may not be considered order - it's too complex to say, without going through a detailed analysis. The glucose will be metabolized, so that's a definite breakdown in order. So you're looking at this from the objective point of view, by merely asking "what's going on", whereas wellwisher is ASSUMING he already knows what's going on, so he's going to invent a "science" that proves it.

But your statement could teach him how to think critically, if he would only listen to you. But he won't. He's got his mind made up, he's really just here to preach.

I for one, river, appreciate you comment. It shows insight.

 

[Aqueous Id]

so the importance of order and entropy to the cell is important for life to exist

I think so, because you are talking about biochemical reactions, so entropy analysis applies at that level, but I also think only a very careful analysis can assay the total entropy as I said above.

As long as we are talking about cells, there is hope in reaching some idea about entropy. Perhaps we could move on to talk about tissues, then organs, and eventually an entire creature. Imagine the complexity of that task!

And still we haven't arrived at the point where they undergo cell mutation, produce variation in the offspring, and then some of the offspring will not survive because they are not as well adapted as others.

This is where the entropy analysis stretches to the point of irrelevance. So wellwisher's formula is to throw all science out the door and tell us that Darwin was wrong, or Darwin was a humanist, something totally irrelevant to Darwin's observations (which wellwisher cannot repeat even until this day)...

What kind of person walks into a carefully constructed city, built over 150 years by hard working specialists, and tears it down in 2 minutes with some crazed idea that it has no right to exist because he says so?

So I would listen to anything you have to say because you are not imposing your invented ideas onto the problem.

I wonder if he can learn from you, since I have offered to teach him and he ignores me.

 

[billvon]

doesn't cells increase entropy , since it breaks down "food" which is ordered

Sort of. At a system level (i.e. the container that contains both cells and food) entropy goes up. At the cellular level entropy goes DOWN. The cell uses the energy in the food to create new (ordered) proteins, other cells etc thus reducing its overall entropy.

 

[river]

“ Originally Posted by river
so the importance of order and entropy to the cell is important for life to exist

I think so, because you are talking about biochemical reactions, so entropy analysis applies at that level, but I also think only a very careful analysis can assay the total entropy as I said above. As long as we are talking about cells, there is hope in reaching some idea about entropy. Perhaps we could move on to talk about tissues, then organs, and eventually an entire creature. Imagine the complexity of that task! And still we haven't arrived at the point where they undergo cell mutation, produce variation in the offspring, and then some of the offspring will not survive because they are not as well adapted as others. This is where the entropy analysis stretches to the point of irrelevance. So wellwisher's formula is to throw all science out the door and tell us that Darwin was wrong, or Darwin was a humanist, something totally irrelevant to Darwin's observations (which wellwisher cannot repeat even until this day)... What kind of person walks into a carefully constructed city, built over 150 years by hard working specialists, and tears it down in 2 minutes with some crazed idea that it has no right to exist because he says so? So I would listen to anything you have to say because you are not imposing your invented ideas onto the problem. I wonder if he can learn from you, since I have offered to teach him and he ignores me.

yeah found that Darwin isn't so much wrong , its just that any change in any life form is quicker or faster than he assumed

for instance I found out awhile ago that silicon valley in California has a problem with Autistic childern

which is caused they think by having parents that are both mathematical thinkers , sort of withdrawn from life , the without

I would think that this is a case of evolution , in fast forward

the genes very quickly changed because of the parents disposition

thoughts

 

[Aqueous Id]

Sort of. At a system level (i.e. the container that contains both cells and food) entropy goes up. At the cellular level entropy goes DOWN. The cell uses the energy in the food to create new (ordered) proteins, other cells etc thus reducing its overall entropy.

See that's the whole point. None of this can be simplified into a Grand Unified Theory of Everything, as wellwisher wants to to be. Imagine the complexity of the task, taking just those two examples of a system boundary and trying to actually evaluate how much energy was gained or lost, then moving the boundary back and forth in scale, trying to make sense out of all of the interdependencies. It would be a monumental task, even for one cell type. Then you would need all kinds of labwork to try to grasp the energy use of organelles, or something really crazy, like how to measure the "order" in protein synthesis, as if you could somehow attach an energy rating to that. (I guess you could add up all the bond energies accumulated by stacking the amino acids together, minus the total energy expended in the ribosome).

And this isn't even a start, because you have countless cell types, tissues, organs and systems, etc. So it would be unfathomably complex. That's not to say that experts won't set out on ventures resembling this, it's just crazy to think that anyone would do so just to prove to denialists that evolution is the real deal.

As you note, entropy of a cell can be studied. But to connect this to evolution as wellwisher thinks it connects? No way.