The process of asking questions first, then forming a hypothesis, then performing experiments to see if they agree with your hypothesis, then developing that into a theory are the basic stages in all scientific inquiries and experiments. If you want to learn more about the Second Law of Thermodynamics, then just pick up a book on it and starting reading. Or no one is preventing you from sta
The process of asking questions first, then forming a hypothesis, then performing experiments to see if they agree with your hypothesis, then developing that into a theory are the basic stages in all scientific inquiries and experiments. If you want to learn more about the Second Law of Thermodynamics, then just pick up a book on it and starting reading. Or no one is preventing you from starting a new thread in the physics forum. What's with the condescending sarcasm? There you go again. You have this tendency to resort to immature belittlement when you don't understand something or disagree with it, rather than being polite and respectful of another person's presentation. Replies consisting of overly emotionally rude or vulgar overtones belong in the cesspool forums: not objective scientific ones like biology and genetics.
The law of conservation of energy is actually the First Law of Thermodynamics and applies only to a closed system. Life, the transformations of life that lead to diversity, metabolism within the organism, and living cells are all open systems that exchange energy with their surroundings. An open system is one part of the larger closed system and receives energy from that larger closed system. Again, this is not a physics forum. Just pick up a book on thermodynamics. Sorry about the previous double posting. I pressed the reply key only once. Must be a glitch is sciforums posting algorithm.
Life is actually more like a group of unordered soldiers forming lineages that then, through random chance mutations, continuously diverge out into more-and-more diverse lineages: some survive, others become extinct, and the process continues to expand and grow from generation-to-generation throughout the history of our world, making that diversity more disordered, disorganized, and increasing the number of species - configurations (entropy). Ophiolite: The basis and basic stages of scientific inquiry are first to ask questions, then form a hypothesis, then test that hypothesis until it becomes a theory. When a theory is proven to be valid over-and-over again under all possible circumstances, both realistic and imaginable, it is only then that it is accepted in the scientific community to be a Law. That's the way it goes.
I postulate that entropy doesn't care much about species. One species or the next. It doesn't care. All species are made up of the same few tissues organized in certain ways. Tissues and cells are the main source of order. Diversity in species is not relevant here. There could be the same biomass (with corresponding organization level on cellular and tissue level) with only one species and nothing changes in this respect regarding entropy. 'Species' is just a human label to signify differences between the order they see around them. Having lots of species doesn't change much to entropy since they are made up of the same stuff. The stuff of life. Cells and extracellular material.
Valich - I shall continue to be rude to you because your persistent wriggling attitude deserves nothing less. Do not try to take the moral high ground when you are continually talking contradictory codswollop such as the following: You stated very clearly: Now consider the same army of soldiers marching in step, single file in line. They are now in order, there is a decrease in entropy. The you state:Therefore, yes, the entropy of the system will increase. Either make up your mind or learn how to write clearly. I can barely tolerate illogical ramblings from the scientifically uneducated. I will not tolerate them from someone purporting to be knowledgeable. You also state "Energy is always lost in every reaction." Rubbish. I repeat again, have you not heard of the Law of Conservation of Energy? Please explain how we are mysteriously loosing this energy. I will be happy to engage in a civilised discussion with you not when you stop posting nonsense, but when you start to acknowledge it is nonsense. Until then I shall use invective, rhetoric, sarcasm, irony and insult to highlight the depth of your idiocy. Clean up your act or learn to live with it. Again, pray tell us the difference between a law, a theory and a hypothesis. I know perfectly well the difference. By your evasive last post you appear to have realised it too, but to late to retract you earlier absurd post in which you state "it's not a hypothesis, it's not a theory, it's a "Law.""
Not much time to post anything indepth, unfortunately, but I've noticed a few things as well. Might as well post them now since the topics turned towards this channel once more. That 'we' is what annoyed me enough to tell Valich that he was talking to a phd. But, what is really relevant to this conversation about thermodynamics and entropy is this. First this: Followed by this: Followed by all this entropy talk which is really out there. Valich, do you really think it's 'scientific' to discuss things you don't understand? I don't mean discuss them as in trying to learn about them, but rather trying to prove them as being 'true' when you don't even understand why they are held by some in the community to be so. In other words, why would you say 'you would think' that thermodynamics has anything to do with anything, when you in fact are only saying this because you've seen that some evolutionary scientists hold this view even if you don't understandt their reasoning for doing so. Where does your 'thinking' come into play? You're talking out your ass. (Hopefully I'll find time to post something on topic later. Also more in that flu thread.)
To postulate "doesn't care much" is to attribute an anthropormorphic trait to a physics' Law: but I know what you're "trying" to get at. Whether or not all species are made up of tissue and cells doesn't detract from the fact that there is energy involved in the transformation of change during reproduction, during mutations of these cells from one generation to another, the evolution of life, and the evolution of the diversity amongst species. Whereever there is energy involved in a reaction, metabolism, transformation, or whatever type of change in the universe you want to postulate, then the Second Law of Thermodynamics comes into play. Any change, movement, or transformation involves the use of energy. I stand behind my above hypothesis because it cannot be denied according to the definition of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
Yes you are a rude person. If you reexamine your posting, you will see that you did not articulate enough what you were talking about to make it clear; however, wherever energy is used up, this contributes to an increase in entropy in the log wrong: consistent with the Second Law of Thermodynamics, leading eventually, not necessarily in the immediate term, to an increase in entropy. I already explained to you twice the differences between a hypothesis, theory, and a law. And I already explained to you that the law of conservation of energy is actually the First Law of Thermodynsmics and only applies to open systems. Reread what I posted above, do a quick search on thermodynamics related to evolution on the internet, or pick up good book on thermodynamics and read it before you continue posting your repeated obnoxious replies! Are you even reading them? And I initially said, "Perhaps this is the type of explanation that root is looking for." Geez! All scientists know the difference between a hypothesis, a theory, and a law. These are part of the basic stages of scientific enquiry that are taught in every Science 101 class and in the first chapter of almost every basic science textbook. In a closed system (and we can consider the universe as a closed system, although I tried to make the explanation more simple to understand bu considering onlt the Earth as a closed system - whatever), although energy cannot be created or destroyed, when energy is converted to one form or another, some of that energy becomes unavailable to do any work because it is lost to a form associated with disorder. This is what the Second Law of Thermodynamics says. You cannot recover that energy because it is permanently lost to add to the universe's disorder: increase of entropy and greater amount of possible configurations. The total energy is called enthalpy, the usable energy is called free energy, and the unusable energy is represented by entropy. You're continuing to drift this forum into the realm of physics. Either take a basic course in physics, read a book, or post a new thread under the physics category. You might want to call it "Can someone explain to me the principles of thermodynamics."
Again, vulgar language has no place on a scientific forum and belongs in the cesspool forums. As admitted by spurious, it doesn't matter if you have a Phd. Are you familiar with my educational background and degrees? If you read my reply about using the proper definition of forces in evolution, you would know that I was rejecting the use of a god or a spiritual force to describe evolutionary change: dah! I very clearly understand the Second Law of Thermodynamics and anyone who has taken a basic course in physics also has to be familiar with it. What I said was that there are evolutionary journal articles that address the issue but I have not read them: you should! In any case, because I am familiar with the 2nd Law I can clearly see how it applies to evolutionary theory. You, on the other hand, are more concerned about "trashing" a person than investigating the merits of applying this law to evolution! That's being "closed minded," or perhaps I should put it in your own words: You are "talking out of your ass!" Grow up! You and Aphiolite's postings are counterproductively generating animosity on this forum rather than objectively searching for answers. What is the purpose?
I can say the same thing! It seems that you know nothing about the Second Law of Thermodynamics and how it can apply to open living systems.
The purpose is to illustrate to all other readers of the thread the potent blend of arrogance and ignorance you bring to your posting. You presume to lecture me on thermodynamics when you have repeatedly demonstrated your own limited understanding of it in this thread. The gentle and not so gentle questions I have directed at you have sailed so far over your head that you have interepreted them as revealing my ignorance. Give me a break - it may be a cliche, but I have forgotten more thermodynamic theory than I remember, or you have yet learnt. You know the words, you can quote definitions: I look forward to the time you can actually use them to express some coherent thoughts. Unlike some of the nutters on this forum you do not have the excuse of being uneducated: the only excuse I think you can have is that you have not yet grown up. That day cannot come to soon. Edit: If you were genuinely taught those definitions of hypothesis, theory and law in a basic science course I will happily appear as a prosecution witness when you sue them for a refund of your tuition fees. Just let me know when the case comes up. Edit 2: You are the one who is generating animosity by posting crap and refusing to acknowledge it regardless of how many people point out your errors.
Thread. It's a thread. Not a forum. Some forums call them topics, but they're generally known as threads. A forum contains threads. Although, to be precise, the usual structure is that a forum contains subforums which contain threads... Anyway. Vulgar language belongs anywhere I do. I like saying 'fuck'. So what? Are you now going to throw up the age old fallacy of equating profanity with inanity? Lots of scientists are vulgar motherfuckers. Just because you're smart doesn't mean that you're a proper gentleman (or lady.) Bear in mind that, as has been said to you several times over, we're not writing scientific papers here. Try to loosen up. I already knew that phd's don't matter. The reason I brought it up was because of your use of 'we'. By saying 'In genetics we...', you were basically conjuring up this mystical army of geneticists to stand beside you and placing yourself squarely in their ranks. I know for a fact that you're not a geneticist. I don't know what you are. But I know you're no geneticist. You're no scientist period. (Don't worry. Neither am I. I'm a construction worker...) As to your level of education. Who knows? I'd guess not very high though. I'm thinking you're young. You might not even be out of high school yet. You probably are though. College? Maybe. I haven't seen you demonstrate anything I'd call real competency yet though. You're new though. I'm sure there's something you're good at. Yes. Yes. I know. But Spurious posted his simple statement about driving forces of evolution and you still tried to show him up. And conjuring up your phantom armies to do it with. Maybe you do. Maybe you don't. I've seen no strong evidence on either side. You obviously have at the very least gone googling for it, but that's not to say that you understood it when first mentioning it... (or now, for that matter.) Now. I'm not getting on your case here. As I've said, I see no evidence either way. Maybe you didn't go googling for thermodynamics as you might have a strong grip on it already, but you did go googling for thermodynamics and evolution, didn't you? Not for resources, but for understanding and nomenclature. See. Maybe you do have a strong grasp of thermodynamics, but you don't have a strong grasp of molecular biology. And therefore your troubles might have come from trying to explain something you don't understand very well with something that you do. In the attempt both come across as shakey. Maybe. Dunno. I'm not trying to trash you. I'm trying to get you to loosen up. I'm trying to get you to state your case better. I'm trying to get you to only defend those things which you understand not those things which you've heard or read somewhere but don't really understand. When you do so, you come across as someone trying to pretend to be more than he is. Maybe it's all misinterpretation. Maybe you're just a poor communicator. I don't know. I can't say for sure. Rest assured that I'm not going to keep dogging you like this. I do hope that you become a more able communicator but I can't force you into being one. You never answered the question the other day. Are you American? I recall reading in some post of yours that you speak as if you are. I'm surprised. You come across as foreign and are having difficulties with cultural translations. I know that I'm not the only one who gets this from reading you. And. Please. I'm not 'trashing' you. I'm not trying to belittle you in any way... I actually like the liveliness of the biology forum since you've shown up. I would like the threads to be more intellectually honest though. You could tell me to fuck off. I wouldn't take offense. Promise. I don't mean to be generating animosity, and I feel that Ophiolite feels the same way. The purpose? Intellectual honesty. You come across as being dishonest about your knowledge. Like I said, maybe it's just poor communication. But, that's the sense that I continue to get from you. At times.
