Article <9ff1d6267e448a3117c69792e1aa6265@www.novabbs.com>

Deutsch English Français Italiano
<9ff1d6267e448a3117c69792e1aa6265@www.novabbs.com>

View for Bookmarking (what is this?)
Look up another Usenet article
Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!news.szaf.org!nntp-feed.chiark.greenend.org.uk!ewrotcd!news.killfile.org!news.eyrie.org!beagle.ediacara.org!.POSTED.beagle.ediacara.org!not-for-mail
From: j.nobel.daggett@gmail.com (LDagget)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Wistar Symposium "Mathematical Challenge to Neo-Darwinism".
Date: Sun, 2 Jun 2024 17:23:52 +0000
Organization: novaBBS
Sender: to%beagle.ediacara.org
Approved: moderator@beagle.ediacara.org
Message-ID: <9ff1d6267e448a3117c69792e1aa6265@www.novabbs.com>
References: <MUn6O.847$W2K4.435@fx38.iad> <v3d6nf$2bmpj$1@dont-email.me> <LTK6O.5077$gn%7.4967@fx12.iad> <5ogn5j5d7953b3s7u7gqd7v7hem2vmmao8@4ax.com> <d089debc-a3d8-4bdb-8839-780af03e5050@gmail.com> <qdjn5j1gu4304glklgc6hejrufm6bt1m6l@4ax.com> <qk17O.12412$gn%7.8470@fx12.iad>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: beagle.ediacara.org; posting-host="beagle.ediacara.org:3.132.105.89";
	logging-data="31347"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@beagle.ediacara.org"
User-Agent: Rocksolid Light
To: talk-origins@moderators.isc.org
Bytes: 5908
Lines: 86

Ron Dean wrote:

> Bob Casanova wrote:
>> On Sat, 1 Jun 2024 18:39:35 -0700, the following appeared in
>> talk.origins, posted by erik simpson
>> <eastside.erik@gmail.com>:
>> 
>>> On 6/1/24 5:56 PM, El Kabong wrote:
>>>> Ron Dean wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> We've discussed this before. I think originally the genetic code was
>>>>> robust, but over time due to the 2/ND law and missed errors in copying,
>>>>> the robustness declined and continues to decline. This I
>>>>> think was anticipated from the beginning of the genetic code and
>>>>> several
>>>>> proofreading and repair machines were implanted into the code. But even
>>>>> these proofreading and repair systems are subject to errors over time.
>>>>> However, they still catch overwhelming numbers of mutations and
>>>>> corrects
>>>>> them, but not all. The evidence I think supports this. Still, each
>>>>> generation inherits the mutations from previous generations and
>>>>> develops
>>>>> new mutations, all of which is passed on down. At some distant time the
>>>>> genetic code in each species becomes increasingly less robust until
>>>>> reproduction
>>>>> ceases and we see this in many extinctions as recorded in the fossil
>>>>> record.
>>>>
>>>> Your invocation of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is a
>>>> common creationist diversion.  It started as a deliberate
>>>> misrepresentation, and spread among the ignoratti such as
>>>> yourself.
>>>>
>>>> The earth is awash in exergy.  It has always been there
>>>> for the taking.  The 2nd law has naught to do with
>>>> genetic drift.  Extinction almost always happens due to
>>>> environment & competition, humans included.
>>>>
>>>> You should ask an engineer to explain entropy and the 2nd
>>>> Law to you.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> If one looks at the fossil record with _no_ biases, I think what we
>>>>> find
>>>>> is the abrupt appearance of most (if not all) species in the strata,
>>>>> then long periods of stasis followed by sudden disappearance.
>>>>> I think Dr Stephen J. Gould was an honest scientist who voiced what was
>>>>> actually observed in the fossil record without bias or an overriding
>>>>> commitment to convention.
>>>>
>>>> So Gould was an IDer.  Who knew?
>>>>
>>> Now, now.  Gould wasn't/isn't the last word of authority, especially
>>> since he's been gone many years now, but his opinion that "replaying
>>> life's tape" would produce nothing like what we see is the antithesis
>>> of
>>> intelligent design.  Ron's misunderstanding of almost everything about
>>> evolutionary biology (Gould included) is becoming legendary.  He claims
>>> to be an engineer, but what kind?
>>>
>> Sanitation? No competent *actual* engineer who understands
>> thermodynamics would make the sort of egregious errors
>> regarding the scope and application of the 2nd Law shown
>> above. 
>  >
> You don't know what your "talking" about. When something unwinds, runs 
> down or becomes disordered, this is increasing entropy, there is no 
> energy for work; which is in accordance with the 2/nd law.
>>>
> Entropy in  a system is a measure of the _unavailable_ energy in a 
> closed thermodynamic system that is a a measure of the system's 
> disorder, that is a property of the system's state, and that varies 
> directly with any reversible change in heat in the system: the degree
> of
> 
> disorder or uncertainty in a system.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introduction_to_entropy

You've already written enough incorrect things about entropy
that no knowledgeable person can do other than laugh at you.
But to keep the laughs going,

Explain what you think is the difference between the entropy 
of an original DNA polymer, and a copy that includes a single
base pair change mutation. Feel free to show your work and
don't forget to put it in units of entropy.