|
|
|
JerryB
Skeptic Friend
279 Posts |
 Posted - 01/06/2011 : 07:43:33 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Robb
OK this is getting circular. JerryB is saying that both the positive result and the negative result mean the same thing in their respective equations. Dave W. disagrees. I think we are at an impass. As for me, Dave W.'s math is correct but I do not understand yet if JerryB is correct in his assertion. I do understand thermodynamics but not how it applies to evolution. It has been fun though.
|
Yes it is, so I'll sum up.
This all began with a paper I introduced from two evolutionary biologists showing results of a study on harmful mutations that, being evolutionary biologists, they didn't particularly want to find.
From the abstract: "we estimate that at least 38% have been eliminated by natural selection, indicating that there have been more than 1.6 new deleterious mutations per diploid genome per generation. Thus, the deleterious mutation rate specific to protein-coding sequences alone is close to the upper limit tolerable by a species such as humans that has a low reproductive rate4, indicating that the effects of deleterious mutations may have combined synergistically. Furthermore, the level of selective constraint in hominid protein-coding sequences is atypically low. A large number of slightly deleterious mutations may therefore have become fixed in hominid lineages."
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v397/n6717/abs/397344a0.html
Although they clearly state that the study indicates that these deleterious mutations "may therefore have become fixed in hominid lineages," Dave says they didn't say that. He insists that rather than becoming fixed, the study says that they were all eliminated. 
The official interpreter of this study was Professor James Crow at U of Nebraska. Here are parts of one of his articles on the study from Nature in 1999:
Among 41,471 nucleotides, they found 143 nonsynonymous substitutions -- mutations where swapping one DNA base for another changes an amino acid, and therefore the final protein made by that gene. If these had evolved at the neutral rate, 231 would be expected. The difference, 88 (38%), is an estimate of the number of deleterious mutations that have been eliminated by natural selection and have therefore made no contribution to contemporary populations.
Translating these numbers into mutation rates gave a total rate of 4.2 mutations per person per generation, and a deleterious rate of 1.6.............
Crow clearly states that the harmful mutation have accumulated and goes on to state that they may be having a deleterious effect on our health as well:
"Eyre-Walker and Keightley noticed that the proportion of harmful mutations in the 46 genes in their study is greater in humans than in the equivalent genes of rodents. Their preferred explanation is that slightly deleterious mutations have become fixed in the population, by a process known as random genetic drift, during periods of human history when the breeding population size was low -- especially during genetic 'bottlenecks'. This would increase whatever effect the accumulated mutations are having on current human welfare. Are some of our headaches, stomach upsets, weak eyesight and other ailments the result of mutation accumulation? Probably, but in our present state of knowledge, we can only speculate."
http://www.colband.com.br/ativ/nete/biot/textos/geral/007.htm
Of course, Dave is not going to admit that Crow said what he said, so he accuses me of cutting and pasting from irrelevant articles. And knowing that Dave is not going admit that any evidence I present says what it says, I begin to show him how this degrading of the human genome can be shown using the maths of thermodynamics.
I introduce him to Feynman on this:
"So we now have to talk about what we mean by disorder and what we mean by order. ... Suppose we divide the space into little volume elements. If we have black and white molecules, how many ways could we distribute them among the volume elements so that white is on one side and black is on the other? On the other hand, how many ways could we distribute them with no restriction on which goes where? Clearly, there are many more ways to arrange them in the latter case. We measure "disorder" by the number of ways that the insides can be arranged, so that from the outside it looks the same. The logarithm of that number of ways is the entropy. The number of ways in the separated case is less, so the entropy is less, or the "disorder" is less."
http://www.panspermia.org/seconlaw.htm
Well, gee, that's just Boltzmann's simple old formula that we have used in thermodynamics for over a hundred years, S = K log W where S is the entropy, K is Boltzmann's Constant and W is the number of ways that microstates in a system (in our case nucleotides) can be arranged.
So I take Dave to the University of New South Wales, physics department because they have a good page on calculating this type of entropy:
The way we calculate those "number of ways the system can be arranged" is via factorials using this formula:
http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/PHYS3410/lecture5.html
So I plug the nucleotides into the formula:
W = (41469.4 + 1.6)! / (41469.4)!(1.6)! --- 3.66 x 10^173494 / 2.14 x 10^173487
W = 1.71 x 10^7
It's easy enough then to do the simple math:
S = K log W, S = (1.38 x 10^-23) log(1.71 x 10^7)
S = 9.98 x 10^-23
There ya go, entropy is increasing, has increased for at least 6 million years that we know of, and there is not a shred of evidence it has ever done anything BUT that.
Well Dave says that isn't right because I left out the joules/kelvin in Boltzmann's Constant even though the only thing we cared about was the arrangement.
So I do it again using the joules/kelvin and that isn't right either how could there be temperature changes in mutating genes?
So I take out the constant altogether and just go with log W.
This seems to stump him altogether. <:0) But soon we get back to the Boltzmann formula and he has dropped all the temp stuff and claiming that the formula cannot be used because it will never show order in the genome, i.e., what would I have done had those mutations been beneficial ones?
I told him that I would have just taken the inverse of W: S = K log 1/W.
He says that will not work either and so I take him to Erwin Shrodinger's book, What is life, where Schrodinger shows us exactly how to calculate order in the human body:
"If D is a measure of disorder, its reciprocal, 1/D, can be regarded as a direct measure of order. Since the logarithm of 1/D is just minus the logarithm of D, we can write Boltzmann's equation thus:
-(entropy) = k log (1/D)."
http://dieoff.org/page150.htm
W = 1.71 x 10^7
Now we can do Boltzmann/Schrodinger math:
-entropy = K log 1/D, -entropy = (1.38 x 10^-23) log 1/(1.71 x 10^7)
-entropy = -9.98 x 10^-23
Dang it's the same formula I showed him the first time (regarding the order argument) and comes out with the same measure of entropy we calculated the first time, but as a negative number showing order. Shrodinger used D rather than W, but it has the same value: "D a quantitative measure of the atomistic disorder of the body in question."
Schrodinger used cal/centigrade rather than joules/kelvin. This seemed to throw Dave for awhile until I showed him how to convert the units.
So now, even though Schrodinger clearly states above where I bolded that the formula is to show order, meaning that entropy has to be negative, Dave is arguing that this formula shows positive entropy and that Schrodinger, one of the greatest physicists of the 20th century had no idea what the heck he was doing and should have converted his formula to S = -K log 1/D so the answer would come out as a positive.
Wouldn't that kind of defeat the purpose of the entire book? 
So, yes, we have reached an impass, but not because I've run out of ammo. It's because Dave has simply lost the argument because he could not refute the math.
Case closed.  |
| Edited by - JerryB on 01/06/2011 08:23:33 |
 |
|
|
Fripp
SFN Regular
USA
727 Posts |
Posted - 01/06/2011 : 08:22:25 [Permalink]
|
The rest of your post was simply the equivalent of you repeating your same fallacious arguments but shouting it in order to ignore the factual refutations
Originally posted by JerryB
Dave has simply lost the argument because he could not refute the math.
|
Completely baseless claim. You got schooled time and time again. You were refuted copious times. You simply refuse to acknowledge it and try to bolster your self-confidence by empty posturing. Stating something does not make it true.
One other thing: winning an argument is not the same as ascertaining the truth. For example, we could have argument about whether or not the Earth is flat. If you win the argument that the Earth is flat, does that make the Earth flat?
Case closed.
|
...on your fingers.
As you already said, you are going to paint us as close-minded simply because we don't agree with you. Mind you, we disagree not due to pre-formed beliefs (like you) but we disagree because the facts do NOT support your argument regardless of how many times you repeat them and how loudly you repeat them.
Take a long look in the mirror and ask yourself if it is at all possible that you are wrong. Then ask who is being close-minded. |
"What the hell is an Aluminum Falcon?"
"Oh, I'm sorry. I thought my Dark Lord of the Sith could protect a small thermal exhaust port that's only 2-meters wide! That thing wasn't even fully paid off yet! You have any idea what this is going to do to my credit?!?!"
"What? Oh, oh, 'just rebuild it'? Oh, real [bleep]ing original. And who's gonna give me a loan, jackhole? You? You got an ATM on that torso LiteBrite?" |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 01/06/2011 : 08:27:46 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JerryB
There ya go, entropy is increasing... |
Except that you didn't calculate a rate-of-change of entropy, so you can't know if it's increasing.| Well Dave says that isn't right because I left out the joules/kelvin in Boltzmann's Constant even though the only thing we cared about was the arrangement. |
No, I said that the fact that the result is in units of joules/Kelvin means that the result makes no sense at all when applied to nucleotide counts.| So I do it again using the joules/kelvin and that isn't right either how could there be temperature changes in mutating genes? |
Exactly.| So I take out the constant altogether and just go with log W. |
And that makes the resultant units nats (had you used the proper log function, which you didn't), which still wouldn't make any sense.| This seems to stump him altogether. |
You have a faulty memory.| Schrodinger used cal/centigrade rather than joules/kelvin. This seemed to throw Dave for awhile... |
No, I couldn't have cared less.| ...until I showed him how to convert the units. |
Bwahahahahahahaha!| So now, even though Schrodinger clearly states above where I bolded that the formula is to show order, meaning that entropy has to be negative, Dave is arguing that this formula shows positive entropy and that Schrodinger, one of the greatest physicists of the 20th century had no idea what the heck he was doing and should have converted his formula to S = -K log 1/D so the answer would come out as a positive. |
Jerry, you're nothing more than a liar. And the value of S is positive no matter where the minus sign is.| It's because Dave has simply lost the argument because he could not refute the math. |
You called my algebraic proofs "nonsense" without being able to point to a single flaw in them. So you haven't been able to reply to my refutation of your argument at all. You have now resorted to pretending that my refutation doesn't exist, which is just another lie.Indeed, and the conclusion is clear: Jerry finds it necessary to lie to win rhetorical points against strangers on the Internet. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
JerryB
Skeptic Friend
279 Posts |
Posted - 01/06/2011 : 09:00:42 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Fripp
One other thing: winning an argument is not the same as ascertaining the truth. For example, we could have argument about whether or not the Earth is flat. If you win the argument that the Earth is flat, does that make the Earth flat?
|
No. It doesn't make the earth flat. Science never proves anything. It only provides theories that will stand until a different or better theory comes along to replace it.
But were it flat, when you present evidence and mathematics to substantiate that fact, it certainly makes it more likely to be the case, doesn't it?
As you already said, you are going to paint us as close-minded simply because we don't agree with you. Mind you, we disagree not due to pre-formed beliefs (like you) but we disagree because the facts do NOT support your argument regardless of how many times you repeat them and how loudly you repeat them. |
I don't know all of you in here as this is only my second time to have a major discussion and the first was about 6 years ago. So, no, I won't say that ALL of you are close minded.
I will say that many who have posted to me on this thread are MOST close minded.
And as to pre-formed beliefs, we all have them largely due to the experiences we have in life. In fact, they are so ingrained in most people that nothing I could say would ever change them. And yes, this includes you guys.
Take Dave, he's probably a guy I could split a six-pack with in real life and have some good chats with. But not when I challenge his belief system in here like I did. He then reverts to say anything--do anything to uphold that belief system and whether what he says is right or wrong holds little importance. There is a fear in us of change--anything but the unknown.
Take a long look in the mirror and ask yourself if it is at all possible that you are wrong. Then ask who is being close-minded.
|
I completely agree that I could be wrong. I don't feel I am closed minded and if anyone ever comes along to show me experimental evidence I could buy to support Darwinism, I would buy it.
Unfortunately, no one ever has. |
|
|
|
JerryB
Skeptic Friend
279 Posts |
Posted - 01/06/2011 : 09:05:31 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by JerryB
There ya go, entropy is increasing... |
Except that you didn't calculate a rate-of-change of entropy, so you can't know if it's increasing.| Well Dave says that isn't right because I left out the joules/kelvin in Boltzmann's Constant even though the only thing we cared about was the arrangement. |
No, I said that the fact that the result is in units of joules/Kelvin means that the result makes no sense at all when applied to nucleotide counts.| So I do it again using the joules/kelvin and that isn't right either how could there be temperature changes in mutating genes? |
Exactly.| So I take out the constant altogether and just go with log W. |
And that makes the resultant units nats (had you used the proper log function, which you didn't), which still wouldn't make any sense.| This seems to stump him altogether. |
You have a faulty memory.| Schrodinger used cal/centigrade rather than joules/kelvin. This seemed to throw Dave for awhile... |
No, I couldn't have cared less.| ...until I showed him how to convert the units. |
Bwahahahahahahaha!| So now, even though Schrodinger clearly states above where I bolded that the formula is to show order, meaning that entropy has to be negative, Dave is arguing that this formula shows positive entropy and that Schrodinger, one of the greatest physicists of the 20th century had no idea what the heck he was doing and should have converted his formula to S = -K log 1/D so the answer would come out as a positive. |
Jerry, you're nothing more than a liar. And the value of S is positive no matter where the minus sign is.| It's because Dave has simply lost the argument because he could not refute the math. |
You called my algebraic proofs "nonsense" without being able to point to a single flaw in them. So you haven't been able to reply to my refutation of your argument at all. You have now resorted to pretending that my refutation doesn't exist, which is just another lie.Indeed, and the conclusion is clear: Jerry finds it necessary to lie to win rhetorical points against strangers on the Internet.
|
Pleas note all the references in my post and NONE in yours. This all just your opinion and you know what they say about opinions..... |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 01/06/2011 : 09:15:59 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JerryB
So I take Dave to the University of New South Wales, physics department because they have a good page on calculating this type of entropy:
The way we calculate those "number of ways the system can be arranged" is via factorials using this formula:
|
No, that's the way one would calculate the number of microstates of a set of ideal gas atoms in an isolated box with an imaginary dividing line creating equal volumes, or the number of microstates given a set of fair-coin flips. That formula doesn't model every possible system, but just one particular type of system (and the system they used as an example doesn't even exist in real life). You, Jerry, picked the wrong model because you're utterly ignorant of what the math means.| So I plug the nucleotides into the formula: |
Which turns the result into nonsense, since the formula couldn't possibly model nucleotides correctly. But since you don't understand the math, you're stuck with picking formulas that are simple enough that you can just click buttons on Windows Calculator to get answers, even though they'll be meaningless. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
JerryB
Skeptic Friend
279 Posts |
Posted - 01/06/2011 : 09:58:58 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by JerryB
So I take Dave to the University of New South Wales, physics department because they have a good page on calculating this type of entropy:
The way we calculate those "number of ways the system can be arranged" is via factorials using this formula:
|
No, that's the way one would calculate the number of microstates of a set of ideal gas atoms in an isolated box with an imaginary dividing line creating equal volumes, or the number of microstates given a set of fair-coin flips. That formula doesn't model every possible system, but just one particular type of system (and the system they used as an example doesn't even exist in real life). You, Jerry, picked the wrong model because you're utterly ignorant of what the math means.| So I plug the nucleotides into the formula: |
Which turns the result into nonsense, since the formula couldn't possibly model nucleotides correctly. But since you don't understand the math, you're stuck with picking formulas that are simple enough that you can just click buttons on Windows Calculator to get answers, even though they'll be meaningless.
|
Reference, please and:
Wrong that formula is used to calculate microstates of any given macrostate not only an ideal gas:
"Entropy (Remember entropy? This is a web page about entropy.) is defined in terms of these macrostates and microstates. Specifically, the entropy of a macrostate is equal to the natural logarithm of the number of microstates in that macrostate, times a number called Boltzmann's constant."
http://webs.morningside.edu/slaven/physics/entropy/entropy2.html
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 01/06/2011 : 09:59:17 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JerryB
Pleas note all the references in my post and NONE in yours. |
You keep reminding of Otto from A Fish Called Wanda. In one scene, Wanda calls Otto an ape who pretends to be an intellectual, and Otto retorts that apes don't read philosophy. Wanda replies, "yes they do, Otto. They just don't understand it."
Jerry, you only think you know what your references mean, but to this outside observer, you're in way over your head. It's not my job to come up with a reference that says you can't put nucleotide counts into Boltzmann's formula the way that you have, it's your job to find a reference that says that a uniform distribution of binary events with statistical independence is a reasonable way to model DNA mutations. You haven't done so, and you can't do so, because you don't understand what it means. You see the numbers and the equations, but don't comprehend them.
So, Jerry, cough up a reference that says a person can take a nucleotide count and the rate of deleterious mutations being eliminated from a genome, use them as inputs to a formula for uniform distribution of statistically independent binary events that will result in a valid count of the statistical microstates for that genome, and I will happily apologize and declare you correct. That's what you've already done, obviously, but you haven't offered up a single reference that indicates that it's a valid way to calculate "genomic entropy."
If you can't do so because nobody has ever done it before, then write your stuff up, get it peer-reviewed and published, and build a consensus around it, and then I'll happily agree that you have what you would call a "scientific theory."
What you've got now is an unsupported hypothesis which doesn't even pass a few basic plausibility tests.
Also:| Take Dave, he's probably a guy I could split a six-pack with in real life and have some good chats with. But not when I challenge his belief system in here like I did. He then reverts to say anything--do anything to uphold that belief system and whether what he says is right or wrong holds little importance. There is a fear in us of change--anything but the unknown. |
You're the one who is lying in order to score rhetorical points, but I am the one who's reverted to doing or saying anything to uphold a belief system?!?| I completely agree that I could be wrong. I don't feel I am closed minded and if anyone ever comes along to show me experimental evidence... |
I showed you algebraic proof that you're wrong about the math, and all you did was call it nonsense. This demonstrates that you're lying to yourself about being open-minded. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 01/06/2011 : 10:15:50 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JerryB
Reference, please... |
For what? The fact that you obviously don't understand the math? I offer as a reference this whole thread, and the one six years ago....and:
Wrong that formula is used to calculate microstates of any given macrostate not only an ideal gas: |
So even if we have more than two possible conditions, W=(N1+N2)!/N1!N2! is the correct method for calculating the number of microstates? How would we enter the other counts into the formula?"Entropy (Remember entropy? This is a web page about entropy.) is defined in terms of these macrostates and microstates. Specifically, the entropy of a macrostate is equal to the natural logarithm of the number of microstates in that macrostate, times a number called Boltzmann's constant."
http://webs.morningside.edu/slaven/physics/entropy/entropy2.html |
That page provides no evidence whatsoever that W=(N1+N2)!/N1!N2! "is used to calculate microstates of any given macrostate not only of an ideal gas." |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 01/06/2011 : 11:19:02 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JerryB
Originally posted by Dude
Originally posted by Robb
OK this is getting circular. JerryB is saying that both the positive result and the negative result mean the same thing in their respective equations. Dave W. disagrees. I think we are at an impass. As for me, Dave W.'s math is correct but I do not understand yet if JerryB is correct in his assertion. I do understand thermodynamics but not how it applies to evolution. It has been fun though.
|
It doesn't apply (second law). At all. It is a nonsense creationist tactic that can be thoroughly discredited by most highschool freshman. The earth is not a closed system, nor is the genome of any species. Poor Jerry can't even respond to that, so he has instead chosen to ignore it. It's sad really.
|
I haven't responded to it because it'd just ignorance of science and anyone reading in will know that. Have you just not been reading?
We've been discussing Schrodinger's work in open system thermodynamics only for about 50 posts now.
Oh, and you need to email Ilya Prigogine and have him give back that Nobel prize he won for his work in open system thermodynamics some years back.
|
1. He is dead, so it would be impossible to email him.
2. His Nobel winning work with dissipative systems is all about systems that exchange energy and matter (OPEN systems), yes. It's all about non-equilibrium thermodynamics.
3. Nothing in his work, ever, states that SLOT (entropy can only increase) applies to open systems where matter and energy move in and out of the system.
You, jerry, just like to humiliate yourself in public.
Admit you are in error and move on. Go revise your ideas.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Machi4velli
SFN Regular
USA
854 Posts |
Posted - 01/06/2011 : 11:44:43 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JerryB
Originally posted by Machi4velli
Genomes are not irreducibly complex as evidenced that one may mutate and do nothing to the rest of the system. It can still function. However, I could see it argued that SOME of them could be--those that result in the death of the organism due to mutation, but I have never researched this.
|
If SOME of them are then you don't have independency. That should be fairly easy to comprehend...
|
JerryB cannot just throw out the effect of dependent events. Even if they seem to be a small proportion of the total, dependence tends to be amplified the more you attempt to apply theorems that assume independence. When you move past the science and into the math of your model, the mathematical jumps need to be deductions.
These are matters of pure logic and probability, you just cannot arbitrarily decide to assume independence when it isn't true. All of these papers assuming this can essentially be ignored until someone can justify why it is acceptable to assume independence here. It's not quite mathematically sound, but it would probably meet scientific standards if someone could empirically determine the extent and manner of the dependence and use this to bound the error that will invariably be introduced by incorrectly applying ideas that require independence. If this error is small enough, we could take these papers more seriously.
Even with this, there could still be problems, and it is ideal to actually work out the math if you can first understand the dependence well enough.
|
How do you reason that random mutations are dependent upon other random mutations? Can I see references that this is true?
|
If someone is making a claim about probabilities that uses independence, this person must justify the assumption. This can be done empirically to a suitable degree of proof to proceed.
The math you're using assumes independence in order to use the probability facts you're using. I've been told you didn't actually link any scientific papers using this, but the math you linked yourself did assume independence, which you attempted to use to justify some point or another.
Anyway, the fact that organisms with bad mutations tend to have shorter life expectancies and lower procreation rates than organisms with effective mutations shows quite clearly that each generation's genome state depends on previous generations. So the question isn't whether mutations are dependent, but how significant the dependence is, which is not at all something you can determine without getting into the nuts and bolts of the math. |
"Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people."
-Giordano Bruno
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, but the illusion of knowledge."
-Stephen Hawking
"Seeking what is true is not seeking what is desirable"
-Albert Camus |
| Edited by - Machi4velli on 01/06/2011 11:47:34 |
|
|
|
JerryB
Skeptic Friend
279 Posts |
Posted - 01/06/2011 : 12:42:17 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Jerry, you only think you know what your references mean, but to this outside observer, you're in way over your head. It's not my job to come up with a reference that says you can't put nucleotide counts into Boltzmann's formula the way that you have, it's your job to find a reference that says that a uniform distribution of binary events with statistical independence is a reasonable way to model DNA mutations. You haven't done so, and you can't do so, because you don't understand what it means. You see the numbers and the equations, but don't comprehend them.
So, Jerry, cough up a reference that says a person can take a nucleotide count and the rate of deleterious mutations being eliminated from a genome, use them as inputs to a formula for uniform distribution of statistically independent binary events that will result in a valid count of the statistical microstates for that genome, and I will happily apologize and declare you correct. That's what you've already done, obviously, but you haven't offered up a single reference that indicates that it's a valid way to calculate "genomic entropy."
If you can't do so because nobody has ever done it before, then write your stuff up, get it peer-reviewed and published, and build a consensus around it, and then I'll happily agree that you have what you would call a "scientific theory."
What you've got now is an unsupported hypothesis which doesn't even pass a few basic plausibility tests.
|
I don't have a theory or even a hypothesis, I am discussing entropy in a forum with other people, that's all.
I'm also discussing it with a guy named Dave, who doesn't understand a SINGLE term in the formulas I am introducing him to.
If you did Dave, then you would immediately grasp that the ONLY way to calculate the way something is arranged is to use combinatorials. How many ways can 4 coins be arranged?
Well, I understand there are two possible microstates for each coin, and 4 coins and therefore there are 2^4 possible resting states, or 16.
But the macrostate, or the configurational entropy of the way the coins ACTUALLY EXIST AFTER THEY FLIP is another critter and is figured quite differently: configurational entropy is calculated using factorials; or some call them combinatorials:
This is the type of entropy Feynman described for us in Lectures on Physics published in 1963 entitled "Order and entropy" (vol I section 46-5) as "We measure "disorder" by the number of ways that the insides can be arranged, so that from the outside it looks the same. The logarithm of that number of ways is the entropy."
And the total way those coins can be arranged is not 16 as this just calculates the way that the heads and tails can be arranged. The TOTAL for 4 coins is 4!, or 24.
That's the ONLY way and the correct way to calculate the entropy of ANY system as I calculated. It doesn't matter if it is coins, genes, atoms or traffic congestion.
I was taught this in college, where are you getting your information, Talk Origin?
We are looking at genes going from healthy genes to unhealthy ones, one state to another state--on and off--little different than heads or tails in a coin toss.
So nothing you can do or say is going to change any unbiased reader's
mind that all systems are calculated the way I did, and just because you are losing this debate and striking back anyway you can is no legitimate reason to assume that a genetic system is exempt from SLOT and the measurement of SLOT, entropy. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 01/06/2011 : 12:49:32 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Machi4velli
Originally posted by JerryB
Originally posted by Machi4velli
These are matters of pure logic and probability, you just cannot arbitrarily decide to assume independence when it isn't true. |
How do you reason that random mutations are dependent upon other random mutations? Can I see references that this is true?
|
If someone is making a claim about probabilities that uses independence, this person must justify the assumption. This can be done empirically to a suitable degree of proof to proceed. |
I have already given an example in the E. coli long-term evolution experiment that mutations can be dependent. A mutation which needed other mutations to happen in order to have an effect. Several pieces of a puzzle being laid out before the final mutation activates a major change in food utilization.
This experiment refute the idea that mutations and its effects are independent of each other.
Anyway, the fact that organisms with bad mutations tend to have shorter life expectancies and lower procreation rates than organisms with effective mutations shows quite clearly that each generation's genome state depends on previous generations. So the question isn't whether mutations are dependent, but how significant the dependence is, which is not at all something you can determine without getting into the nuts and bolts of the math.
|
I read another summary of Lensky's experiment (which I can't find a link to right now, I lost it) which said (if I recall correctly) the citrate-mutated population not only tripled, but grew 6 times that of its previous upper population-limit.
This experiment highlighted a positive mutation, but there's absolutely no reason to believe that negative mutations can't have similar expressions. This evidence conclusively supports the position that DNA cannot be viewed as a number of independent microstates.
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
JerryB
Skeptic Friend
279 Posts |
Posted - 01/06/2011 : 12:49:47 [Permalink]
|
| 1. He is dead, so it would be impossible to email him. |
WWHHHHIIIIiiiiissshhh. The sound of my point going over your head.
| 2. His Nobel winning work with dissipative systems is all about systems that exchange energy and matter (OPEN systems), yes. It's all about non-equilibrium thermodynamics. |
But you said that SLOT does not apply to open systems. Wasn't that you? In fact ALL of his work was done in open systems to my knowledge. Much of Schrodinger's was as well. See why I didn't want to waste my time with this silliness? LOL
| 3. Nothing in his work, ever, states that SLOT (entropy can only increase) applies to open systems where matter and energy move in and out of the system. |
Strawman----I never said it did. The rest of your post is just posturing and put-downs.
|
| Edited by - JerryB on 01/06/2011 13:01:12 |
|
|
|
JerryB
Skeptic Friend
279 Posts |
Posted - 01/06/2011 : 12:56:48 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Machi4velli
Originally posted by JerryB
Originally posted by Machi4velli
Genomes are not irreducibly complex as evidenced that one may mutate and do nothing to the rest of the system. It can still function. However, I could see it argued that SOME of them could be--those that result in the death of the organism due to mutation, but I have never researched this.
|
If SOME of them are then you don't have independency. That should be fairly easy to comprehend...
|
JerryB cannot just throw out the effect of dependent events. Even if they seem to be a small proportion of the total, dependence tends to be amplified the more you attempt to apply theorems that assume independence. When you move past the science and into the math of your model, the mathematical jumps need to be deductions.
These are matters of pure logic and probability, you just cannot arbitrarily decide to assume independence when it isn't true. All of these papers assuming this can essentially be ignored until someone can justify why it is acceptable to assume independence here. It's not quite mathematically sound, but it would probably meet scientific standards if someone could empirically determine the extent and manner of the dependence and use this to bound the error that will invariably be introduced by incorrectly applying ideas that require independence. If this error is small enough, we could take these papers more seriously.
Even with this, there could still be problems, and it is ideal to actually work out the math if you can first understand the dependence well enough.
|
How do you reason that random mutations are dependent upon other random mutations? Can I see references that this is true?
|
If someone is making a claim about probabilities that uses independence, this person must justify the assumption. This can be done empirically to a suitable degree of proof to proceed.
The math you're using assumes independence in order to use the probability facts you're using. I've been told you didn't actually link any scientific papers using this, but the math you linked yourself did assume independence, which you attempted to use to justify some point or another.
Anyway, the fact that organisms with bad mutations tend to have shorter life expectancies and lower procreation rates than organisms with effective mutations shows quite clearly that each generation's genome state depends on previous generations. So the question isn't whether mutations are dependent, but how significant the dependence is, which is not at all something you can determine without getting into the nuts and bolts of the math.
|
I can easily justify independence. Mutations are random and this is what we are measuring. No way is one gene dependent on another when it mutates. How do you think that one is?
Please note that the nucleotide numbers I used were as good for any one organism in the study as any of them. Once that organism inherits the genome, random mutation takes it from there and there is no dependency involved anywhere. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Intelligent Design is Stupid
