Yes, this may be true, but I think the basic question you need to answer is: "Does this process add information?" No random process can create information. That appears to be self-evident.
Jojo ----- Original Message ----- From: Axil Axil To: [email protected] Sent: Saturday, August 04, 2012 5:57 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:The Fallacies of Darwinian Evolution - Basic Definitions Crystals are formed through the maximization of disorder. Designer materials: Entropy (Entropy is the thermodynamic property toward quilibrium/average/homogenization/dissipation) can lead to order, paving the route to nanostructures. Entropy is a consequence of the expansion of the universe. http://phys.org/news/2012-07-entropy-paving-route-nanostructures.html Glotzer explains that this isn't really disorder creating order—entropy needs its image updated. Instead, she describes it as a measure of possibilities. If you could turn off gravity and empty a bag full of dice into a jar, the floating dice would point every which way. However, if you keep adding dice, eventually space becomes so limited that the dice have more options to align face-to-face. The same thing happens to the nanoparticles, which are so small that they feel entropy's influence more strongly than gravity's. On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 5:39 PM, Jojo Jaro <[email protected]> wrote: The formation of crystals with the apparent increase in information is a process governed by chemical laws - the polar bonding laws governing the formation of ice crystals. While the crystals appear to have more information, the crystal formation itself is a random application of chemical bonding laws and contains no more information than another crystal formation. To illustrate my point, ask yourself this: "Does one crystal, like a snow flake, tell you more information about its process of formation, that you can not get from another snow flake?" In the end, the crystals itself are all products randomly created. There is a concept called "Specified Complexity" wherein one has a mathematical criteria to judge whether one has something that is created by an Intelligence or something that is created by Random chance and physical laws. For example, when you walk down a beach and find scribblings on the beach sand, and it is shaped like an "I". You can not immediately say that this scribbling was written by a man. That scribbling has no "specified complexity". The information is not complex and specified enough. However, when you see "I love Lucy" written on the beach sand, you can immediately say that that writting is from an intelligent being. Why? because the complexity is huge, the chance is low and the information of the writting is specified - that is, it contains knowledge from a known source, the human language. Hence, using the criteria of specified complexity, one can say that "I love Lucy" is specified complex while the letter "I" while it contains information, is complex but not specified complex. Specified Complexity is a property that allows us to judge whether something has its origins from an intelligence or something from random processes. Whenever we see something like DNA that contains both information and is specified complex and its random formation impossible, we can conclude is was designed by an Intelligence. But once again, I am getting ahead of myself. We will discuss specified complexity in a later post. Jojo ----- Original Message ----- From: David Roberson To: [email protected] Sent: Friday, August 03, 2012 11:05 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:The Fallacies of Darwinian Evolution - Basic Definitions Jojo I think that your statement that no random process can increase the information content of a system is too broad. The formation of a crystal from a vat of molten material seems to be a system that takes the random motion of the hot atoms as its input and then a directing force leads to the final crystal structure. Entropy is increased for the overall system by the release of heat of fusion, but the local region becomes less random. With this type of process in mind, I think that the choice of system boundaries become critical. Dave -----Original Message----- From: Jojo Jaro <[email protected]> To: vortex-l <[email protected]> Sent: Fri, Aug 3, 2012 8:55 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:The Fallacies of Darwinian Evolution - Basic Definitions Yes, That is why I say Darwinian Evolution is dead, a totally discredited and fallacious idea. Darwin did not know about DNA, genes, cell structures, RNA and others. Had he known the structure of DNA for instance, he would have concluded that slow random mutation can not explain the existence of DNA. Why, because random mutation can not explain the existence of "Information" within our DNA. There is no random process that will result in an arrangement that increases the Information Content of a system. Random processes results in entrophy, and entrophy is the opposite of Information and order. But I am getting ahead of myself. I will discuss DNA information in a future post. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Terry Blanton" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, August 03, 2012 8:45 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:The Fallacies of Darwinian Evolution - Basic Definitions > Recent discoveries show that Darwin's ideas were an over > simplification of genetics: > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigenetics > > http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/horizon/ghostgenes.shtml > > T > >
