RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (1000) < ... 856 857 858 859 860 [861] 862 863 864 865 866 ... >   
  Topic: Official Uncommonly Dense Discussion Thread< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Zachriel



Posts: 2723
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 26 2008,06:49   

Quote
DaveScot: Snowflakes exhibit higher order than the water molecules in the air from which they formed and they take on shapes which are macroscopically describable. On closer examination things start to break down. No two snowflakes are exactly alike just as no two wads of paperclips will be exactly alike. The snowflake is a result of law and chance and presents no mystery. We can observe snowflakes (and many other crystalline forms) being formed.

It just means that Sewell 's claims are so much hooey. He says, "the order in an open system cannot increase faster than it is imported through the boundary... It can increase in only one way: by importation through the boundary." But in an open system, 'thermodynamic order' can increase simply because the system cools. Such as when a snowflake forms. Or when making homemade ice cream in a rock salt churn. Or when the Sun hides behind a cloud and the air begins to cool.



Meanwhile, Sewell conflates his personal notions of order with 'thermodynamic order'. An ordered deck of playing cards and a shuffled deck of playing cards have the same thermodynamic entropy. They create the same amount of heat when reduced to an equivalent quantity of ash. The 'thermodynamic order' is found in the complex molecular structure of the paper and ink—not the human preferred arrangements of the markings.

--------------

You never step on the same tard twice—for it's not the same tard and you're not the same person.

   
Zachriel



Posts: 2723
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 26 2008,07:21   

Quote
Frost122585: Think of one of the greatest proofs of all time “Godel’s proof of mathematical axiomatic incompletness.”

... Yet logic is incapable of of proving ANYTHING as being 100% possible or 100% impossible! — as a consequence of mathematical incompleteness logic will always be incomplete as well-

Gödel's Theorems apply to arithmetic (formally recursive and enumerable), not logic or even geometry. Gödel proved that first-order predicate logic *is* complete. Tarski proved first-order geometry complete.

Quote
Mapou: Is there a proof for this statement or is it the only exception to the rule?  

I love self-referential statements. I mean, how do you prove that a logical system is incomplete if the proof is itself part of the system?

Frost122585: This is not an exception the rule because it could be disproven- Godel’s theorm may be one day- but until then it is logical to go where the most solid reasoning takes you especially when intution (which cant be tested) points in that direction as well.

It's not much of a proof, if it can be disproven.

--------------

You never step on the same tard twice—for it's not the same tard and you're not the same person.

   
simmi



Posts: 38
Joined: Aug. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 26 2008,08:04   

Quote (carlsonjok @ Feb. 26 2008,06:39)
 
Quote (CeilingCat @ Feb. 26 2008,02:58)
     
Quote (Bob O'H @ Feb. 25 2008,14:02)
           
Quote (sparc @ Feb. 25 2008,13:52)
To sad. I had suggested to use May 25th instead because it's kind of another Lincoln day.

I thought it was a rather nice use of irony (look the date up, folks!).  I'm not sure any of the UDites understood it, though.

I'z tryin to figure it out.  But there are so many May 25s!  There's practically one every year!

I think 1805 may be year that you are searching for. Observe.

I misread the original suggestion as March 25 and looked that up on Wikipedia before I caught the mistake.  But I did see this entry that I thought was fitting for Expelled:

1811 - Percy Bysshe Shelley is expelled from the University of Oxford for his publication of the pamphlet The Necessity of Atheism.

  
J-Dog



Posts: 4402
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 26 2008,08:30   

Quote (carlsonjok @ Feb. 26 2008,06:39)
Quote (CeilingCat @ Feb. 26 2008,02:58)
   
Quote (Bob O'H @ Feb. 25 2008,14:02)
         
Quote (sparc @ Feb. 25 2008,13:52)
To sad. I had suggested to use May 25th instead because it's kind of another Lincoln day.

I thought it was a rather nice use of irony (look the date up, folks!).  I'm not sure any of the UDites understood it, though.

I'z tryin to figure it out.  But there are so many May 25s!  There's practically one every year!

I think 1805 may be year that you are searching for. Observe.

I don't know...

Your link indicates that Paley's father was a cannon, so now we are back to the artillery thread...

--------------
Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10

Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08

UD is an Unnatural Douchemagnet. - richardthughes 7/11

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 26 2008,11:21   

UnderCoverTard?

If this is one of you guys, Ku-Dos.  I've never thought of this.


Quote
I think there is not enough data to make any determination of who designed the designer.

Only when and if we can identify the designer we might have some data to work with in determining the origin of that agency.

The only feature we know of that the intelligent being possesses is that it contains no irreducibly complex systems itself.

So, who’s with me in keeping the question of the intentional designer to ourselves?


This is the unavoidable logical consequence of the IC idiocy.  No slippery slopes!  I love it so!

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
tsig



Posts: 339
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 26 2008,11:26   

Quote (J. O'Donnell @ Feb. 25 2008,17:34)
Quote (Hermagoras @ Feb. 25 2008,08:46)
jerry explains why moms think he's creepy. Only he doesn't.      
Quote
When I was in New Zealand with the US Navy, I was assigned duty in Wellington for a meeting of high level politicians. I was outside the parliament building behind a 3 foot high barricade to fence off spectators. I was in civilian clothes and a little girl with her mother said I was a secret service man. She was very cute and after a few minutes she got a little fresh but still cute. I told her if she didn’t be have [sic] I would spank her on her “fanny.” In the US this an affectionate term for one’s bottom and used to be a common women’s name. But in New Zealand and a lot of ex British countries it means quite the opposite anatomically. The little girl, the mother and a lot of others got hostile. So watch out.

Um, jerry . . . I don't know quite how to explain this but . . . Using the term fanny is only part of the problem.  Consider: what if you had told a little girl you didn't know that you were going to spank her on her "bottom"?  

That's not OK either.  See?  Either way, someone's going to pull out the mace.

It's actually illegal to hit a child at all here in New Zealand, thanks to wide ranging sweeping reforms due to the anti-smacking legislation (which of course, predictably did nothing to prevent the hideous abuse of a toddler recently who was thrown into a washing machine, among other things).

But Jerry just establishes that he's a moron, because you firstly don't threaten other peoples children in public and secondly it's best to realise that words mean different things in different countries. He's probably lucky he didn't say it to some little Samoan or Maori girl, otherwise he would have had a stint in a New Zealand hospital.

Quote
If evolution is true, how come we still have plant eating bugs?


Does this mean that plants that eat bugs are the result of sin? I'm wondering what came first (because most creationists I've spoken to insist that insects obviously don't get included in the whole all animals were vegetarian thing), bugs that ate plants or plants that ate bugs due to mans sin. QUICK, TO THE SCIENCE LAB TO FIND OUT. We'll need a woman (Kristine?), a man, a talking snake and an apple. Maybe some plants and a few beetles. Let's see which eats the other first, plants or the beetles due to man eating an apple (at the direction of a woman who is herself, taking orders from a talking snake).

Talking snake here, bring on Kristine et. al.

  
sparc



Posts: 2088
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 26 2008,11:26   

Quote
Quote
Quote (carlsonjok @ Feb. 26 2008,06:39)
   
Quote
(CeilingCat @ Feb. 26 2008,02:58)
 
   
Quote
(Bob O'H @ Feb. 25 2008,14:02)
       
   
Quote
(sparc @ Feb. 25 2008,13:52)
To sad. I had suggested to use May 25th instead because it's kind of another Lincoln day.


I thought it was a rather nice use of irony (look the date up, folks!).  I'm not sure any of the UDites understood it, though.


I'z tryin to figure it out.  But there are so many May 25s!  There's practically one every year!


I think 1805 may be year that you are searching for. Observe.


I don't know...

Your link indicates that Paley's father was a cannon, so now we are back to the artillery thread...
Yes I was referring to the day William Paley died in Lincoln.

--------------
"[...] the type of information we find in living systems is beyond the creative means of purely material processes [...] Who or what is such an ultimate source of information? [...] from a theistic perspective, such an information source would presumably have to be God."

- William Dembski -

   
tsig



Posts: 339
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 26 2008,11:31   

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Feb. 26 2008,00:33)
Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Feb. 21 2008,15:29)
davetard posts the new requirements at UD that educated people must show us your papers...or else...

     
Quote
if you make any claims of having relevant credentials while remaining totally anonymous you’re out the door (you will have to substantiate your claim, retract it along with having it edited out of your comment, or say good-bye). The choice on that is yours. If you earned a degree I’m willing to let you fall back on it if you feel the merits of your arguments can’t support themselves but you at least have to prove you earned that shingle.



This is tremendously unfair! If someone wanders into UD and says "I THINK DARWIN IS STUPED I DIDNT EVOLVE FROM NO MONKY AND I KNOW THIS BECASUE IM AN ENGINEER I FIX TELEVISOIN SETS", why doesn't Dave demand a full set of credentials from them? :angry:

If you can fix tvs all you have to do is fix one to prove it.

You only need the paper to show why you can't.

  
Mr_Christopher



Posts: 1238
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 26 2008,13:22   

Things are slow at the tard mine.  I wonder what important lab experiments Dembski is busy with.

--------------
Uncommon Descent is a moral cesspool, a festering intellectual ghetto that intoxicates and degrades its inhabitants - Stephen Matheson

  
J-Dog



Posts: 4402
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 26 2008,14:21   

Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Feb. 26 2008,13:22)
Things are slow at the tard mine.  I wonder what important lab experiments Dembski is busy with.

Not as slow as they are at Overwhelmingly Ever-Dense...

they are back to their usual 1 comment a week.

Yo, Fo-shizzle Doctor-Doctor Dembski, the Cross-Dressing Canadien be wack.  It's just an all-round bad design, y'all dig? Like?

However, Homeland Security WAS able to sneak this photo out of the Super Secret ID Lab:



* ps - Thanks for whoever did this excellent work

--------------
Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10

Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08

UD is an Unnatural Douchemagnet. - richardthughes 7/11

  
Advocatus Diaboli



Posts: 198
Joined: Nov. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 26 2008,16:48   

Another one. I'm getting the hang of it.



--------------
I once thought that I made a mistake, but I was wrong.

"I freely admit I’m a sociopath" - DaveScot

"Most importanly, the facts are on the side of ID." - scordova

"UD is the greatest website of all time." stevestory

   
J-Dog



Posts: 4402
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 26 2008,19:01   

Quote (Advocatus Diaboli @ Feb. 26 2008,16:48)
Another one. I'm getting the hang of it.


Not bad for a guy whose first language is moon talk!

(but I recommend going with I in UR Party).

Actually, if you are at a "party", and Dembski shows up... it's NOT a party.  

It would be like:  Bill at Ur party... bringin U down. :(

--------------
Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10

Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08

UD is an Unnatural Douchemagnet. - richardthughes 7/11

  
dhogaza



Posts: 525
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 26 2008,19:50   

Quote

Things are slow at the tard mine.

Did you HAVE to post this?  I think they must've noticed.

Three posts in rapid succession, one each by DaveTard, BarryAss, and DLH, proclaiming that climate science is a fraud and that we've just entered a new era of Global Cooling.

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 11178
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 26 2008,22:57   

Denyse, spinning for Jebus:

http://mindfulhack.blogspot.com/2008....us.html

Atheism isn't on the increase apparently. Denyse is a Catholic, that strange faith that doesn't have that much to do with what was actually written in the bible. People have been leaving the Catholic church in droves: was it the kiddy fiddling scandals or Denyse's writing, like?

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 11178
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 26 2008,23:56   

GilTard reveals his formative years:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....-175427

Quote
I was raised an atheist, surrounded by academic intellectual atheists. It is true that, as a child, I assumed that these people knew everything, but as I grew older I realized that they didn’t, and that the hard evidence for design and purpose in the universe and life was overwhelming. Belief in God for me is a rational conclusion, despite my upbringing. I became a skeptic of the “skeptics.”


"..the hard evidence for design..."?? Geez. Hard SciFi! Hard Sciences! They must have a hard on...

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
CeilingCat



Posts: 2363
Joined: Dec. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 27 2008,00:41   

Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 26 2008,23:56)
GilTard reveals his formative years:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....-175427

     
Quote
I was raised an atheist, surrounded by academic intellectual atheists. It is true that, as a child, I assumed that these people knew everything, but as I grew older I realized that they didn’t, and that the hard evidence for design and purpose in the universe and life was overwhelming. Belief in God for me is a rational conclusion, despite my upbringing. I became a skeptic of the “skeptics.”


"..the hard evidence for design..."?? Geez. Hard SciFi! Hard Sciences! They must have a hard on...

That was a misprint.  He meant to say, "...the tard evidence for design and purpose in the universe and life was overwhelming."  Remember that it doesn't take much whelming to overwhelm the average ID theorist's mind.

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 27 2008,09:07   

DaveScot has apparently been learning about the SLOT
Quote
The second law and chance doesn’t prevent ordered systems from developing, it makes them more and more improbable as the order increases. The improbabilities in any specific case above the quantum scale is found through the use of statistical mechanics. For instance law and chance can form lots of regularly shaped stone blocks but the probabilities become prohibitive in the stone blocks getting stacked into pyramids such as those in Egypt. Law and chance can concentrate and melt gold into lots of shapes but the chances become prohibitive in chance melting gold into interchangeable machined parts like gears. The chances become even more prohibitive that interchangeable machined parts would be assembled together into a larger mechanism.

However, introduce an intelligent agent into the picture who can form abstract thoughts of improbable arrangements of matter and then manipulate matter to instantiate the abstract into physical reality and then the most improbable things become routine.

The contour lines of stability you suggest are indeed process structuralism and it does indeed require the discovery of laws which describe those lines. We know the laws that describe the contour lines of stability that form snowflakes and precipitates and planets and stars but we don’t know of laws which describe contour lines of stability for the formation polymeric amino and nucleic acids into precisely machined interchangeable parts that further assemble by law and chance into larger hideously complex nanometer scale self-modifying, self-replicating factories. The supposition that there are contours of stability imposed by law that make these things not improbable in statistical mechanics is indeed process structuralism. Statistical mechanics will accomodate any laws which change the probability of any kind of order emerging by law and chance. Find those laws, or principles, or tendencies, or whatever you want to call them, describe them either empirically or mathematically, and then we can talk further. Merely supposing that these undercurrents of structural contours exist is no more than wool gathering. Statistical mechanics underpins all analysis of order in nature, all prediction of how matter behaves by law and chance in non-quantum domains, and is extremely successful in its predictive capacity.


It strikes me that DaveScot could prove his point via mathematics rather then verbiage.

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
Paul Flocken



Posts: 290
Joined: Dec. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 27 2008,09:48   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Feb. 27 2008,09:07)
DaveScot has apparently been learning about the SLOT
     
Quote
The second law and chance doesn’t prevent ordered systems from developing, it makes them more and more improbable as the order increases. The improbabilities in any specific case above the quantum scale is found through the use of statistical mechanics. For instance law and chance can form lots of regularly shaped stone blocks but the probabilities become prohibitive in the stone blocks getting stacked into pyramids such as those in Egypt. Law and chance can concentrate and melt gold into lots of shapes but the chances become prohibitive in chance melting gold into interchangeable machined parts like gears. The chances become even more prohibitive that interchangeable machined parts would be assembled together into a larger mechanism.

However, introduce an intelligent agent into the picture who can form abstract thoughts of improbable arrangements of matter and then manipulate matter to instantiate the abstract into physical reality and then the most improbable things become routine.

The contour lines of stability you suggest are indeed process structuralism and it does indeed require the discovery of laws which describe those lines. We know the laws that describe the contour lines of stability that form snowflakes and precipitates and planets and stars but we don’t know of laws which describe contour lines of stability for the formation polymeric amino and nucleic acids into precisely machined interchangeable parts that further assemble by law and chance into larger hideously complex nanometer scale self-modifying, self-replicating factories. The supposition that there are contours of stability imposed by law that make these things not improbable in statistical mechanics is indeed process structuralism. Statistical mechanics will accomodate any laws which change the probability of any kind of order emerging by law and chance. Find those laws, or principles, or tendencies, or whatever you want to call them, describe them either empirically or mathematically, and then we can talk further. Merely supposing that these undercurrents of structural contours exist is no more than wool gathering. Statistical mechanics underpins all analysis of order in nature, all prediction of how matter behaves by law and chance in non-quantum domains, and is extremely successful in its predictive capacity.


It strikes me that DaveScot could prove his point via mathematics rather then verbiage.

Is this the right question to ask?:

What does statistical mechanics have to do with how atoms chemically bond and chemically interact?

I found a relevant(I think) line at wikipedia:

   
Quote
The study of long chain polymers has been a source of problems within the realms of statistical mechanics since about the 1950's. One of the reasons however that scientists were interested in their study is that the equations governing the behaviour of a polymer chain were independent of the chain chemistry.(bolding added)


Does that mean the motions of atoms and molecules in space(to be sure, a very oversimplified definition of statistical mechanics) is not relevant to the organic chemistry of living things?  Or, at least, minimally relevant?  Louis?

--------------
"The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie--deliberate, contrived, and dishonest, but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic.  Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought."-John F. Kennedy

  
Zachriel



Posts: 2723
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 27 2008,10:10   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Feb. 27 2008,09:07)
DaveScot has apparently been learning about the SLOT... It strikes me that DaveScot could prove his point via mathematics rather then verbiage.

Quote
Timothy V Reeves: Does the second law prevent pockets of high order developing in a system?

DaveScot: Hold on here. That’s a qualified “no”. The second law and chance doesn’t prevent ordered systems from developing, it makes them more and more improbable as the order increases.

It's not a "no" of any sort. A system can have pockets of high order developing within the system. A diamond is one of the most highly organized (low entropy) types of matter in the universe. Diamonds are a natural consequence of how the Earth cools.



Quote
DaveScot: There’s just no means of escaping the second law. Only intelligent agency is capable of gaming the system to make the improbable into the probable.

No, DaveScot. Intelligent agents are just as bound by the laws of Thermodynamics as are the processes within the Earth's crust that organize the atoms in a diamond.

--------------

You never step on the same tard twice—for it's not the same tard and you're not the same person.

   
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 27 2008,10:37   

Quote (Paul Flocken @ Feb. 27 2008,15:48)
Does that mean the motions of atoms and molecules in space(to be sure, a very oversimplified definition of statistical mechanics) is not relevant to the organic chemistry of living things?  Or, at least, minimally relevant?  Louis?

When I read this piece of Dave's my first thought is that Dave knows nothing about the physics or chemistry he pontificates upon. My second thoughts are less charitable.

The motions of atoms and molecules in space are VERY relevant to all chemistry. Of vastly greater relevance is the electronic nature of the atom/molecule in question. It's one of those things that you read and just throw your hands in the air and ask "where the fuck do I start?". I'm serious, where does anyone start with a person who is so utterly clueless about how atoms and molecules stick to each other or react. Where do we go? Huckel theory? Molecular dynamics and chemical reactivity? Spectroscopy? Quantum mechanics? Lattice field theories? I'm probably thinking too hard about this.

Do we want the Spot the Dog version of why molecules stick together for Davey?

A couple of simple things:

1) To a very rough first approximation, all chemistry boils down to the interactions of the valence electrons of atoms, and the interactions of certain pairs of electrons in molecules. This is incredibly oversimplified! So incredibly so I think it's more wrong than right but it will do!

2) If we're talking statistical dynamics a la Boltzmann etc, then the motions of a population of molecules for example is VASTLY significant to the chemistry those molecules will undergo. For two molecules to react there is a certain energy barrier, a resistance to this reaction, called the activation energy. A molecule must possess sufficient energy to overcome the activation energy barrier in order to react. At least part of that energy can come from the translational motion (i.e. the energy it has by virtue of moving) of the molecule, as well as other types (vibrational, rotational, electronic etc). There are even chemicals (i.e. not just materials) that react if you put pressure on them or poke them. It's a very cool area of chemistry.

3) If we're talking about the energy states of individual molecules (or atoms) when we talk about motion, then, as mentioned above, these are vital to what reactions the molecule can undergo but whether it will participate in any reaction at all. A simple example might be intramolecular cyclisations (i.e. the ends of a long chain like molecule joining together to make a ring). The motions of the molecule itself have enormous bearing on this. Consider the simple entropic aspects of the reaction, the longer and floppier the chain, the less likely it is those two ends will meet each other easily (and thus react and cyclise). It's much more complex than this involving a really profound understanding of molecular structure and orbital dynamics etc, but take it from me making a 24 membered ring is a lot harder than making a 5 membered ring in terms of the entropy (and a whole slew of other problems).

EDITTED TO ADD:

The Wikipedia article you quote is bang on in one sense. What it's talking about is actually quite important to the example of intramolecular cyclisation above. Imagine in your reaction flask you're attempting such a cyclisation, if the concentration of yout solution is wrong then the chances are the ends of the molecule you want to stick together are going to find an end from another molecule to stick to a lot quicker and easier than bending around on themselves to stick to their other end. If you get my drift. Polymerisation is the result (or at least oligomerisation). How and why things polymerise is, indeed, about more than the simple monomeric chemistry, like I said above, the thermodynamics of the system (in a global sense) has a big input. It's basically an ADDED problem. I wouldn't go as far to say that the behaviour (and certainly not the properties) of a polymer or a polymerisation reaction were in anyway independant from the chemical nature of the polymer, if only because modifying the chemical nature of the polymer can modify the degrees of freedom available to the system, and thus simplify/make more complex the problem. Think about the polymeric behavioural differences between polythene and teflon for example. Simple chemical change (F for H) radically alters the behaviour of the polymer in some sense. But granted without knowing precisely what they are referring to in that article it's hard to get anything useful out of such a generalisation.

The stuff from Dave is so confused I don't really know where to begin!

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 27 2008,12:02   

Quote
DaveScot: There’s just no means of escaping the second law. Only intelligent agency is capable of gaming the system to make the improbable into the probable.




--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 27 2008,12:09   

Quote (Louis @ Feb. 27 2008,10:37)
Quote (Paul Flocken @ Feb. 27 2008,15:48)
Does that mean the motions of atoms and molecules in space(to be sure, a very oversimplified definition of statistical mechanics) is not relevant to the organic chemistry of living things?  Or, at least, minimally relevant?  Louis?

When I read this piece of Dave's my first thought is that Dave knows nothing about the physics or chemistry he pontificates upon. My second thoughts are less charitable.

The motions of atoms and molecules in space are VERY relevant to all chemistry. Of vastly greater relevance is the electronic nature of the atom/molecule in question. It's one of those things that you read and just throw your hands in the air and ask "where the fuck do I start?". I'm serious, where does anyone start with a person who is so utterly clueless about how atoms and molecules stick to each other or react. Where do we go? Huckel theory? Molecular dynamics and chemical reactivity? Spectroscopy? Quantum mechanics? Lattice field theories? I'm probably thinking too hard about this.

Do we want the Spot the Dog version of why molecules stick together for Davey?

A couple of simple things:

1) To a very rough first approximation, all chemistry boils down to the interactions of the valence electrons of atoms, and the interactions of certain pairs of electrons in molecules. This is incredibly oversimplified! So incredibly so I think it's more wrong than right but it will do!

2) If we're talking statistical dynamics a la Boltzmann etc, then the motions of a population of molecules for example is VASTLY significant to the chemistry those molecules will undergo. For two molecules to react there is a certain energy barrier, a resistance to this reaction, called the activation energy. A molecule must possess sufficient energy to overcome the activation energy barrier in order to react. At least part of that energy can come from the translational motion (i.e. the energy it has by virtue of moving) of the molecule, as well as other types (vibrational, rotational, electronic etc). There are even chemicals (i.e. not just materials) that react if you put pressure on them or poke them. It's a very cool area of chemistry.

3) If we're talking about the energy states of individual molecules (or atoms) when we talk about motion, then, as mentioned above, these are vital to what reactions the molecule can undergo but whether it will participate in any reaction at all. A simple example might be intramolecular cyclisations (i.e. the ends of a long chain like molecule joining together to make a ring). The motions of the molecule itself have enormous bearing on this. Consider the simple entropic aspects of the reaction, the longer and floppier the chain, the less likely it is those two ends will meet each other easily (and thus react and cyclise). It's much more complex than this involving a really profound understanding of molecular structure and orbital dynamics etc, but take it from me making a 24 membered ring is a lot harder than making a 5 membered ring in terms of the entropy (and a whole slew of other problems).

EDITTED TO ADD:

The Wikipedia article you quote is bang on in one sense. What it's talking about is actually quite important to the example of intramolecular cyclisation above. Imagine in your reaction flask you're attempting such a cyclisation, if the concentration of yout solution is wrong then the chances are the ends of the molecule you want to stick together are going to find an end from another molecule to stick to a lot quicker and easier than bending around on themselves to stick to their other end. If you get my drift. Polymerisation is the result (or at least oligomerisation). How and why things polymerise is, indeed, about more than the simple monomeric chemistry, like I said above, the thermodynamics of the system (in a global sense) has a big input. It's basically an ADDED problem. I wouldn't go as far to say that the behaviour (and certainly not the properties) of a polymer or a polymerisation reaction were in anyway independant from the chemical nature of the polymer, if only because modifying the chemical nature of the polymer can modify the degrees of freedom available to the system, and thus simplify/make more complex the problem. Think about the polymeric behavioural differences between polythene and teflon for example. Simple chemical change (F for H) radically alters the behaviour of the polymer in some sense. But granted without knowing precisely what they are referring to in that article it's hard to get anything useful out of such a generalisation.

The stuff from Dave is so confused I don't really know where to begin!

Louis

Now this is the Louis that I know and love.  :D Give 'em hell!

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 27 2008,13:00   

Quote (skeptic @ Feb. 27 2008,18:09)
Now this is the Louis that I know and love.  :D Give 'em hell!

A) Settle Petal!

B) I'm not giving them hell. Talking to morons like Dave Tard is even more pointless than talking to morons like you.

C) I'm not giving anyone hell. Frankly the fact that these people pontificate about a subject that they can find out about by simply shutting up and reading a good chemistry book (they do exist) and persist in promoting dumb inaccuracies is beyond me. And yes I realise this is what you think we at AtBC do with religion but i) you're wrong and ii) we don't, these are things you'd have to READ WHAT WE'VE WRITTEN to find out. I realise this is a difficult concept for you. Now how about you leave this thread alone unless you have something useful, relevant (or funny, we'll always take funny) to contribute. Otherwise you're just stinking up two threads that might otherwise generate amusing conversation.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
tsig



Posts: 339
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 27 2008,13:23   

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Feb. 27 2008,12:02)
Quote
DaveScot: There’s just no means of escaping the second law. Only intelligent agency is capable of gaming the system to make the improbable into the probable.



By Dave's argument his dogs are more intelligent than he is. They are gaming the system to get free food and lodging.

Great pic!

  
Henry J



Posts: 5786
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 27 2008,14:17   

Quote
The stuff from Dave is so confused I don't really know where to begin!


"In the beginning, the Earth was without form..."

Or alternately,

"It was a dark and stormy night. And suddenly..."

  
dhogaza



Posts: 525
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 27 2008,15:39   

Dave sez...

Quote
It does however serve to show the global warming alarmists were full of hot air. There hasn’t been any warming at all for the past 10 years and, to add insult to injury, the average global temperature plummeted faster than anyone has seen before. In the meantime CO2 level in the atmosphere has kept right on rising as fast or faster than ever before. The facts don’t fit the CO2 boogeyman story now and never have. It was all driven by a leftist agenda to stop burning fossil fuels - nothing more and nothing less. The public at large was gulled. I was pretty confident that the cold would return like it always does and with it would come the realization they’d been had. This was just 20 years of gulling.


It will be interesting to see what he says once this La Niña-driven cold spell is over and average temps continue their relentless march upwards.

And the notion that a single January to January comparison tells us anything about long-term trends is astonishingly stupid even for someone as brain-dead as Dave Scot ...

It's also a pity that no one over there with posting privileges is smart enough to correct his mistatement that "There hasn’t been any warming at all for the past 10 years", since the trend's still up even if you cherry-pick the 1998 El Niño year as your starting point ...

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 11178
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 27 2008,15:41   

Brace for ID spin...

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2008-02/yu-ysc022508.php


Quote
Yale scientists create artificial 'cells' that boost the immune response to cancer


wah..wah..wah design! Yes. evidently a better design than the first 'designers', eh IDists?

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
Tracy P. Hamilton



Posts: 1239
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 27 2008,16:50   

Quote (Paul Flocken @ Feb. 27 2008,09:48)
 
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Feb. 27 2008,09:07)
DaveScot has apparently been learning about the SLOT
Quote
Blah, blah, blah.


It strikes me that DaveScot could prove his point via mathematics rather then verbiage.

Is this the right question to ask?:

What does statistical mechanics have to do with how atoms chemically bond and chemically interact?

I found a relevant(I think) line at wikipedia:

       
Quote
The study of long chain polymers has been a source of problems within the realms of statistical mechanics since about the 1950's. One of the reasons however that scientists were interested in their study is that the equations governing the behaviour of a polymer chain were independent of the chain chemistry.(bolding added)


Does that mean the motions of atoms and molecules in space(to be sure, a very oversimplified definition of statistical mechanics) is not relevant to the organic chemistry of living things?  Or, at least, minimally relevant?  Louis?


Is this a request for a stat thermo lecture?  DaveScot is right about one thing - it is about the probable vs. improbable.  The IDiots' problem is that they don't know diddly squat about how to compute probabilities for molecules.  "Contour lines of stability" is just gobbledygook.

Your specific reference about polymers is for an ideal chain - with no chemical interaction, just a rule that when the chain crosses itself, it can't pass through becuase that would require breaking the chain (which involves breaking a bond).
The random walk example is for a single chain, which gives an average size (radius of gyration, which can be characterized by light scattering).  If you string together a bunch of organic molecules, like ethylene, into a polymer (polyethylene), it is pretty much chemically inert.  The physics of how multiple polymer chains behave can be modelled by long spahetti noodles that move around.  One mode of moving among a tangle is like a snake (reptation).  Pierre deGennes got the nobel prize for that work.

http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1991/illpres/ and follow the contents links for some pictures

--------------
"Following what I just wrote about fitness, you’re taking refuge in what we see in the world."  PaV

"The simple equation F = MA leads to the concept of four-dimensional space." GilDodgen

"We have no brain, I don't, for thinking." Robert Byers

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 11178
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 27 2008,17:16   

Yay Bfast!

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....-175555

I've bolded the bits I like:

Quote
53

bFast

02/27/2008

3:52 pm
Timothy V Reeves, you are a very clear communicator, and one who is more aware of his thought-process than most. I hope that in time we will be able to convince you of the validity of ID. If/when we can, you will be able to articulate the view very well.

I, like you, have observed this debate from the position of a non-scientist with an open mind and good awareness of what drives my belief systems. I would love to share my data with you, as I find that it is rather convincing. That said, if there is one book that lays out the ID case best, let me suggest the book that convinced Behe — Denton’s “Evolution a Theory in Crisis.”

The frustrating thing about this forum is that it spends 90% of its energy on the politics of ID, and only 10% on science. Of that 10%, 90% is just rehashing of old ideas. That leaves about 1% of meaningful scientific discussion.

Another frustring thing about this forum is that non-IDers get kicked off really easily, too easily for my taste. To that end, let me strongly suggest that as a non-IDer you always use a respectful tone, as you have done so far.


--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
Paul Flocken



Posts: 290
Joined: Dec. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 27 2008,20:25   

Quote
The stuff from Dave is so confused I don't really know where to begin!

Thankyou, Louis, for trying anyway.  You did actually tell me what I needed to know.

I think I can follow on.  DT is reducing all of chemistry to statistical mechanics, a radical and unjustified oversimplification, as exemplified by his statement here
Quote
Obviously you have no understanding of the hierarchy in science. Biology is explained by chemistry. Chemistry is explained by physics. Physics is explained by law and statistical mechanics.

Atoms don't just combine in completely random ways.  If they did chemistry would probably not be possible.  Chemistry is more than the random tumbling of atoms; atoms bond only in definite(though many and varied) ways.  Though statistical mechanics may determine when atoms have the chance to get together (and the thermo of the situation the energy available before the reactions) once together they follow laws that are far more dominant than the stat/mech that brought them together.  Of course if DT gives up that stat/mech is dominant then he will have to give up that complex molecule are impossible.
Quote
When I read this piece of Dave's my first thought is that Dave knows nothing about the physics or chemistry he pontificates upon.

After almost nine hundred pages you didn't know this yet? :p
Quote
The Wikipedia article you quote is bang on in one sense.

I wouldn't read to much into that line from wiki.  It was dangerously close to a quote mine.  I really happened on it by chance.  I only wanted to refresh myself on the stat/mech as I only thought of it as the science that subsumed the kinetic theory of gases.  Unlike DT I know what I don't know. I ran over that line and it almost seemed too perfect a statement in isolation.  Especially since DT seems to be fond of the words "'polymeric amino and nucleic acids".  Your explanation on cyclisation placed it in context far better than the wiki article did.

Tracy P. Hamilton,
Quote
Is this a request for a stat thermo lecture?

Umm, no.  But I am all ears if you are game.  I knew DT was using stat/mech in an illegitimate manner, but did not know how to state it well.  I may still not be doing so, but I thank the two of you for your effort.
Quote
Pierre deGennes got the nobel prize for that work.

REAL SCIENCE!  Amazing what real science looks like when contrasted to the tard.

--------------
"The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie--deliberate, contrived, and dishonest, but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic.  Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought."-John F. Kennedy

  
  29999 replies since Jan. 16 2006,11:43 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (1000) < ... 856 857 858 859 860 [861] 862 863 864 865 866 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]