The best wordy explanation of entropy is that it’s the amount of missing information. In particular, entropy expressed in bits is the minimum amount of balanced* yes/no question you’d have to ask to ascertain the exact state of the system (positions and velocities of particles) given it’s rough description (pressure, temperature and volume of gas). Or, in cases like a password, to figure out the exact password knowing it’s rough description (lengths, allowed characters, required characters (min one upper case letter for example). *) balanced means equal probability of yes and no; if you toss a fair coin and someone asks you if it landed heads or tails they are missing one bit of information. If the coin was unfair and landed heads 90% of the time, then they’d be missing less than one bit of information.

Thank you for this video. One of the best things I've watched related to Abiogenesis.

@smithkarine9678

Жыл бұрын

you don t understand science and biology if you think that explains anything.

Awesome explanation, very clear and condensed!

So does this mean the cause for moving in a certain way like electrons powered by a battery or human anatomy in a certain direction is governed by the 2nd law of thermodynamics (probably the variation you proposed) by paying a debt in terms of heat to the universe. Reverse direction won't be possible as that would tantamount to reducing the entropy and will probably mean universe paying us back (and not possible as per thermodynamics laws). Is this a valid understanding ?. In any case enjoyed this thoroughly. Thanks

@emerson685

4 жыл бұрын

You're first sentence is true. 2nd law does govern both and is a major component variable in all biochemical process. The second sentence is not true, however. "Reverse direction" or creating negative entropy is possibly, because remember that the 2nd LoT only contemplates to "closed systems." Rarely, can you truly find a natural closed system, so to study entropy, you must define the boundaries. Batteries, life, all sorts of things can effectively reverse some entropy in a smaller system by utilizing energy from the larger system.

@smjain11

4 жыл бұрын

@@emerson685 So what I meant was say reversal of direction of growth of a plant. This would mean that we won't pay the entropy tax which is not possible. So even if we draw a boundary for an open system say life as an example, to maintain orderly state and fight entropy we still pay the entropy tax somewhere .

@RandallLeeReetz

2 жыл бұрын

​@@emerson685 I will assume you learned thermodynamics as part of an engineering program. In the theoretical sciences, the ones from which thermodynamics was defined and confirmed, the foundational presumption is that NO system can ever be isolated from its environment. All systems are open save the universe itself which is defined (correctly or not?) as being closed (or rather looping in on itself). There is no part of the core principles of thermodynamics that are in concert with the notion of a closed system. The very idea is that system boundaries are ALWAYS arbitrary and ONLY used where calculations are more convenient when considered closed. Engineers are taught thermodynamics in terms of closed systems because its convenient to do so, the math is easier. And in terms related to everyday objects (heaters, engines, refrigerators, bearings, etc., the delta between closed systems arithmetics and open systems arithmetics are not of great importance to the desired product design. But at cosmological scales (all time, and all space), those engineering shortcuts are easily and obviously shown to be inconsistent with reality. A system can only absorb so much dissipation internally before it must be measured from a larger vantage. The classical examples of gasses of varying particle energies tending towards dissipative maximums conveniently doesn't take into account the effects of atomic decay or containment costs (both of which are actually the same). The approach taken by the lecturer shown here require huge breaks with causal reality, and it is frustrating that the speaker does not take the time to explain the cost of such conveniences, the potential pitfalls cause by their use. He doesn't in other words, take the time to expose the ways in which his abstractions are false and falsifiable. From a thermodynamical perspective, biology itself is an artificially bounded system. There is no thermodynamic difference between what a rodent does and what a rock does. Thermodynamically, the rock is no less alive than the rodent. Thermodynamically, rocks and rodents evolve in exactly the same ways and for exactly the same reasons. The very notion that "life" (an artificial concept anyway) can be defined as unique through the use of thermodynamics goes counter to the laws of thermodynamics which absolutely and plainly expose the arbitrariness of the set of systems we have come to label "life" or "living"ignorantdisingenuous for a researcher to assert otherwise.

Parallel lines are a special case. The fewer the pairs of parallel lines the lower the entropy per unit of time. So, where are we finding parallel lines in nature providing boundaries for energy?

Chucking out second law is what that amazed me the most . Its a nice approach i like it

How can I get this game to play around with?

So the thing I'm always seeing blatantly ignored in these talks, and explainations is this. Why is life both a decrease in entropy (more ordered) AND an increase in energy. Because OOL eplainations for the required order in producing life is that many natural systems self order, such as water freezing into Ice, or a vortex forming due to high/low pressure systems colliding. But the problem that I never see answered is that all of the non life examples of local decreases in entropy are also decreases in energy as well. Where as life draws energy in to maintain homeostasis as well as trending towards more order.

@ceastep2360

2 жыл бұрын

Both. Basic organic systems maintain low internal entropy, which allows them to maximize the rate at which they increase the entropy of the universe.

@anthonypolonkay2681

2 жыл бұрын

@@ceastep2360 that doesn't address the issue. All you did was state that life maintains a low entropy. Which is true, but your not answering the question of why life is the only example of a drastic lowering of entropy, with a drastic increase in energy. The reason this is an issue in an abiogenic origin of life is that all nonliving examples of decreases in entropy are always also decreases in energy. And all increases in entropy, are always also increases in energy. Life is the only accepting to this rule, harboring both an increase in energy, and a decrease in entropy. And since this is the case one big thing you need to explain an abiogenic origin of life, is an example of a nonliving system that naturally has low entropy, and high energy.

Thermodynamics of evolution and Darwinism According to thermodynamic theory, evolution is a spontaneous process that develops within living systems in accordance with the second law of thermodynamics. However, this process takes place against the background of non-spontaneous changes in the same systems - processes that are initiated by the environment. These non-spontaneous processes cannot be predicted by thermodynamics. Thus, Darwinism, the physical foundation of which is hierarchical thermodynamics, only partially determines the direction of the evolution of living beings. Evolution tends to develop according to the second law of thermodynamics, when the environment has relatively little effect on this evolutionary development. In the event of abrupt changes in the environment, evolutionary changes are unpredictable. Thermodynamics sets the trend of evolutionary changes only at certain stages of evolution. In this regard, in general, the theory of Darwinism, as a theory that establishes the direction of evolution, has limited application. This explanation does not require the use of the concept of artificial intelligence. The presented considerations make it possible to assert that life in the universe is characterized by practically infinite biological diversity, including the diversity of civilizations, in appropriate conditions within the framework of thermodynamics. Gladyshev G.P. J Thermodyn Catal, 2017, 8: 2 DOI: 10,4172 / 2157-7544.100018, Life - A Complex Spontaneous Process Takes Place against the Background of Non-Spontaneous Processes Initiated by the Environment P. S. It is interesting to note that in the work “On Growth and Form,” D’Arcy Wentworth Thompson argued that organisms are shaped less by adaptive evolutionary function and more by deep mathematical laws. To understand his argument, you need only look at the combs made by bees. One gets the impression that D’Arcy Wentworth Thompson argued that mathematical laws (thermodynamics) and environment (adaptation) determine evolution.

@July41776DedicatedtoTheProposi

Жыл бұрын

Not exactly. Ilya Romanovich Prigogine,for his study in irreversible thermodynamics, he received the Rumford Medal in 1976, and in 1977, the Nobel Prize in Chemistry. He proved that the 2nd Law of thermodynamics works in reverse for open systems and this explain increasing complexities in life as time goes along as the basis for evolution. . In summary, Ilya Prigogine discovered that importation and dissipation of energy into chemical systems could result in the emergence of new structures (hence dissipative structures) due to internal self reorganization.[14] In his 1955 text, Prigogine drew connections between dissipative structures and the Rayleigh-Bénard instability and the Turing mechanism.[15] Dissipative structures theory Edit Dissipative structure theory led to pioneering research in self-organizing systems, as well as philosophical inquiries into the formation of complexity on biological entities and the quest for a creative and irreversible role of time in the natural sciences. With professor Robert Herman, when they were both at The University of Texas-Austin, he also developed the basis of the two fluid model, a traffic model in traffic engineering for urban networks, analogous to the two fluid model in classical statistical mechanics. Prigogine's formal concept of self-organization was used also as a "complementary bridge" between General Systems Theory and thermodynamics, conciliating the cloudiness of some important systems theory concepts[which?] with scientific rigor.

He explains that the hard part is getting life started. I would have liked for him to give some kind of estimate on the probability that a minimal self replicating element would assemble at random.

@Silly.Old.Sisyphus

2 жыл бұрын

probability = 1. proof is that it happened.

@IbnFarteen

2 жыл бұрын

@@Silly.Old.Sisyphus Oh yes. You are right empirically -- no doubt about that but I suppose I'm interested in the frequency -- can he assess the a-priori likelihood? It would be nice to assess how often he expects self replicating element appear. Maybe he'd calculate it is so small that it might have only happened once among trillions of planets through out a 13.7 billion year age of the universe. That's a really good thing to know.

@Silly.Old.Sisyphus

2 жыл бұрын

@@IbnFarteen like golf, life is hard enough as it is without trying to make it more difficult - but yours is a question that many people have speculated upon (God only knows why, but i suspect it has something to do with trying to prove the existence of God), so let's have a go at calculating it... 1. there exist lipids with hydrophobic heads and hydrophilic tails, so automatic formation of membranes is inevitable. 2. life consumes energy, so an organism embraced by a membrane must somehow ingest energy. cyanobacteria and plants get energy from the sun, but animals have to eat it. 3. what are the odds that an organism being eaten would avoid being digested but instead merge its dna with that of its eater? God only knows....

@ActionParsnip

2 жыл бұрын

kzread.info/dash/bejne/mZx-qdCGp7Wuc9Y.html

@markcredit6086

Жыл бұрын

@@Silly.Old.Sisyphus dummy

"Could more or less all have appeared spontaneously at the same time"? Interesting way to end the lecture and undermind all of the theories you just covered. So ordered exacting systems/mechanisms appeared at the same time the chemistry appeared on the planet and then life existed? After which one could then observe the laws of thermodynamics? Smart people come up with the greatest justifications!

@obiecanobie919

2 жыл бұрын

He said it "the way the thermodynamics are designed ' ! meticulous work around never the less .

@July41776DedicatedtoTheProposi

Жыл бұрын

Ilya Romanovich Prigogine,for his study in irreversible thermodynamics, he received the Rumford Medal in 1976, and in 1977, the Nobel Prize in Chemistry. He proved that the 2nd Law of thermodynamics works in reverse for open systems and this explain increasing complexities in life as time goes along as the basis for evolution. . In summary, Ilya Prigogine discovered that importation and dissipation of energy into chemical systems could result in the emergence of new structures (hence dissipative structures) due to internal self reorganization.[14] In his 1955 text, Prigogine drew connections between dissipative structures and the Rayleigh-Bénard instability and the Turing mechanism.[15] Dissipative structures theory Edit Dissipative structure theory led to pioneering research in self-organizing systems, as well as philosophical inquiries into the formation of complexity on biological entities and the quest for a creative and irreversible role of time in the natural sciences. With professor Robert Herman, when they were both at The University of Texas-Austin, he also developed the basis of the two fluid model, a traffic model in traffic engineering for urban networks, analogous to the two fluid model in classical statistical mechanics. Prigogine's formal concept of self-organization was used also as a "complementary bridge" between General Systems Theory and thermodynamics, conciliating the cloudiness of some important systems theory concepts[which?] with scientific rigor.

@ElonTrump19

Жыл бұрын

@@July41776DedicatedtoTheProposi So essentially, "importation and dissipation of energy into chemical systems could result in the emergence of new structures (hence dissipative structures) due to internal self reorganization." Still goes back to this - "Could more or less all have appeared spontaneously at the same time"? Neither of which is an explanation of origin of life. What causes "self assembly"? That is the only real question that should be addressed. What predetermined order leads to molecular structure? Doesn't order always come from order? These are the obvious things "mainstream" science refuses to even acknowledge. (Yes, order only comes from order or else entropy would never exist.) Evolution is mathematically impossible besides never having been observed in nature. It only existed in text books.

@July41776DedicatedtoTheProposi

Жыл бұрын

@@ElonTrump19 you have not an open mind, and apparently, lacking in scientific university education. Besides, you have not formulated a intelligent question, much less defined the problem you are talking about. Your use of the Trump name tells me that you are not just hollow. You have become boring and shallow. For you to invoke the name of this indecent, narcissistic sociopath tells me that you are full of racial animus, pro fascist, anti-democracy, like that Putin the genocidal murderer. Like Donald Trump you disdain America’s soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines. He called them “suckers and losers.” The sight of combat wounds revulsed Trump, who made clear his contempt for wounded warriors when they were out of sight and the show was off camera. So, you are a vessel for ceaseless lies in the service of a grotesque man and a cause riddled with insurrectionists, thugs, neo-Nazis, extremists, conspiracy theorists and criminals. May you be impaled upon your own stake.

@ElonTrump19

Жыл бұрын

@@July41776DedicatedtoTheProposi "What causes "self assembly"? That is the only real question that should be addressed." This is as clear a question that could be asked. Your personal attack against me just shows that you have no real argument. Just answer the question. What is the source of order in the universe? What causes nothing to become something? I hope you are strong enough to honestly consider these questions.

billiard ball theory is a load of balls! Boltzman was right - and quantising dynamical systems just screws up simulations, it doesn't explain anything

great explanation of the basics behind the thermodynamic underpinnings of life. I can't help but feel bad for the audience, though -- I remember first learning about entropy in freshman physics and being thoroughly confused...it's apparent much of this lecture went soaring over quite a few heads. That's ok, though. Ignorance of the inevitable heat death of the universe is probably a good thing.

There was no connection to abiogenesis at all. This discussion treated energy as if it was the only problem to overcome, completely ignoring the information problem.

@spatrk6634

2 жыл бұрын

because there is no information problem. its creationists propaganda

@jotaone

5 ай бұрын

I ended up with the same thought... and the information problem??? You need huge amounts of information to "build" the most simple of living beings.

1:08 lecture starts

I'm dying to know the statistics of the demographic of this video

Can he cite one peer reviewed paper that uses random energy to produce teleonomic information? Crickets.

@sparky5584

3 жыл бұрын

Goal oriented information? You mean magical intelligent designers? What purpose do those crickets have?

@mcmanustony

3 жыл бұрын

"random energy to produce teleonomic information?"......and still we wait for definitions of: "random energy" (what the hell is THAT measured in, joules per helicopter?) "information"- I'm going with "woo". Tell me I'm wrong....

@sparky5584

3 жыл бұрын

Cite one peer reviewed paper that claims that random energy WANTS to produce teleonomic information. If it doesn't want to why do you think it should? Should this random energy listen to your desires? Please share why you think random energy should listen to your wants and needs. Maybe random energy just works in mysterious ways and if you truly believed it would tell you everything.

@mcmanustony

3 жыл бұрын

@@sparky5584 This clown has no idea what he's talking about. Ask him any question of substance and he resorts to...."Jesus said that in genesis 3, 4-5 all interfrastic bleebies will be thronungulated by salvation in telenomic contrafibularities....blah blah." just mindless incoherent jesusological horseshit. what the hell went wrong with education in the US? It's beyond embarrassing. But he has a flag so that's nice....

@sparky5584

3 жыл бұрын

@@mcmanustony You are totally correct. He just reposts what he is told to repost. Nothing proper going on in his head at all.

NCMR Inventing Method book Discovery chapter Consciousness is the origin of life and has been experimentally verified.

Fine I like this.

Language nhi samajh me aa rha hai

Someone needs to tell this speaker to slow down. I'm exhausted.

@subplantant

2 жыл бұрын

KZread has a button for that. It's best not to want to control other people as far as possible.

To cut a long story short, if a reaction could happen it did happen and enough chemistry occurred in Natures abundance and great variety to make life inevitable rather than possible. There was more than enough energy and when the substrates and energy finally ran short life turned to photosynthesis , lithotrophism, and predatory means of surviving as well as by synthesizing the chemicals they needed using the thousands of enzymes evolution provided them with.

@anthonypolonkay2681

2 жыл бұрын

I take issue with the premis itself. I dont think you get to just say "if it can it did" just by adding time to the mix. Because most synthesis that are .. well let's say life friendly. Since "leading towards life " is kinda a pipe dream right now since we cant do it with the hard parts already assembled. But life friendly reactions are rarely the end result of a synthesis. The stuff you want for life has to be stopped at a certain point in synthesis and purified, then you go on to the next step. But in nature, no such timed stoppage of synthesis will occure, and they will continue to react to form products in a non life friendly dirrection.

@ticklemeandillhurtyou5800

Жыл бұрын

@@anthonypolonkay2681 exactly I couldn't have said it better myself

This is very true, you can't have higher complexity without increased entropy. Thus the early universe was simple but less entropy and as entropy increased more complexity and in the future maximum entropy and simple. It is in the middle that we see the universe as more complex than at either end.

@pound4pound380

4 жыл бұрын

Intelligent design is the only plausible explanation of the universe and life. Chemical elements can't align in such away they it forms conciousness with DNA. Life was created facts

@GGlad100

3 жыл бұрын

See please: www.arcjournals.org/pdfs/ijrsb/v5-i3/2.pdf

@johnbrinsmead3316

3 жыл бұрын

@@pound4pound380 IKR we can't explain how it happened so it must have been caused by an unseen agent.

@pound4pound380

3 жыл бұрын

@@johnbrinsmead3316 We can't explain how it happened so it must have poofed into existence all by itself from a single atom.

@johnbrinsmead3316

3 жыл бұрын

@@pound4pound380 you should get familiar with the details of the big bang theory so your strawmen can at least look the part.

Very important to remember! Thermodynamic entropy is not needed to identify the direction of natural processes G.P. Gladyshev N. N. Semenov Institute of Chemical Physics of RAS endeav.net/news/112-termodinamicheskaya-entropiya-ne-nuzhna-dlya-vyyavleniya-napravleniya-prirodnykh-protsessov.html Abstract New results confirm the assertion that thermodynamic entropy, as a separate function, is not needed to identify spontaneous processes that occur according to the second law of thermodynamics in natural systems. Key words: thermodynamics, entropy, second principle, hierarchies, stability, evolution. More than 20 years have passed since the creation of the journal Entropy. In my opinion, the appearance of the journal is quite justified, if only because many problems of science are now identified that are associated with modern concepts of diverse ideas about entropy. In addition, misunderstandings related to the fact that science has become a mass phenomenon and many non-professional researchers, amateurs, and visionaries appear among scientists have been identified. This is especially manifested in thermodynamics - area of knowledge that require profound professionalism. "Entropy" journal was founded by Dr. Shu-Kun Lin, who decided to publish all the works concerning all the various ideas about entropy, often related only to the term itself, but not its physical meaning. So, it was supposed to publish the ideas of I. R. Prigogine on the production of entropy in systems far from equilibrium, when “entropy” is a kinetic function, since it does not have a full differential. Dr. After 20 years of hard work, Shu-Kun concluded that Prigogine’s theory of said entropy “does not conform with the second law of thermodynamics”. At that time, I often spoke with the Editor-in-Chief of the new journal and shared his point of view in publishing in the journal research using various ideas about entropy. Although I relied in my publications only on the concepts of classical thermodynamic entropy in accordance with the works of Rudolf Clausius, J. W. Gibbs, K. Denbigh, F. Daniels, R. Alberty and other classics. The purpose of this brief note is to once again draw the attention of researchers to the inappropriateness of using the concept of thermodynamic entropy to identify the direction of spontaneous processes in natural systems that proceed in accordance with the second law of thermodynamics and can be a subject of experimental researches. Currently, new publications have appeared that draw attention to the fact that a change in the thermodynamic entropy does not determine the direction of spontaneous processes in real natural biological systems, which are close to equilibrium quasi-equilibrium systems. All equilibrium and close to equilibrium systems can be characterized by state functions, including entropy. At the same time, these systems are not simple isolated systems. The ideas about the production of entropy by L. Boltzmann, E. Schrödinger, I. Prigogine allow us only to assert an increase in the entropy of the Universe and cannot be experimentally verified. In these cases, entropy cannot determine the direction of spontaneous processes in real systems. The increase in the entropy of L. Boltzmann is applicable to identify the direction of spontaneous processes only to simple isolated systems, the internal energy of which is constant and in which no work is performed, other than the work of expansion. The direction of spontaneous natural processes close to equilibrium is determined by the Gibbs free energy, which tends to a minimum. Hierarchical thermodynamics, created on the basis of the extended Gibbs theory, is the physical foundation of extended Darwinism, applicable to the evolution of all hierarchies of the universe. The evolutionary thermodynamic theory of “hierarchically multidirectional forces” is based on the principle of substance stability and does not need to be understood about entropy as a function that reveals the direction of spontaneous processes in nature. Conclusion The concept of the entropy of natural systems far from equilibrium, as well as the concept of the production of entropy of natural systems close to equilibrium, as a separate parameter striving for an extreme value, should not be used to identify the direction of spontaneous processes in the study of natural phenomena. References 1. Shu-Kun Lin. Molecular Diversity Preservation International Entropy 1999, 1(1), 1. 2. Gladyshev G.P. On General Physical Principles of Biological Evolution, International Journal of Research Studies in Biosciences. 2017, Volume 5, Issue 3, Page No: 5-10. www.arcjournals.org/pdfs/ijrsb/v5-i3/2.pdf 3. Georgi Gladyshev, Hierarchical Thermodynamics: Foundation of Extended Darwinism. "Imperial Journal of Interdisciplinary Research (IJIR), 2017 4. Hierarchical thermodynamics en.everybodywiki.com/Hierarchical_thermodynamics 5. Gladyshev G.P. The time has come to revive and develop the classics: hierarchical thermodynamics and life, Norwegian Journal of development of the International Science, №26/2019, Vol. 2, pp. 15-20. ISSN 3453-9875 6. Spyros G Tzafestas. Energy, Information, Feedback, Adaptation, and Self-organization: The Fundamental Elements of Life and Society. Springer International Publishing, Jan 29, 2019 -Technology & Engineering 7. Life - A Complex Spontaneous Process Takes Place against the Background of Non-Spontaneous Processes Initiated by the Environment www.omicsonline.org/open-access/life--a-complex-spontaneous-process-takes-place-against-the-background-of-nonspontaneous-processes-initiated-by-the-environment-2157-7544-1000188.pdf

You better watch the video by Dr James Tour on origins. You might learns something.

@Vogda

4 жыл бұрын

James Tour is an evangelical creationist: which simply means he is not a SCIENTIST or to say he is a pseudo-scientist. You will learn nothing from him.

@glainguilmette7520

4 жыл бұрын

11thDimension so James Tour is a n extremely accomplished scientist who attended Stanford, Purdue, U OF W, Syracuse he is a professor of material science and nanoengineering and computer science ! Your comments are moronic and without merit what are your qualifications?

@veridicusmaximus6010

4 жыл бұрын

Why all he does is say that it has not been explained. So?

@pound4pound380

4 жыл бұрын

@@Vogda can you explain what exactly that James Tour is saying is false. Please explain so that I can research what your saying.

@pound4pound380

4 жыл бұрын

@@veridicusmaximus6010 he also says we can't replicate a living cell in a lab nor can we simulate early conditions that lead basic chemistry elements assembling into a living cell with DNA. Do you agree what Toye is saying or disagree?

Wow! The tripe hasn't changed since Huxley and Wilberforce. Random Energy + Matter + Time = Life Its a bad formula due to the limits of physics of the chemistry AND the lack of information. Information is a prerequisite for life. Claude Shannon established in his 1952 paper "A Mathematical Theory of Communication" that "random energy can only destroy information."

@mcmanustony

3 жыл бұрын

"Information is a prerequisite for life."- what does that even mean? What do you mean by information? Can you talk me through Shannon's proof about "random energy".

@vironpayne3405

3 жыл бұрын

@@mcmanustony Yes, surprise effect or Shannon Information is present in genetic code. DNA as code is not a misnomer.

@mcmanustony

3 жыл бұрын

@@vironpayne3405 Let's try again: "Can you talk me through Shannon's proof about "random energy"."

@mcmanustony

3 жыл бұрын

@@vironpayne3405 Where in Shannon's paper does he talk about "random energy"

@vironpayne3405

3 жыл бұрын

@@mcmanustony "Where does does Shannon not talk about random energy," would be a much better question informed regarding "A Mathetical of Communications."

Disorder explained by ancient jew in their holy writings and research of fallen angels and hidden " truth order of angels. "

No excuse for the big errors here.. (1) Boltzmann's equation is *NOT ONLY TRUE FOR THE STATE OF EQUILIBRIUM.!!!* that is only the case for the Clausius equation of entropy change due to heat transfer. Boltzmann entropy applies to any state of a system! (2) The supposed _"state"_ in which W = the total number of possibilities is *NOT A STATE IN WHICH THE SYSTEM CAN ACTUALLY EXIST.* Boltzmann Entropy is *always* measured for a system in *one* particular microstate which is a member of a group of microstates called a macrostate. Since all microstates belong to the total possible set then that would include states which are highly improbable and *DO NOT REPRESENT EQUILBRIUM!* The *PROOF* of this is the fact that the graph of the entropy of the first experiment (circular ends) *NEVER GETS TO THE DOTTED RED LINE* look closely. Equilibrium *ALWAYS EXCLUDES* a large number of highly improbable states like the state where all the dots are evenly distributed along a straight line across the centre and all are moving vertically down!! (3) He *DID NOT SHOW ANY VIOLATION OF THE SECOND LAW* the reason he got the patterns he did was because the particles never collide and never change speed. What he did was *SUPERIMPOSE* a hundred systems of *ONE PARTICLE* on top of one another with no interaction between them whatsoever!! That is *NOT ONE SYSTEM!!* There is too much more to tell.. This is typical of atheistic science shackled to philosophical naturalism by confusing words like entropy because they cannot handle the truth they end up having to use waffle words and slight of hand to end up appearing to conclude something totally against what the science is actually saying. I don't know whether these people are deluded and ignorant or do know and are lying.. Time to *WAKE UP PEOPLE!!!*

@mcmanustony

2 жыл бұрын

there is no such thing as atheistic science. It makes as much sense as left handed economics.

@mikebellamy

2 жыл бұрын

@@mcmanustony Well just try introducing the God of the bible into any area of science and see how you go.

@mcmanustony

2 жыл бұрын

@@mikebellamy It'll go the same way as trying to introduce Wotan into biochemistry or Mithras into particle physics or Shiva into cancer research or...... You are welcome to your beliefs. Most scientists do not share them and most of those who do know that they play no role in the actual investigation of the natural world.

@mikebellamy

2 жыл бұрын

@@mcmanustony Confirming what I said.. your science holds an ATHEISTIC philosophy FIRST (sacred cow) before even beginning to do what you call _"science!"_ You have no way of proving there is no God outside of our space and time dimensions. So to blindly hold that as a fixed philosophy underlying your science means you will never be able to get to the truth about that. However if you let go of that _"sacred cow"_ there is excellent verifiable evidence falsifying all natural possibilities while confirming his work as the creator of the universe consistent with the biblical account in Genesis including six days about 6000 years ago.

@mikebellamy

2 жыл бұрын

@@mcmanustony You have not addressed the errors in this video that I pointed out..?

What the kind lecturer is attempting to do is gently explain to the Boomers in the audience is that they are all going to die soon.

@jimdandy9118

Жыл бұрын

Unfortunately the Millennial generation is to weak and lazy to take over their jobs when they do.

Life is not just chemistry and energy. It is information more than anything else. Hardware alone is useless. Where did the software come from? Besides it is a well known scientific fact since times of Louis Pasteur that life comes from life, not from dead material.

@travelsouthafrica5048

3 жыл бұрын

look for James Tour , origin of life

@mcmanustony

3 жыл бұрын

there is zero software involved. You are pushing an analogy beyond any credible relevance. 4bn years ago the planet was dead. It is not now. That transition either involved chemistry, geology, astrochemistry, genetics etc. or it involved magic.....If you stick to Pasteur's formulation you are left with magic to explain life's emergence. This is not science.

@KARAIsaku

3 жыл бұрын

@@mcmanustony That transition involved chemistry, geology, astrochemistry and genetics, which is known to be information. Your opinion that there was no information (software) in the beginning is based on philosophical needs, not scientific evidence.

@mcmanustony

3 жыл бұрын

@@KARAIsaku "That transition involved chemistry, geology, astrochemistry and genetics"- correct. "which is known to be information."- what do you mean by information? What are the units of measurement? There was nothing resembling software- a HUMAN construct- at the beginning of life. I have no philosophical "needs". I am interested in explanations of how a metabolising, reproducing, interacting entity capable of being subject to natural selection could have emerged from our prebiotic planet. Those explanations are far from complete- but not helped by invoking some weird mystical "information" and an even weirder "programmer" responsible for it.

@KARAIsaku

3 жыл бұрын

@@mcmanustony Well, since the explanations are “far from complete”, how can you be so sure there was zero information in the beginning? The living organisms that exist today in deep sea in environments that sometimes are compared to the prebiotic one, have their DNA and consequently genetic information. You are the one invoking magics, since there is nothing more than speculations about the origin of life in the prebiotic soup. And even those theories include speculations of how information came to be in the so called “RNA world”. Atheists have exactly the same need to prove there is no intelligence involved in the evolution of life, as theists have to prove the existence of God. In that sense both have philosophical needs to defend their positions.

There is no way a natural origin of life can be claimed. First of all the simplest single living cell can't be duplicated in a laboratory..Even with a working model in hand. Something that occured in a natural setting without guidence, direction, design or purpose? That man cannot with applying, having a goal, direction, purpose, design and guidence can't duplicate? Just one simple point, without DNA there is no cell membrane, without the cell membrane there is no DNA. 67 years since miller urey and the naturalistic explanation of life's origin is even more miserabley hopeless.

@veridicusmaximus6010

4 жыл бұрын

Don't be silly, how do you know that it is impossible? You don't! You would have had to exhaust all avenues of research and know, absolutely, everything there is to know about natural phenomenon to come to such a conclusion. So maybe you can then explain how a disembodied mind with a goal, direction, purpose and design did it? Ready set go!

@VernonChitlen

4 жыл бұрын

@@veridicusmaximus6010 The evidence demonstrated by the chemistry required by research. Just like it is impossible to start a campfire built of snowballs with a soaking wet match in a howling blizzard..Like a Boeing 737 can't be flown off the assembly line to the moon and back. Etc; etc; You are uniformed regarding abiogenesis reasearch..Science proves things impossible everyday besides the applicable, repeatable facts..

@veridicusmaximus6010

4 жыл бұрын

@@VernonChitlen Science has NOT proven it impossible. LMAO! And I don't see you telling us how God did it. Again, ready set go!

@VernonChitlen

4 жыл бұрын

@@veridicusmaximus6010 That man can't copy the very simplest single celled orgasm proves that an intelligence greater that man exists. A transcendent, eternal God is more plausible than all life originating from a mud puddle without any guidance or direction, much less without purpose or design. You probably believe that a person who has X&Y chromosomes, testicles and a penis and "feels" that they are a female makes it a fact? Dispite the physical, biological facts of science.

@veridicusmaximus6010

4 жыл бұрын

@@VernonChitlen No it does not prove any such thing. It just proves that we lack the knowledge to do so right now. But again, chemistry, physics has not been exhausted to conclude that it is impossible by natural means. Now, you want to get back to explaining how God did it? How does a disembodied mind even act or create anything? Heck how does a disembodied mind even exist - got an example of a mind that does not need a brain? Ready set go for the third time now!

go home

This makes no sense. You can tell the audience does not understand it either. Search on Prof. Jim Tour for any of his origin of life videos to understand the insurmountable problems that unguided forces have in creating the first living cell. As probably the world's greatest synthetic organic chemist, and yes an unapologetic Christian, he lays out for now and for the foreseeable future that we have no idea how life could have come about based strictly on the unguided laws of physics. Hes does this solely with chemistry, no scripture. In fact , the gap in our understanding widens the more we learn. This fellow labels plausible what common sense will tell you is impossible. Dr. Tour backs that common sense up with his experience in scientific characterizations of the difficulty of creating the most rudimentary organic molecules. Highly recommend it. If fundamentalist Christianity scares or offends you, you might try Keith Ward's Love is His Meaning. A great little book that presents Christ's teachings in an eye opening approach, opposed to hell fire and eternal damnation fundamentalism, that appeals to common sense too.

@mcmanustony

3 жыл бұрын

Tour does not work in Origin of Life research and never has. Outside of his field his antics are an utter disgrace. He doesn't need to apologise for being a Christian. Many significant scientists are. He did have to apologise for a religiously motivated rant- an hysterical meltdown where he was screaming slanderous lies about the entire field of OoL research. "that we have no idea how life could have come about based strictly on the unguided laws of physics"- Tour is a chemist not a physicist. Researchers do not have all the answers (an improvement on Tour, who has precisely NONE) but that is a long long way from "we have no idea"...or the more honest formulation "complexity complexity complexity, we have no idea, therefore Jesus" NONE of Tour work involves molecules with any relevance to the origin of life. This is like saying he's a synthetic organic chemist therefore he's an expert on dentistry. He has been repeatedly exposed as: pitifully ignorant of the professional literature, guilty of grotesquely misrepresenting that which he bothers to read, guilty of cherry picking- twisting research to falsely claim OoL researcher "Dr X supports my position" only to dismiss Dr X when he doesn't. The damage that man has done to public understanding of science will shame him to his grave.

@markgrissom

3 жыл бұрын

@@mcmanustony Typical response to Tour's detailed and sensible objections to current OOL methodology and conclusions. Don't address any of his completely reasonable and fact based state of synthetic organic chemistry objections, just attach him personally. Demean and project your behavior on him.

@mcmanustony

3 жыл бұрын

@@markgrissom Take a seat Sparky. I attacked him "personally". Indeed I did- I think he is an utter professional disgrace. Do you think I needed your permission? Tour is a deeply dishonest and unethical man. I have given you enough information to support that. He has nurtured and energised a claque of fanatical simpletons, zealots who are entirely ignorant of, and seething with contempt for the scientific endeavor. For all his accomplishments in his actual field of research- which you know is not OoL- this will be his shameful legacy: the likes of you. He has been caught repeatedly screaming "WEEEE CANNNT SYNNNNNTHESISE X", only to be referred to a stack of research papers detailing the synthesis of X. He has been caught deliberately misrepresenting his peers, caught displaying his ignorance of the professional literature. This in itself would not be a criticism- for example most number theorists don't read research papers in fluid mechanics and vice versa- but NO number theorist I'm aware of has said that fluid mechanics is rubbish and those who produce the work "ARRRR LIEYINGGGGGGG TO YOOOOO" as Jim does re. OoL , to his ongoing shame. So, WHAT "reasonable" "fact based" objection are you talking about? Are you referring to his modern car/ early cell horeshit? The kind of nonsense that would get him laughed out of a freshman biology class. His constant idiotic whine that this wasn't synthsised in a modern lab therefore it can't be synthesised? A similar argument would "prove" the non existence of carbon- which was synthseised in stars. His stupid slogan about "THIS IS SUPPOSED TO HAVE HAPPENED UNDERRRR AHHHH ROCKKKK!!!!!! IN A DESERT SOMEWHERE!!" Showing his knowledge of prebiotic geology came from the back of a cereal packet. You didn't understand this video. So, how much actual OoL research have you actually read? Professor Nick Lane on the origin of eukaryotes? Addy Pross on the integration of physics with the likely chemistry of the first life. Lynn Margulis on endosymbiosis? Lee Cronin? Martin? Sahai? Anyone????

@markgrissom

3 жыл бұрын

@@mcmanustony Lord, talk about an emotionally attached response to someone who disagrees with you. Sounds like you have some knowledge, but again you only try to demean. He is simply saying that the chemistry has not been shown beyond the most basic of reactions, and he goes over what he understands is the best research that OOL has presented. He does not say it will never be figured out, but he does get frustrated with what he believes are implausible assumptions of OOL researchers. Your reaction is similar to Professor Dave's attempted refutation of his OOL critiques. Tour responds with almost a slide by slide rebuttal. You should try it with an open mind. You should also watch Tour's debate with Cronin. It might give you pause.

@mcmanustony

3 жыл бұрын

@@markgrissom Funny how you resort to "you're emotional" from the get go- neglecting to mention Tour's utterly unhinged, emotional screaming fit in Dallas....followed elsewhere by similar despicable antics. "He is simply saying....." He is saying WAY more than that. He accuses the ENTIRE field of OoL of something he calls "LYEYINGGGGGGGG" which I'll take to mean "lying"- not that Tour is emotional, good god no! In fact HE was caught lying that Szostak's paper was in the primary peer reviewed literature. It wasn't and Tour know damn well it wasn't. "Tour responds with almost a slide by slide rebuttal."- no, he attempted this. The video you referred to involves interviews with some of the leading researchers in the field- including one synthetic organic chemist- explaining the peer reviewed literature that Tour simply, and dishonestly denies exists, and showing in considerable detail where he is simply wrong. The "Dave" videos, there are two responses to Tour's rants, are PACKED with references to primary literature that Tour either hasn't read or has and misrepresents. " he does get frustrated with what he believes are implausible assumptions"- name one, and give an example of an OoL researcher making the assumption. Spare me the advice on what videos I should be reading..... Nick Lane- "The Vital Question"......try some relevant books......

You could say "fairies did it" and you'd be just as correct as this guy.

@mcmanustony

3 жыл бұрын

do you know how books work?

@yaksak2706

2 жыл бұрын

By turning each page? I feel I'm missing the point here. I'm a little slow.

@mcmanustony

Жыл бұрын

@@yaksak2706 I doubt the original poster has opened a book on this subject

@July41776DedicatedtoTheProposi

Жыл бұрын

You need to review the work of Ilya Prigogine before making such flippant remarks - Nobel Prize 1977 - it explains evolution.

@yodaheabebe3756

Жыл бұрын

@@July41776DedicatedtoTheProposi Why don't you enlighten us in short here

This is crap!

NCMR Inventing Method book Discovery chapter Consciousness is the origin of life and has been experimentally verified.