Are these statements correct? Could they be better expressed?
Local entropy can decrease in an open system with an input of free energy.
Free energy alone is not sufficient to maintain or further decrease low
local entropy: an energy capture and transformation mechanism is also
needed.
Extant life *maintains* low local entropy through its organisation and processes.
Evolving life *decreases* low local entropy through the ratcheting
mechanism natural selection acting on random mutations in instances
where that evolution increases functional complexity and organisation.
There is no other known mechanism apart from natural selection that does this. For example, neutral drift alone increases entropy.
On 3/01/2025 5:13 am, Ernest Major wrote:
On 02/01/2025 06:53, MarkE wrote:
Are these statements correct? Could they be better expressed?
Local entropy can decrease in an open system with an input of free
energy.
Free energy alone is not sufficient to maintain or further decrease
low local entropy: an energy capture and transformation mechanism is
also needed.
Extant life *maintains* low local entropy through its organisation and
processes.
Evolving life *decreases* low local entropy through the ratcheting
mechanism natural selection acting on random mutations in instances
where that evolution increases functional complexity and organisation.
There is no other known mechanism apart from natural selection that
does this. For example, neutral drift alone increases entropy.
It is difficult to operationalise the concept of irreducible complexity,
as that necessitates a principled definition of system, part and
function. But if you pass over that point, there are at least three
classes of paths (exaption, scaffolding, coevolution) whereby
irreducibly complex systems can evolve. I suspect that the last is the
most frequent, and that it can be driven by drift as well as by
selection. If you are equating an increase in functional complexity and organisation with a decrease in entropy, then this would negate a claim that neutral drift always increases entropy.
What I would say more confidently is, "For example, neutral drift alone increases disorder."
More precisely, if a population fixes neutral and near-neutral mutations
over time through drift, with no selection acting, the net effect over
time will be devolution, i.e. a loss of information and functional complexity. The end state will be extinction.
Does this necessarily mean entropy will increase? It would seem so.
On 3/01/2025 5:13 am, Ernest Major wrote:
On 02/01/2025 06:53, MarkE wrote:
Are these statements correct? Could they be better expressed?
Local entropy can decrease in an open system with an input of free
energy.
Free energy alone is not sufficient to maintain or further decrease
low local entropy: an energy capture and transformation mechanism is
also needed.
Extant life *maintains* low local entropy through its organisation and
processes.
Evolving life *decreases* low local entropy through the ratcheting
mechanism natural selection acting on random mutations in instances
where that evolution increases functional complexity and organisation.
There is no other known mechanism apart from natural selection that
does this. For example, neutral drift alone increases entropy.
It is difficult to operationalise the concept of irreducible complexity,
as that necessitates a principled definition of system, part and
function. But if you pass over that point, there are at least three
classes of paths (exaption, scaffolding, coevolution) whereby
irreducibly complex systems can evolve. I suspect that the last is the
most frequent, and that it can be driven by drift as well as by
selection. If you are equating an increase in functional complexity and organisation with a decrease in entropy, then this would negate a claim that neutral drift always increases entropy.
What I would say more confidently is, "For example, neutral drift alone increases disorder."
More precisely, if a population fixes neutral and near-neutral mutations
over time through drift, with no selection acting, the net effect over
time will be devolution, i.e. a loss of information and functional complexity. The end state will be extinction.
Does this necessarily mean entropy will increase? It would seem so.
Wrong. Near-neutral (i.e. mildly detrimental changes) by definition have
a very low selection co-efficient and therefore typically will not be
removed by selection.
On 3/01/2025 5:13 am, Ernest Major wrote:
On 02/01/2025 06:53, MarkE wrote:
Are these statements correct? Could they be better expressed?
Local entropy can decrease in an open system with an input of free
energy.
Free energy alone is not sufficient to maintain or further decrease
low local entropy: an energy capture and transformation mechanism is
also needed.
Extant life *maintains* low local entropy through its organisation
and processes.
Evolving life *decreases* low local entropy through the ratcheting
mechanism natural selection acting on random mutations in instances
where that evolution increases functional complexity and organisation.
There is no other known mechanism apart from natural selection that
does this. For example, neutral drift alone increases entropy.
It is difficult to operationalise the concept of irreducible
complexity, as that necessitates a principled definition of system,
part and function. But if you pass over that point, there are at least
three classes of paths (exaption, scaffolding, coevolution) whereby
irreducibly complex systems can evolve. I suspect that the last is the
most frequent, and that it can be driven by drift as well as by
selection. If you are equating an increase in functional complexity
and organisation with a decrease in entropy, then this would negate a
claim that neutral drift always increases entropy.
What I would say more confidently is, "For example, neutral drift alone increases disorder."
More precisely, if a population fixes neutral and near-neutral mutations
over time through drift, with no selection acting, the net effect over
time will be devolution, i.e. a loss of information and functional complexity. The end state will be extinction.
Does this necessarily mean entropy will increase? It would seem so.
Are these statements correct? Could they be better expressed?
Local entropy can decrease in an open system with an input of free energy.
Free energy alone is not sufficient to maintain or further decrease low
local entropy: an energy capture and transformation mechanism is also
needed.
Extant life *maintains* low local entropy through its organisation and processes.
On 4/01/2025 12:38 am, Rufus Ruffian wrote:
MarkE wrote:
On 3/01/2025 5:13 am, Ernest Major wrote:
On 02/01/2025 06:53, MarkE wrote:
Are these statements correct? Could they be better expressed?
Local entropy can decrease in an open system with an input of free
energy.
Free energy alone is not sufficient to maintain or further decrease
low local entropy: an energy capture and transformation mechanism is >>>>> also needed.
Capture and transform into what, something useful?
Who defines what's useful? It's subjective, isn't it?
The sun beats down on surface rocks in the daytime. They get hot. At
night, the heat spreads downward and evens out the temperature, and
entropy is reclaimed. The entropic tide rises and falls, in a relative
way. Who needs to capture and transform anything?
Extant life *maintains* low local entropy through its organisation and >>>>> processes.
Life blows through energy like a hungry kid in a mcdonalds, leaving a
trail of entropy in its wake. Even green plants do so.
You are taking the old "entropy = disorder" meme too seriously. It's
just a simplistic conceptualization. Entropy is the change in system
energy divided by the system temperature. Details at
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy>
Evolving life *decreases* low local entropy through the ratcheting
mechanism natural selection acting on random mutations in instances
where that evolution increases functional complexity and organisation.
How many joules per kelvin are there in "functional complexity and
organization"?
There is no other known mechanism apart from natural selection that
does this. For example, neutral drift alone increases entropy.
[citation needed]
Life generates the entropy it's going to generate, without regard for
anthropomorphic concepts like drift and neutrality, let alone
complexity, let alone "intelligence". As far as thermodynamics is
concerned, those are not even things. Think joules per kelvin, old
buddy.
It is difficult to operationalise the concept of irreducible
complexity,
as that necessitates a principled definition of system, part and
function. But if you pass over that point, there are at least three
classes of paths (exaption, scaffolding, coevolution) whereby
irreducibly complex systems can evolve. I suspect that the last is the >>>> most frequent, and that it can be driven by drift as well as by
selection. If you are equating an increase in functional complexity and >>>> organisation with a decrease in entropy, then this would negate a claim >>>> that neutral drift always increases entropy.
What I would say more confidently is, "For example, neutral drift alone
increases disorder."
It's good to see a man who can be wrong with confidence.
More precisely, if a population fixes neutral and near-neutral mutations >>> over time through drift, with no selection acting, the net effect over
time will be devolution, i.e. a loss of information and functional
complexity. The end state will be extinction.
If devolution happens, it's not exactly neutral, is it?
You're confusing the relative neutrality of a near-neutral mutation with
a cumulative population effect over time.
If a population extincts itself, then mucho selection has occurred, has
it not?
Again, how many joules per kelvin are consumed by the loss of
"information"?
Does this necessarily mean entropy will increase? It would seem so.
No. Entropy increases because that's what entropy does. It doesn't care
than remarkable life forms are constructed along the way.
Universally, of course. Locally, not necessarily. Would you agree that evolution produces a local decrease in entropy?
On 4/01/2025 12:38 am, Rufus Ruffian wrote:
Again, how many joules per kelvin are consumed by the loss of "information"?
Does this necessarily mean entropy will increase? It would seem so.
No. Entropy increases because that's what entropy does. It doesn't care than remarkable life forms are constructed along the way.
Universally, of course. Locally, not necessarily. Would you agree that evolution produces a local decrease in entropy?
On 4/01/2025 8:08 am, aph@littlepinkcloud.invalid wrote:
MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
Are these statements correct? Could they be better expressed?
Local entropy can decrease in an open system with an input of free energy. >>>
Free energy alone is not sufficient to maintain or further decrease low
local entropy: an energy capture and transformation mechanism is also
needed.
Not necessarily. A rotating planet around a star is bathed in
low-entropy photons during the day and radiates high-entropy photons
during the night.
Extant life *maintains* low local entropy through its organisation and
processes.
That's not it. Extant life *uses* a source of low entropy. The sun's
energy is high-frequency low-entropy (visible light), allowing life to
consume that and give off waste energy as heat, which is radiated away
as infra-red.
There's a nice quote from Discover magazine:
https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/evolution-and-the-second-law >>
"The energy we get from the Sun is of a low-entropy, useful form,
while the energy we radiate back out into space has a much higher
entropy. The temperature of the Sun is about twenty times the average
temperature of the Earth. The temperature of radiation is just the
average energy of the photons of which it is made, so the Earth needs
to radiate twenty low-energy (long-wavelength, infrared) photons for
every one high-energy (short-wavelength, visible) photon it receives.
It turns out, after a bit of math, that twenty times as many photons
directly translates into twenty times the entropy. The Earth emits the
same amount of energy as it receives, but with twenty times higher
entropy."
No, isn't the energy we get from the Sun Gibbs free energy, G, where
G = H − TS
where H is the enthalpy, T is the absolute temperature, and S is the
entropy?
As I noted previously, where one draws the system boundary is critical
in this analysis. I agree that the contribution of energy released
during polymerization needs to be considered as well.
However, let's define our initial local system not as a set of activated nucleotide monomers but inactivated versions. In this case, energy must
first flow into the system from the surroundings for activation, and
then flow out again during polymerization. I'm not sure what the net
effect of this is precisely, but clearly a much small net change to the system, if not close to zero. This then allows configuration entropy to
be significant.
On Fri, 10 Jan 2025 17:23:53 +0000, Ernest Major wrote:
On 10/01/2025 12:18, MarkE wrote:
As I noted previously, where one draws the system boundary is critical
in this analysis. I agree that the contribution of energy released
during polymerization needs to be considered as well.
If the result depends on where you draw the boundary would that not be
an indication that there's something wrong with the analysis.
Yes.
On 3/01/2025 11:52 pm, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
On Fri, 3 Jan 2025 23:24:44 +1100
MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
On 3/01/2025 5:13 am, Ernest Major wrote:
On 02/01/2025 06:53, MarkE wrote:
Are these statements correct? Could they be better expressed?
Local entropy can decrease in an open system with an input of free
energy.
Free energy alone is not sufficient to maintain or further decrease
low local entropy: an energy capture and transformation mechanism is >>>> also needed.
Extant life *maintains* low local entropy through its organisation and >>>> processes.
Evolving life *decreases* low local entropy through the ratcheting
mechanism natural selection acting on random mutations in instances
where that evolution increases functional complexity and organisation. >>>>
There is no other known mechanism apart from natural selection that
does this. For example, neutral drift alone increases entropy.
It is difficult to operationalise the concept of irreducible complexity, >>> as that necessitates a principled definition of system, part and
function. But if you pass over that point, there are at least three
classes of paths (exaption, scaffolding, coevolution) whereby
irreducibly complex systems can evolve. I suspect that the last is the >>> most frequent, and that it can be driven by drift as well as by
selection. If you are equating an increase in functional complexity and >>> organisation with a decrease in entropy, then this would negate a claim >>> that neutral drift always increases entropy.
What I would say more confidently is, "For example, neutral drift alone
increases disorder."
More precisely, if a population fixes neutral and near-neutral mutations >> over time through drift, with no selection acting, the net effect over
Over time selection always operates, there's rarely a free lunch.
time will be devolution, i.e. a loss of information and functionalI don't think you "get" evolution; if it's a neutral change then it
complexity. The end state will be extinction.
might survive, if it's detrimental then it won't [unless there's a compensating benefit], if it's beneficial then (given lack of
meteorites, global warming, ice-ages changes to feedstock, changes to predators, etc etc) then it'll survive.
Wrong. Near-neutral (i.e. mildly detrimental changes) by definition have
a very low selection co-efficient and therefore typically will not be
removed by selection.
Does this necessarily mean entropy will increase? It would seem so.Is this God anti-entropy? How come there's a lot of it about?
The entropy of the universe as a closed system can only decrease.
Therefore, where did the initial low entropy state of the universe come
from?
On 1/3/2025 6:24 AM, MarkE wrote:
On 3/01/2025 5:13 am, Ernest Major wrote:
On 02/01/2025 06:53, MarkE wrote:
Are these statements correct? Could they be better expressed?
Local entropy can decrease in an open system with an input of free
energy.
Free energy alone is not sufficient to maintain or further decrease
low local entropy: an energy capture and transformation mechanism is
also needed.
Extant life *maintains* low local entropy through its organisation
and processes.
Evolving life *decreases* low local entropy through the ratcheting
mechanism natural selection acting on random mutations in instances
where that evolution increases functional complexity and organisation. >>>
There is no other known mechanism apart from natural selection that
does this. For example, neutral drift alone increases entropy.
It is difficult to operationalise the concept of irreducible
complexity, as that necessitates a principled definition of system,
part and function. But if you pass over that point, there are at least
three classes of paths (exaption, scaffolding, coevolution) whereby
irreducibly complex systems can evolve. I suspect that the last is the
most frequent, and that it can be driven by drift as well as by
selection. If you are equating an increase in functional complexity
and organisation with a decrease in entropy, then this would negate a
claim that neutral drift always increases entropy.
What I would say more confidently is, "For example, neutral drift alone increases disorder."
More precisely, if a population fixes neutral and near-neutral mutations over time through drift, with no selection acting, the net effect over
time will be devolution, i.e. a loss of information and functional complexity. The end state will be extinction.
Does this necessarily mean entropy will increase? It would seem so.
It would be non neutral drift that would likely be associated with
increased disorder. Even if something is selected against it can still
be fixed in a small population by factors not directly affecting the
trait under selection. 90% of a population might be wiped out by some disease and the survivors may just, by chance, have a high frequency of
some deleterious allele that might get fixed by random chance.
Neutral drift is just neutral changes, it shouldn't result in any
increase in disorder because those changes are selected against. Look
at the coelacanth it has been adapted to a specific environment for
hundreds of millions of years, and has changed very little, and yet
genetic drift in their DNA sequence and physical features invisible to
the environment have changed, but the outward physical appearance has
not degenerated. Drift has occurred even as the morphology has been maintained. The skull may make nearly identical fossil impressions, but
when you look at the skull you observe that all the bones that make up
the skull have very different sizes and shapes, but still make the same overall skull shape. This is neutral drift.
Drift can result in loss of gene functions that are no longer needed in certain environments. The eyes in cave fish are an example, and even
that isn't neutral drift because the loss of eye function has selective advantage because of the energy consumption of tissue that is no longer needed. Pigmentation loss in caves may be a better example, but
watching the nature shows and observing all the deep sea fish that
retain their eyes and bright colorations make me think twice about it.
Ron Okimoto
On 8/03/2025 11:26 pm, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
On Fri, 3 Jan 2025 09:56:16 -0600
RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/3/2025 6:24 AM, MarkE wrote:
On 3/01/2025 5:13 am, Ernest Major wrote:
On 02/01/2025 06:53, MarkE wrote:
Are these statements correct? Could they be better expressed?
Local entropy can decrease in an open system with an input of free >>>>> energy.
Free energy alone is not sufficient to maintain or further decrease >>>>> low local entropy: an energy capture and transformation mechanism is >>>>> also needed.
Extant life *maintains* low local entropy through its organisation >>>>> and processes.
Evolving life *decreases* low local entropy through the ratcheting >>>>> mechanism natural selection acting on random mutations in instances >>>>> where that evolution increases functional complexity and organisation. >>>>>
There is no other known mechanism apart from natural selection that >>>>> does this. For example, neutral drift alone increases entropy.
It is difficult to operationalise the concept of irreducible
complexity, as that necessitates a principled definition of system,
part and function. But if you pass over that point, there are at least >>>> three classes of paths (exaption, scaffolding, coevolution) whereby
irreducibly complex systems can evolve. I suspect that the last is the >>>> most frequent, and that it can be driven by drift as well as by
selection. If you are equating an increase in functional complexity
and organisation with a decrease in entropy, then this would negate a >>>> claim that neutral drift always increases entropy.
What I would say more confidently is, "For example, neutral drift alone >>> increases disorder."
More precisely, if a population fixes neutral and near-neutral mutations >>> over time through drift, with no selection acting, the net effect over >>> time will be devolution, i.e. a loss of information and functional
complexity. The end state will be extinction.
Does this necessarily mean entropy will increase? It would seem so.
I see MarkE is back pushing his idee fixee that neutral drift
in evolution inevitably leads to degradation.
Please can he reread all the previous refutations.
Please can you refute the following?
Macroevolution involves the generation of significant amounts of novel genomic information and functional complexity.
For argument's sake, let's say natural selection is not operating.No. You can't; except for some subsidised humans living in a modern world.
Hypothetically take NS off the table. Are you suggesting thatYou can't, it's on-going. It's how 'we' (all creatures) got to be still
macroevolution could and would still occur, with only the action ofNothing occurs in a vaccuum. (OK maybe spontaneous particle/anti-particle creation; but that's up to a very active God).
mutation, drift, gene transfer etc?
To reiterate, macroevolution if and only if NS. And the corollary,
without NS, only the degradation of the genome and functionality of a population.
No NS, no "ratcheting" mechanism to identify and accumulate small
positive changes -- which is mandatory for macroevolution.
No NS, no purify selection on a population to preserve its genomic
integrity and fitness.
Sure. But they won't survive (like that) for long. God doesn't like them.It would be non neutral drift that would likely be associated with
increased disorder. Even if something is selected against it can still
be fixed in a small population by factors not directly affecting the
trait under selection. 90% of a population might be wiped out by some
disease and the survivors may just, by chance, have a high frequency of
some deleterious allele that might get fixed by random chance.
Neutral drift is just neutral changes, it shouldn't result in any
increase in disorder because those changes are selected against. Look
at the coelacanth it has been adapted to a specific environment for
hundreds of millions of years, and has changed very little, and yet
genetic drift in their DNA sequence and physical features invisible to
the environment have changed, but the outward physical appearance has
not degenerated. Drift has occurred even as the morphology has been
maintained. The skull may make nearly identical fossil impressions, but >> when you look at the skull you observe that all the bones that make up
the skull have very different sizes and shapes, but still make the same
overall skull shape. This is neutral drift.
Drift can result in loss of gene functions that are no longer needed in
certain environments. The eyes in cave fish are an example, and even
that isn't neutral drift because the loss of eye function has selective
advantage because of the energy consumption of tissue that is no longer
needed. Pigmentation loss in caves may be a better example, but
watching the nature shows and observing all the deep sea fish that
retain their eyes and bright colorations make me think twice about it.
Ron Okimoto
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 546 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 20:25:21 |
| Calls: | 10,390 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 14,061 |
| Messages: | 6,416,975 |