Does procreation offer proof;

[John Jones]

I asked Bobby Dylan. I asked the Beatles.

I asked Timothy Leary, but he couldn't help me either.

They call me the seeker.

I've been searching low and high.

I won't get to get what I'm after 'til the day I die.

 

[Bishadi]

I've asked this before and got no answer so I'll try again:

Ok, Mr/Miss/AI Bishad, you claim to be smart, so answer this question:

If you put something hot in a ThermosTM bottle (aka vacuum flask), it keeps it hot. If you put in something cold, it keeps it cold. How does it know which to do?

I await your answer.

since you didnt observe the environment, then it is neither hot or cold, you simply have something with energy upon it, within the thermos.


ie.... if that thermos is enclosed and capable to hold liquid h, which direction it is going?

If you are alive and breathing via instinct are you equilibrating?

Then if you procreate will your life live into the next generation? Yes or no!

 

[Dinwar]

Creationists really annoy me.

Does procreation offer proof that; "life abuses entropy"?


Meaning if a living thing divides itself (give a cell (sperm/egg for example) to live into the next generation, is that life avoiding simple equlibration?


IS the life of that mass (the energy) furthering?

The analogy in question is; if all of the life of mankind began as a single celled critter some time back and has lived, divided and evolved over time, has that life ever equlibrated as an entity 'life itself'?

I see the life as like the 'fire' within a molecular set of reactions, consuming, exchanging within its environment. SO when a life procreates that set of processes are simply furthing into the next generation; starting over but still in process.

And the evidence could be that life as a whole upon this earth has proved itself resilliant and surviving beyond the 'extinctions'.

Does this make sense?

And if not, please explain.

Life isn't trying to equilibrate with anything. Living organisms are open systems doing metabolic work--they take in matter and energy and attempt to AVOID equilibration in many cases. The simple existence of an ion pump in a cell membrane is enough to demonstrate that fact conclusively.

And what would life equilibrate with? The only logical answer is "its local environment". Now, in many cases life DOES equilibrate with that. A frog's temperature is more or less that of its environment--it's why you see amphibians and lizards sunning themselves on a cool day (moving into microenvironments with different temperatures). Similarly, trace element content is typically in equilibrium with its environment--put a fish in water with lots of strontium (100-200 ppm) and it'll have lots of strontium in its bones (not 100-200 ppm, but higher than a fish in water with little strontium).

The problem is that all of the instances of life equilibrating with anything deal with individuals equilibrating with stuff. Lovelock, Ward, and others have attempted to discuss the ecosystem equilibrating with the non-biological parts of the world (lithosphere, hydrosphere, atmosphere, etc), and obviously it must, but we don't really know how just yet.

As for extinctions, that has nothing to do with any "resiliance" life has. It's a diversity issue. There are a lot of species out there, which require a lot of different environments; it's difficult (not impossible, but difficult) to create an event that destroys all life-forms. You'd literally have to liquify the crust to do so (lithophyles will survive anything you do to the surface).

Though I agree with others here--you need to restate your argument more clearly. I'm going off of what I understand the argument to be saying.

life; abuses entropy

the problem is not me it is the religious flavor of complacent believers

Wrong. The problem IS you. You don't understand the system in question. We do understand it. This isn't a religious flavor of complacent believers, but the weariness of experts who have long ago dealt with this argument, but who are no longer surprised that uneducated twits bring it up again and again as though it were somehow valid.

If you are alive and breathing via instinct are you equilibrating?

This is just silly. The whole bloody POINT of breathing (and eating, and excreeting, and....) is to AVOID equilibration. The only things that are in perfect equilibrium with their surroundings are the ones that are dead.

This is basic biology.

 

[Bishadi]

We all can observe the same math, but that doesn't mean we have. Especially does not mean that you have.

perhaps more than you will ever realize or allow yourself to understanding.

but what does that matter? Do i need to verify with you?

or anyone?

no i dont!

Let's compare the situation to a classic thermodynamic example. Take the number of atoms in a human body. Also, consider a gas comprising of the same number of atoms in a thermally isolated chamber, with a fixed volume, and at a certain temperature. Suppose that the total kinetic energy of the container and the body is the same (adjust "certain temperature" so that energy is the same). If we compare the entropy of these two systems, it is safe to say that the entropy in a human body is lower, because of lower multiplicity (the majority of the atoms in my ear are stuck there ... present in molecules, and these molecules are bound by other molecules, proteins etc.). This does not mean that the entropy of the human body breaks the 2nd law.

is the life alive, furthering its own processes (converting energy) or it is just dead weight like a bag of rocks?

The second law cares only about [latex] \Delta S [/latex] of an isolated system (the change, not the absolute measure of entropy).

the law was for converting 'heat' into a mechanical motion but it does not render how and why em affects time/space.

ie... heat is just em upon mass

The human body is allowed energy exchange with its environment, through many different types of avenues, and the processes in the body constantly attempt to maintain a steady temperature

the life is 'breaking the law' by intent

(not necessarily entropy). The boundary of the human body (skin in majority), unlike the container mentioned above, is not an isolated system. The 2nd law does not apply (there is nothing in a live human body that is continuously, thermally isolated from its parts, nor its surroundings).

so what.

heat conveying is not the law of the universe; get over it

You must choose a law or process that is applicable to life, that it seemingly violates, and re-state your hypothesis in these terms. Perhaps add a bit of data, math?

seems that identifying the life of mass is not so unique a quest.

 

[Katopale]

Bishadi,

You should read up on the Dunning-Kruger effect.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iwGFalTRHDA

 

[Bishadi]

Creationists really annoy me.

me too.

ie.... the concept of a big bang is just the same as a god just creating the universe from nothing.

no difference as both concept are bound to 'beliefs'

ie.. we live within the processes so we cannot divide from the existing processes that are already in motion. (there is no perfect vacuum to EVER provide a base '0' point to measure, EVER)

Simply............ 'c' is in error by default of application. (cannot be sustained)

Life isn't trying to equilibrate with anything. Living organisms are open systems doing metabolic work

such is all the universe

--they take in matter and energy and attempt to AVOID equilibration in many cases. The simple existence of an ion pump in a cell membrane is enough to demonstrate that fact conclusively.

just as procreation is like cell division. ie... adam giving up a rib to make an eve; cell division.

basic

And what would life equilibrate with? The only logical answer is "its local environment".

bu man can live in most every climate (environment on the globe)

As for extinctions, that has nothing to do with any "resiliance" life has. It's a diversity issue.

i know as most (most) do not comprehend that the energy upon that mass is the life of the mass

[quote} There are a lot of species out there, which require a lot of different environments; it's difficult (not impossible, but difficult) to create an event that destroys all life-forms.[/quote] nuclear is pretty tough

You'd literally have to liquify the crust to do so (lithophyles will survive anything you do to the surface).

so a life (life itself) is a law breaker in many many ways

This is just silly. The whole bloody POINT of breathing (and eating, and excreeting, and....) is to AVOID equilibration

exactly

The only things that are in perfect equilibrium with their surroundings are the ones that are dead.

unless the life's instinct to procreate enables the life to continue

life: abuses entropy.


and procreation is that proof

This is basic biology.

i know........ basic!

 

[Mojo]

ie.... the concept of a big bang is just the same as a god just creating the universe from nothing.

no difference as both concept are bound to 'beliefs'

Nope. There is a whole heap of evidence that the "Big Bang" is currently the best explanation for.

There is no evidence that a god was responsible for it.

 

[Reality Check]

And lets clear up a bit of common misconception from this post:

ie.... the concept of a big bang is just the same as a god just creating the universe from nothing.

Just like evolution does not describe the origin of life (it starts with life existing):
The Big Bang has does not describe the origin of the universe (it starts with the universe already existing).

no difference as both concept are bound to 'beliefs'

It is really inane to compare religion to science. This is the typical insanity we see from creationists. Not that you are one Bishadi, but you should try to avoid apprearing as dumb as them.

There is a small set of beliefs in scinece. The basic ones are that we

• Can measure the universe.
• The measurements do not lie (but we are free to misinterpret them).

(note that the big bang is not a belief)
So scientists trust that that they can construct scientific theories to explain the measurements that they take. This leads to

• The theory of evolution.
• The theory of gravity (general relativity)
• The theory of quantum mechanics.
• The big bang theory.
• and all of the other theories that our modern technology is based on.

 

[Bishadi]

Nope. There is a whole heap of evidence that the "Big Bang" is currently the best explanation for.

There is no evidence that a god was responsible for it.

and no evidence that there was a point of nothing.

So i mirror the scope of the belief has created a belief.

kind of like mankid created a god to say it created everything

 

[PixyMisa]

and no evidence that there was a point of nothing.

Cosmic microwave background.

 

[Bishadi]

And lets clear up a bit of common misconception from this post:

Just like evolution does not describe the origin of life (it starts with life existing):

as that is the honest answer. No one can witness a day of nothing, no life, empty space.

The Big Bang has does not describe the origin of the universe (it starts with the universe already existing).

at some weeeeee little point (a string per se) and bam...... all this came from that.

now if it all came from that wweeeeee little point, like a tap on a pond, how does the energy come back to make stars (unless speculation is involved)?

 

[Dinwar]

Bishadi, do you want to talk about biology or astronomy? If you want to talk biology, fine. We can do that. Don't bring up the Big Bang--it's a completely separate issue. If you want to talk astronomy (theoretical physics, etc), leave life out of it. Life is an emergent property of chemistry.

Pick one for this particular conversation.

 

[Bishadi]

Cosmic microwave background.

that could be the resonance of the galaxy

or what about the suns magnetosphere?

how abut the heat from the solar wind?

it sure aint some magical junk (heat) left over from some BB

that cbr is not evidence

 

[Bishadi]

Bishadi, do you want to talk about biology or astronomy? If you want to talk biology, fine. We can do that. Don't bring up the Big Bang--it's a completely separate issue. If you want to talk astronomy (theoretical physics, etc), leave life out of it. Life is an emergent property of chemistry.

Pick one for this particular conversation.

i am consistant as i have crossed disciplines for decades.

ie.... find the 2LoT moot and all fields are affected (paradigm shift)

 

[Reality Check]

and no evidence that there was a point of nothing.

Assuming that what you mean by "a point of nothing" in relation to the big bang theory is the hot dense state of the universe that the big bang starts with then:

• Hubbles law.
• The alpha-Lyman forest.
• and all of the other evidence that you are either ignorant of or are ignoring.

Bishadi, try learning about something before dismissing it out of hand.

 

[Reality Check]

that could be the resonance of the galaxy

or what about the suns magnetosphere?

how abut the heat from the solar wind?

it sure aint some magical junk (heat) left over from some BB

that cbr is not evidence

Present your evidence that the CBR is not evidence for the big bang.

Just spouting unsupported assertions makes you look like a dumb troll. I am sure that you are not one and so can cite the papers or textbooks containing this evidence.

 

[PixyMisa]

that could be the resonance of the galaxy

The galaxy doesn't resonate.

or what about the suns magnetosphere?

It's the same in all directions. It can't have anything to do with the Sun.

how abut the heat from the solar wind?

It's the same in all directions. It can't have anything to do with the Sun.

it sure aint some magical junk (heat) left over from some BB

It is indeed radiation left over from the Big Bang - from about 400,000 years after the Big Bang, to be precise, when the Universe first became transparent.

that cbr is not evidence

Evidence is exactly what it is.

Question for you, Bishadi: Why do you defend your ignorance so aggressively? You are absolutely wrong about absolutely everything, and yet you insult everyone who answers your questions. Why?

 

[nescafe]

that could be the resonance of the galaxy

Nope. How the heck would a galaxy resonate in the microwave part of the spectrum anyways?

or what about the suns magnetosphere?

It does not change as the Sun's magnetic field does.

how abut the heat from the solar wind?

Ditto.

it sure aint some magical junk (heat) left over from some BB

It is not heat at all, it is redshifted short-wave IR (with a little bit of the visible spectrum). If the CMB had not been redshifted, we might even be able to see part of it directly.

that cbr is not evidence

Your crackpot rating is awesome.

 

[majamin]

the life is 'breaking the law' by intent

By breaking the law, do you mean that by the body maintaining a near steady temperature is breaking "the 2nd law of thermodynamics", which applies only to isolated systems? No. But, I'd be interested in knowing which law you are referring to.

heat conveying is not the law of the universe; get over it

The phrase "heat conveying" is not a law. There's nothing to get over.

seems that identifying the life of mass is not so unique a quest.

Identifying the life of mass? So, mass has life? And, we're trying to identify this life? Is this what you mean by saying that life abuses entropy? Go on, I'm listening.

 

[Dinwar]

i am consistant as i have crossed disciplines for decades.

Irrelevant. The concepts you're trying to "cross disciplines" with are not applicable to each other. It's like saying "But I've always done it!" when declaring that you have a full house, and therefore my king is in check.