No entropy in thermodynamics and information theory are the same quantity and meaning. Only the units are different. In thermodynamics the units of entropy are in Joules per degree Kelvin J/K. In information theory the units are in bits.
You will not measure a difference in entropy in burning a deck of cards in any order because the information content is the same regardless of the order of the cards.
When a cell makes a protein using a biological process it creates heat which increases the entropy of the universe. That entropy can be calculated in thermodynamics units of Joules per degree Kelvin. To convert Joules per Kelvin (J/K) into bits use the Boltzmann constant (k) which is 1.380649 x 10^-23 J/K, and apply the formula: (energy in Joules) / (Boltzmann constant * temperature in Kelvin) = bits per unit of information; essentially, you are calculating the entropy in bits by dividing the energy by the energy per bit at a given temperature.
The math is the same. I wouldnât say the interpretation is the same, but rather it is parallel.
There is no Second Law of Information Theory preventing the creation of new Information. There Information inequalities (ex: Cramer-Rao, KullbackâLeibler) that are roughly equivalent.
For two probability distributions A and B that are not identical (do not contain all the same Information), you cannot make B more similar to A (more of the same Information) by using any deterministic function on B.
You CAN make B more similar to A by adding random Information, then discarding âwasteâ Information that does not reduce the difference.
Arguments claiming that âevolution cannot create new Informationâ are making a parallel version of the old â2LoT prevents evolutionâ argument.
2 Likes
As far as the adaptive radiation of all tetrapod species from lobe-finned fish is concerned, there is no evidence for your assertion.
Except literally all the evidence we have of how any new generation is always just a small change from the previous generation?
Ironically creationists like to say we only ever observe microevolution, by which they mean changes that are relatively small in degree (incorrectly understanding the term microevolution, but I digress).
And yet when it comes to the fossil record, where there are really substantial chronological gaps with no fossils, some times spanning millions of years, they simultaneously claim we must now dispense with the microevolution (small degree of change) observation and we must only infer that something like Tiktaalik directly gave birth to something like Ichthyostega.
How about we accept both? We apply the small changes normally observed, to the fossil record, and we get them building up in the gaps (even though yes, technically we donât necessarily think one fossil species directly let to another).
4 Likes
In your opinion, what relationship, if any, is there between inheritance and DNA?
If this was a universal rule, we should not observe all these discontinuities in the fossil records.
You mean âall theseâ discontinuities that just so happen to coincide with time jumps, more or less about as long as it would take for all the noticeable changes to have happened by small increments?
Or do you mean one that actually could even remotely be a problem? Oh, if only you would actually name, like⌠one. So there would be something to discuss, something to actually point to and make a case out of. There is, right?
3 Likes
Discontinuities in the fossil record are only to be expected, given the minute percentage of organisms that even fossilize in the first place, and whose fossils are then found by us.
What can only be explained by common descent is the nested hierarchy that exists between all the fossils we have found and everything that we know to be alive. That is where âdiscontinuitiesâ would be found if common descent was not true, and yet none are found.
@John_Harshman explains it very well here:
2 Likes
We can be thankful that the fossil record is any more than one big blank. We cannot just dig up the entire planet, although there must be much hidden away. Essentially, we look around for large fossils eroding out of sedimentary cliffs or river banks somewhere, or a road crew or quarry excavates something. An astonishingly detailed ankylosaur was dug up in Canadian oil sand operations. Still, we have had the broad outline of life on Earth for some time now, and every year more gaps are filled and such discontinuities are narrowed - enough so that there is frequent discussion as to whether differences reflect a new species, or just small change.
1 Like
I would expect that in order to have a neatly contiguous fossil record, youâd need a lot more than just small scale generational changes. You would also need:
a) Geographic distribution and population sizes being evenly distributed among species
b) Emergence and extinction of species operating at a steady rate
c) Fossilization occurring at exactly the same rates and distributions regard of environments
d) Even sampling of all strata across the entire Earth when it comes to fossil exploration
Given that contemporary observation suggests that none of the above is the case, why would would we ever expect a neatly contiguous fossil record with no discontinuities?
2 Likes
Thanks for the explanation and correction. That got me to read further about the magnitude of changes in information content, like DNA sequences.
So, when calculating the relative change in information entropy for a change in sequence (mutation), is it correct to think that this amount is miniscule relative to the energy and entropy of chemical processes like the pyrophosphate hydrolysis performed by DNA polymerase while copying the changed portion?
1 Like
I think if you have enough energy to play on the XBox after a long day, you got enough extra energy to evolve. Though clearly many players donât.
The entropy of an expanding universe is always increasing thus new information is being created everywhere for all time. The universe started in a low entropy state and is now expanding into an ever increasing higher entropy state. The information content within a cell is increasing as long as the cell is engaged in chemical/biological processes. Even the information content of a dead cell is increasing as it decomposes.
The net entropy of the cell and environment definitely increases as cells metabolize and survive. Iâm not sure that information/entropy within a cell necessary increases while a cell maintains a steady state. Life accelerates and uses entropy increases (and energy) in the environment to sustain a lower, internal entropy.
Therefore as entropy increases so does information even while a cell maintains a steady state. Keeping a cell going requires energy and using that energy in cellular processes increases entropy and thus information.
Wouldnât that depend on 1) how often fossilization happens, 2) how often the fossil-containing layer is eventually eroded away before being discovered, and 3) how many of such layers paleontologists have discovered and searched exhaustively?
The answers are:
- yes,
- yes, and
- yes.
How then do you conclude we shouldnât observe all these âdiscontinuitiesâ?
A related question: If, as you believe, the fossil record is so complete that any apparent âdiscontinuitiesâ are not artifacts of the fossilization process, but instead an accurate record of the actual history of life, then we should be able to trace the entire history of any of Godâs created âkindsâ, from the moment he created them thru every single generation up to the present day (or until they went extinct.)
Could you, then, please provide some examples where such a record exists?
2 Likes
Agreed that the entropy of the world certainly increases. But the entropy / information within a cell stays constant as it maintains steady-state metabolism in order to sustain a lower entropy condition (relative to its environment) which is required to sustain life. This is why the naive creationist arguments about evolution ârunning counter to the 2nd law of thermoâ are wrong.
1 Like