Re: 2nd law clarifications

On Sun, 9 Mar 2025 6:38:32 +0000, MarkE wrote:

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.
Hypothetically take NS off the table. Are you suggesting that
macroevolution could and would still occur, with only the action of
mutation, drift, gene transfer etc?

You pretend to be asking innocent little questions, but your little
questions have been asked and answered so many times before. You have
at least a partial knowledge of the prior exchanges. So why do you
pretend to not know the answers?
Biological reproduction involves a local increase in information.
Full stop. It also involves local decreases in entropy. Full stop.
This is all paid for by metabolism.
Metabolism is the metaphorical equivalent to the power cord connected
to electrical power from the back of the refrigerator. You posit with
some handwaving artificial abstractions to avoid that power cord.
That is the essence of sophistry.
This isn't to say that there isn't strong evidence and support of the
fact that all sorts of evolution can occur by multiple mechanisms, from
drift to others, that don't require creation of new alleles, just
differential segregation within divergent populations. But this is
well documented, known science. So why even ask?