The Second Law of Thermodynamics

Originally posted by dj2becker
The hypothetical Carnot engine is the most efficient possible heat engine.

Irrespective. It still must, by definition, lose heat to the environment, increasing entropy.

You must get sick of losing?

Originally posted by dj2becker
So you would not say that life is more functional than non-life?

This is a very poor question.

What is the "function" that you are attempting to allude to.

A can opener has great functionality in the niche space for things which open tin cans. An E. coli bacterium has great functionality for living in the niche space for pathogenic bacteria.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Not at all. My point is that functionality and complexity do not necessarily equate.

You would do well to remember that some exceptionally complex machines, for example nuclear reactors, only have a single function. Likewise, some exceptionally simple mechanisms have multiple functions, for example, a can opener.

The complex nuclear reactor is more functional than a simple can opener and you know it. The nuclear reactor can do the job on its own. Try get a can opener to open a can while you stand and watch it.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Fossil evidence.

Yeah right I knew you were gonna say that. How exactly does fossil evidence prove that life was simpler in the past?

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Irrespective. It still must, by definition, lose heat to the environment, increasing entropy.

You must get sick of losing?

Since when does a Carnot engine lose heat to the environment?

A Carnot engine by definition does not lose heat to the environment.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
This is a very poor question.

What is the "function" that you are attempting to allude to.

A can opener has great functionality in the niche space for things which open tin cans. An E. coli bacterium has great functionality for living in the niche space for pathogenic bacteria.

When something can be left to it's own devices to accomplish something it is more functional than something which cannot do the job on its own.

How functional is a can opener in the hands of a 2 year old?

Originally posted by dj2becker
Is a programmable calculator more complex than an ordinary calculator?

Probably.

If programing is the function in question, is the programmable calculator more or less functional than the normal calculator?
Yes.

But you have failed to show an equivalence between functionality and complexity. One example referring to one possible function does not prove a rule. However one example can disprove it. So if we can find one non-scientific calculator that is heavier and sturdier than the scientific one then it will do better as a hammer, disproving your claim that functionality is equivalent to complexity.

But you knew that already, its just that you realize that you whole argument falls over because it is based on false claims.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Probably.

[b]If programing is the function in question, is the programmable calculator more or less functional than the normal calculator?
Yes.

But you have failed to show an equivalence between functionality and complexity. One example referring to one possible function does not prove a rule. However one example can disprove it. So if we can f ...[text shortened]... ts just that you realize that you whole argument falls over because it is based on false claims.[/b]

Now you are compromising the definition you gave for functional:

"3. having or serving a utilitarian purpose; capable of serving the purpose for which it was designed:"

Since when is a calculator designed to operate as a hammer?

Originally posted by dj2becker
Since when does a Carnot engine lose heat to the environment?

A Carnot engine by definition does not lose heat to the environment.

Efficient it may be, but nothing is 100% efficient.

As for your question about can openers and 2 year olds, well that has nothing to do with anything.

Originally posted by dj2becker
Yeah right I knew you were gonna say that. How exactly does fossil evidence prove that life was simpler in the past?

We can look at morphology, and physiology, and see it was simpler. Although, I do struggle to think that it could be simpler than you.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Efficient it may be, but nothing is 100% efficient.

As for your question about can openers and 2 year olds, well that has nothing to do with anything.

And that is why the entropy in the universe is always increasing and NEVER decreasing.

QED.

Originally posted by dj2becker
And that is why the entropy in the universe is always increasing and NEVER decreasing.

QED.

Yes. But that has nothing to do with abiogenesis.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
We can look at morphology, and physiology, and see it was simpler. Although, I do struggle to think that it could be simpler than you.

It would not surprise me that a pulverized bone appears simple to you. What's the point?

Originally posted by dj2becker
It would not surprise me that a pulverized bone appears simple to you. What's the point?

Why do you say pulverised?

Why, on another level, do you feel the need to (a) lie, (b) take things out of context or (c) deliberately misquote people all the time?

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Yes. But that has nothing to do with abiogenesis.

Unless of course you want to claim that abiogenesis is a fact, and that life and order arose from non-life and disorder by chance.