Abiogenesis | Abiogenesis

[OldTrees]

I would agree that in real life  wouldn't be a good fit for the unupped card, but in this game  is the opposite of  . One of the main arguments against evolution trotted out by Creationists is that the Second Law Of Thermodynamics (or, at least, the truncated version they misquote) doesn't permit life to evolve by natural means. Or, in other words, entropy disallows evolution.  And it's true that evolution acts in opposition to entropy, although it doesn't make it impossible (obviously).  So, within the thematics of the game,  is actually a good fit as being an agent of evolution.

 The elements aren't perfect fits for what they represent -  entropy and antimatter are not the same thing at all, yet Antimatter the card is  .   There's no reason why  cannot be order.  I can think of no other element which fits the idea of order, and order is in opposition to entropy making  , as the opposite of  , the logical choice.

Except that argument is refuted. The entropy of a CLOSED system will tend to increase. Once you remember to include the energy from the sun in the system you will note that Evolution obeys the Second Law to a T.

While Abiogenesis and Evolution are separate, they are not opposites.

[moomoose]

im not going to be too concerned with opposites and whatnot, the idea is that gravity is associated with order, entropy with randomness, the gravity portion of the card creates a well-defined creature (creatures as is, already in game), while the entropy portion makes a less-defined creature (creature with a random skill/status).  still havent thought of a better term than evolution.

[ElementalDearWatson]

Except that argument is refuted. The entropy of a CLOSED system will tend to increase. Once you remember to include the energy from the sun in the system you will note that Evolution obeys the Second Law to a T.

I didn't mean to imply that the Creationists' argument was right.  That's why I explicitly stated that they misquoted and truncated the Second Law of Thermodynamics.  The point is that in the world of this game order falls under Gravity and chaos falls under Entropy.  Evolution is an ordering of nature (in the short term, the solar system itself is a closed system and entropy will eventually win out and all life in the solar system will die), so using  and  for Abiogenesis does make sense within the context of the game, even if it would not in the real world.

While Abiogenesis and Evolution are separate, they are not opposites.

I didn't imply they were.

[OldTrees]

Except that argument is refuted. The entropy of a CLOSED system will tend to increase. Once you remember to include the energy from the sun in the system you will note that Evolution obeys the Second Law to a T.

I didn't mean to imply that the Creationists' argument was right.  That's why I explicitly stated that they misquoted and truncated the Second Law of Thermodynamics.  The point is that in the world of this game order falls under Gravity and chaos falls under Entropy.  Evolution is an ordering of nature (in the short term, the solar system itself is a closed system and entropy will eventually win out and all life in the solar system will die), so using  and  for Abiogenesis does make sense within the context of the game, even if it would not in the real world.

Evolution without added energy is entropic. Evolution with added energy and noticing the source of the energy is entropic. In both cases the process of Evolution is entropic. This should be obvious by the trend towards increased biodiversity rather than less biodiversity.

Order has 2 meanings. Order vs Entropy and Order vs Chaos. These dimensions are perpendicular to each other. In EtG Gravity is related to the first type of Order. Entropy can be chaotic or not. Gravity can be chaotic or not.

[ElementalDearWatson]

In both cases the process of Evolution is entropic. This should be obvious by the trend towards increased biodiversity rather than less biodiversity.

That's a good point.  I suppose we should be making the distinction between evolution and abiogenesis.  I'd agree that evolution is entropic, but I think you'd have to make a particularly persuasive case to get me to agree that abiogenesis is.

Order has 2 meanings. Order vs Entropy and Order vs Chaos. These dimensions are perpendicular to each other. In EtG Gravity is related to the first type of Order. Entropy can be chaotic or not. Gravity can be chaotic or not.

This may be true in reality, but in this game Entropy is firmly in the camp of chaos.  Just look at how many  cards involve randomness or, in a more general way, involve concepts from quantum physics which have nothing to do with entropy, but which are associated by the way that quantum physics and chaos theory are connected in the public consciousness.  The only exception to this I can think of is Fractal being 

[OldTrees]

In both cases the process of Evolution is entropic. This should be obvious by the trend towards increased biodiversity rather than less biodiversity.

That's a good point.  I suppose we should be making the distinction between evolution and abiogenesis.  I'd agree that evolution is entropic, but I think you'd have to make a particularly persuasive case to get me to agree that abiogenesis is.

A plasma membrane is less ordered than a soup of H2O and amphipathic lipids. Entropy favors the creation of lipid bilayer vesicles. Should I go on?

Order has 2 meanings. Order vs Entropy and Order vs Chaos. These dimensions are perpendicular to each other. In EtG Gravity is related to the first type of Order. Entropy can be chaotic or not. Gravity can be chaotic or not.

This may be true in reality, but in this game Entropy is firmly in the camp of chaos.  Just look at how many  cards involve randomness or, in a more general way, involve concepts from quantum physics which have nothing to do with entropy, but which are associated by the way that quantum physics and chaos theory are connected in the public consciousness.  The only exception to this I can think of is Fractal being 

Nova, Antimatter, Maxwell's demon. In science Entropy does not always appear chaotic. The same is evident in the Entropy cards. Chaos usually increases Entropy thus many chaotic effects will be found in Entropy. This makes chaos a sub theme but is not a sufficient argument for Entropy not having a primary theme of Entropy.

I find the way people associate Chaos with the scientific concept or the element to be virtually indistinguishable. Most would not believe that Nova increases disorder despite having no chaos involved. [1 card split into 1 quanta of each type] This intuition is flawed in a similar way to our intuitions about plasma membranes (see above).

[ElementalDearWatson]

A plasma membrane is less ordered than a soup of H2O and amphipathic lipids. Entropy favors the creation of lipid bilayer vesicles. Should I go on?

A plasma membrane is not a life form.  If you do believe you can make a good case for a life form being less ordered than a soup of any kind, then please do. 

This makes chaos a sub theme but is not a sufficient argument for Entropy not having a primary theme of Entropy.

I have not argued that Entropy is not the primary theme of  .

[ElementalDearWatson]

Enewei, is it just me or has this all gone rather off-topic?  We should probably get back to discussing the card itself, rather than how real-world science does or does not apply to the fiction of the game.  Not least because it doesn't matter because it's fictional and the elements can do whatever zanz decides they can, and the real world can go hang.

[OldTrees]

Both Abiogenesis and Evolution are entropically favored and you do not seem opposed to Entropy being the primary theme of  .

I have not argued that Entropy is not the primary theme of  .

Off topic:
Entropic abiogenesis
Plasma membranes form spontaneously due to increased entropy
Larger vesicles grow by stealing lipids
Currents can cause vesicles to divide into multiple smaller vesicles
Monomers can easily pass through the membrane
Polymers cannot easily pass through the membrane
Monomers are in an equilibrium between being attached or separate from a polymer
Polymers in vesicles are heritable
Polymers of RNA can give vesicles characteristics
This soup has entropically favored entities that grow, reproduce, and have agenetic code. Protolife or Life?

On topic:
What average value of creature will/should this create?

[moomoose]

the creatures created will depend on the element, and the creatures within the element.  basic for example:
10 dragon
1 rustler
3 scorpion
3 kfc
9 nymph
2 frog
2 spectre
_ 30 total

invert the cost/total
dragon = 30/10 = 3
rustler= 30/1 = 30
scorpion= 30/3 = 10
nymph = 30/9 = 3.3
kfc = 30/3 = 10
frog = 30/2=15
specre=30/2=15
new total = 86.3

now simply divide the inverted cost with the new total for the % of a given creature
dragon 3/86.3= 2.4%
rustler= 30/86.3 = 34.7%
scorpion= 10/86.3= 11.5%
nymph = 3.3/86.3=3.8%
kfc = 10/86.3 = 11.5%
frog = 15/86.3=17.3%
specre=15/86.3=17.3%
(a few rounding errors, but generally correct)

so 1/3 of the time, roughly, youll get a rustler for more than its normal cost. so its not that useful for life pillars, it seems.  would be better applied to gravity, probably, as it tends to have larger cost creatures (and bigger hp creatures for catapult fodder).  but for the upgraded, its probably more about getting random skills than anything else.