Evolution violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics

[epitome]

[Moderator's Note: this thread consists of posts moved from the 21296 thread]

 

Darwins theories do have trouble standing up to light of scientific laws . if one wants to concder that an attack

they have their right to that opinion same as we do about Darwin theories.

 

Lutheran Science Institute (link removed)

[Buffy]

Darwins theories do have trouble standing up to light of scientific laws .

If you believe this statement to be true, do you want to try to cite some examples and defend them?

 

This is a science forum and you'll be asked to support any assertions you make here.

...if one wants to concder that an attack

they have their right to that opinion same as we do about Darwin theories.

You're missing the point: the "attacks" are not simply "differences of opinion," but rather *false* statements used to illegitimately attack Darwin's theories.

 

I would defend any Lutheran for example if someone were to make the assertion that "Martin Luther provided the primary philosophical support for Hitler's Final Solution." Or would you say that no matter how provably false that statement is, that that's just an "opinion" that anyone has a right to publicize without objection?

 

I think we ought always to entertain our opinions with some measure of doubt. I shouldn't wish people dogmatically to believe any philosophy, not even mine, ;)

Buffy

[epitome]

darwins theory is not compatable with the Second Law of Thermodynamics

buffy

 

 

and buffy defending luther is a mistake ?

My family has been Lutheran from the time luther preached and Norway became Lutheran; if i add a couple dollars to that Buffy i might be able to buy a cup of coffee .

 

Lutherans are Not lutheran because Luther taught how great he was .

 

We are Lutheran because he taught How great all of our sins are including his . And how much greater than our sins Jesus is. The point being made here Is Lutherans beleive in God's great exchange . Not that Luther or you or i or Hitler or popes presidents or kings are sinlesss.

[Buffy]

darwins theory is not compatable with the Second Law of Thermodynamics

It's quite compatible with the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Claims to the contrary are usually based on ignoring the qualifier in the Law concerning what constitutes a "closed system." We have dozens of threads here that discuss this fallacy, but if you have new scientific information to bring to bear on the discussion, you're welcome to raise it, although this particular thread would be inappropriate for that purpose.

We are Lutheran because he taught How great all of our sins are including his .

Glad that you think so. This is an inappropriate place for you to proclaim your particular religious beliefs: there are plenty of places on the Internet where you can do so if you'd like.

 

Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored, ;)

Buffy

[epitome]

Buffy try as they will the second law of thermodynamics " entropy "

is not compatable with darwins theory.

 

it is how ever compatable with the creationism

taught in the bible .

 

 

non religious source --------arizona public ed

second law of thermodynamics

 

LAWS OF THERMODYNAMICS

[Essay]

Buffy try as they will the second law of thermodynamics " entropy "

is not compatable with darwins theory.

 

it is how ever compatable with the creationism

taught in the bible .

 

 

non religious source --------arizona public ed

second law of thermodynamics

 

 

Holy Frijole! ;)

 

If you understood the boundaries of the systems (of life) you'd see that there is no conflict. Both the Bible and evolution (and abiogenesis) are all supported by 2LOT. There is no law that says entropy can't decrease for short durations--it doesn't always increase everwhere all the time.

 

Hence the truth behind my old tagline, "Life is just God's way of turning light into heat."

I modified it to be more precise, but it says the same thing as my current tagline below (Life...maximizing entropy).

 

There's almost no area of study that wouldn't be better understood after reading "Web of Life." Epitome, I would highly recommend this book to you, so you can see the bigger picture--how life fits in to the whole energy cycle. I'm very glad JMJones424 recommended it to me earlier this past year. Not a day goes by that it doesn't help me make more sense out of the complexities of living and learning about the global situation.

~ :phones:

 

p.s.

whoops, what happened to the old "signature" taglines? Mine used to say:

"Life is just Nature's way of maximizing Entropy."

[Buffy]

Buffy try as they will the second law of thermodynamics " entropy "

is not compatable with darwins theory.

From the link you cited:

"in all energy exchanges, if no energy enters or leaves the system, the potential energy of the state will always be less than that of the initial state."

The Earth, where evolution has taken place, is not a "closed system": energy in massive quantities is being input into "the system"--that is, the Earth--every second courtesy of the Sun. This energy input is what results in the decrease in entropy that can be "observed at various scales" in Evolution.

 

Thus Evolution does not violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

 

Do you have a scientific response?

 

We want the facts to fit the preconceptions. When they don't, it is easier to ignore the facts than to change the preconceptions, ;)

Buffy

[Boerseun]

To understand the Second Law, you have to understand the implications of what is meant by a "closed system". And the Earth is not a closed system by any means.

 

All life (and thus evolution) on Earth is ultimately driven by massive amounts of energy imported from the sun - with the notable exceptions of a few extremophiles living around submarine volcanic vents and such.

 

If evolution is driving towards more 'order' in earthlife, its at the expense of less 'order' in the sun - to put it in exceedingly simple terms. And this is because the sun (a big floating ball of burning gas thousands of times the size of the earth) is in integral part of life on earth, and part of the system under which the Second Law operates. There is a vast pool of entropy to be tapped, and nowhere is the Second Law violated.

[JMJones0424]

Buffy try as they will the second law of thermodynamics " entropy "

is not compatable with darwins theory.

 

it is how ever compatable with the creationism

taught in the bible .

 

 

non religious source --------arizona public ed

second law of thermodynamics

 

LAWS OF THERMODYNAMICS

 

Your statements so far have exhibited ignorance in two areas. Unlike Buffy, I do believe it is "on topic" to discuss the flaws in your argument in this thread, as your argument is one of the most common I run across against the theory of evolution (tragically also in my own family).

 

Point 1:

Evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics.

 

From your source-

in all energy exchanges, if no energy enters or leaves the system, the potential energy of the state will always be less than that of the initial state.

 

I believe this to be a rather sloppy definition, but since it is the one you are basing your argument on, I can work with it. The notion that some how the processes of natural selection, because they result in emergent complexity, constitute a reduction of entropy is ludicrous, because you are patently ignoring the vast amount of energy required to sustain the biological processes that are required for a living thing to be alive. And because that living thing's descendants are not exactly the same as it was, has no bearing whatsoever on the 2nd Law. More energy is always required to make something than can be found as potential energy in the thing being made. I have had this argument many times with close relatives. Life does not decrease entropy, and I can prove it. Lock yourself in a sealed closet. Determine the amount of energy required to create the minimum amount of sugars from water and carbon dioxide required to maintain your body weight. Determine the minimum amount of energy required to convert your waste carbon dioxide back to oxygen. Determine the minimum amount of energy required to replace body heat that you constantly emit. Determine the minimum amount of energy required to condense water from the air that you have lost through evaporation. You will soon realize that life, like everything else in the cosmos, never reduces entropy. It just so happens that you can conveniently ignore the source of 99.99% of that energy, as it happens without you thinking about it. But to claim that life decreases entropy is to claim that the sun is not part of the system being observed.

 

Once you realize that living things can not possibly decrease entropy, then you should also be able to see why it is useless to claim evolution decreases entropy. There is never a net increase in potential energy, nor is there a net decrease in entropy. You argument is simply false.

 

Point 2:

Creationism is a theory, and is consistent with scientific laws, namely the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

 

In order to be a scientific theory, and not just a string of words thrown together, the statement must be falsifiable. This means that any scientific theory must be worded in such a way so that you can design experiments that could have outcomes that would disprove the theory. Creationism (and intelligent design), is by definition therefor unscientific, as there is no way to test for an omnipotent, omniscient being outside of our existence. There have been many attempts, there are many false memes regarding the weight of the "soul" being measured immediately after death, "evidence" of after life in near death experiences, and a lot of other clap-trap that at best is just unexplained, at worst outright fraud.

 

But let's suppose for a moment that a god did create the universe. According to your definition above, this would most obviously violate the second law. Every time a god places his fat little fingers into our universe and moves one molecule here, or one planetary body there, work is being accomplished using energy input from outside the system being observed.

 

Nothing I have said so far should be viewed as a personal attack against you or your beliefs. You are free to believe anything you want. There is absolutely no way for you to scientifically prove anything you believe, if there was, it wouldn't be a belief, but rather a statement of fact. I choose to believe in the FSM, and have just as much scientific basis for his existence as you have for your god. The bottom line is that this is a forum dedicated to the discussion of science, which means falsifiability should be evident in everything here. You are free to discuss how aspects of particular religions claim to deal with aspects of science. You may discuss how religions have changed over time. You may discuss any number of things that can be proven to be incorrect. However, your posts above border on the realm of proselytizing which I find to be both repugnant and a waste of time. There are many places for you to engage in that activity elsewhere.

 

ETA: Wow, I got triple ninja'd. Guess that means I am either long winded, an inefficient typist, or a little on the slow side. Likely a slight combination of all three.

[Qfwfq]

I would also clarify that:

with the notable exceptions of a few extremophiles living around submarine volcanic vents and such.

runs the risk of sounding like an exception and hence counterexample but, of course, even these are simply exploiting yet another source: the energy that is gradually lost from the planet's interior.

[Pyrotex]

I grew up in the Church of Christ, a congregational form of fundementalist christianity. I heard the argument that "evolution violates the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics" several times while I was still in the public school system. Even at the age of 14 or so, it was easy to go to the library, find the 2nd Law, and determine that the preacher was wrong. The phrase "in a closed system" made all the difference in the world, and it was obvious.

 

And yet, the preacher would NOT read the 2nd Law when I took it to him. He listened only begrudgingly when I quoted it to him and explained it. He gave his anti-evolution sermon again less than a year later, AGAIN making the same claim that evolution violated the 2nd Law, without evidence or explanation.

 

It was clear to me by the age of 15 that fundementalist preachers are generally NOT scientifically trained, and even if they are, have no interest in being truthful about science and the world around us. They have no interest in truth. But they have a GREAT deal of interest in training their congregation to have no interest in truth.

 

And here we are nearly 50 years later, and this old, old, old worn out piece of fallacy that has been debunked a million times is STILL being passed around as if it were a fresh, bleeding wound in Darwin's side, a wound that Science refuses to address -- indeed, a wound that Science cannot address. What a crock of codswallop! The only thing more evil than a preacher lying to his congregation, is a preacher that panders to his congregation's ignorance with lies that close their minds, and renders them unable to ever again listen with curiosity and wonder.

[HydrogenBond]

The second law of thermodynamics is an expression of the universal principle of entropy, stating that the entropy of an isolated system which is not in equilibrium will tend to increase over time,

 

There are many versions of the second law, but they all have the same effect, which is to explain the phenomenon of irreversibility in nature.

 

Life and evolution don't play by these rules in every sense. If we start with simply RNA replicators, and move toward a simple integrated cell precursor, and do an atom by atom assessment, we are going from the high degree of disorder of chemicals in solution into definitive order. Evolution is a state of non-equilibrium which is changing over time. But life becomes more ordered.

 

Random changes in the DNA will increase the entropy of the DNA, since improper base pairing creates defects within the original order. If this entropy increase projects into increasing cellular entropy, so the cell is losing all sense of order, it dies. Then the second law would be satisfied. But life avoid this if possible. Evolution requires this initial disorder or entropy, lower or become integrated into a new cellular order. Eventually even the DNA defect or entropy, is not a defect, but part of the new DNA order.

 

The cell is sort of a closed system. It tries to close itself off, from external high entropy, by making its interaction with the environment subject to order. Transport proteins, won't work with the entropy of random molecules. Very specific molecule need to lower entropy and sticks a certain way. If its entropy is too high and will be ignored. Life doesn't want to increase its internal entropy or it would allow anything to enter. Cellular efficiency is indicative of lowering entropy. Entropy or disorder lowers efficiency.

 

If we look at evolution in big blocks one can see entropy lowering, with respect to the non-connected molecules and atoms of a previous stage. We start with replicators. The rest is all random. Next, we have replicators with more order for support, with the rest all random. Next, we get complete cells from this random. These cells are not very efficient because there is too much disorder. We need to lower this random or entropy to increase the efficiency. Next, we go from single to multicellular. Here single cells with high degree of autonomy learn to exist in community order, since speciality of labor is more efficient for bigger projects.

 

Along the way, the DNA is increasing its entropy with mutations and defects. Some of these increase the entropy within the cell too much and the cell dies due to loss of critical efficiencies. In other cases, the lowering entropy of life is able to contain and push this entropy into lower entropy, so it is not longer a defect or mutation, but part of the efficient order.

[Larv]

Ilya prigogine won the Nobel Prize in chemistry in 1977 for his work on dissipative structures, which showed, among other things, that life amounts to a far-from-equilibrium system that naturally dissipates copious amounts of entropy. As such, living structures offer no contradiction to the second law of thermodynamics.

[coldcreation]

I don't know if this is the right thread to discuss this, since there is a scientific basis for what follows :):

 

It seems to me, processes that involve relations between temperature, pressure, mass, changes in energy and entropy related irreversibility are characteristics of both open and closed systems; that describe time-oriented changes of state as a result of both spontaneous dynamics of the system and as a result of interactions between its subsystems.

 

Closed system: A system that does not exchange mass with the surroundings. Heat and work may be exchanged with the surroundings and thereby induce changes in energy and volume. Other properties may change but the mass remains constant. In other words, a closed system can exchange heat and work with its environment and in so doing goes through changes in energy, but does not exchange mass with its environment; its mass remains constant.

 

Open system: A system that can exchange mass with its environment, as well as heat, work and energy, i.e., an open systems is one that 'communicates' or interacts with the environment by exchanging energy and matter.

 

The second law is always based on derivations for closed systems. It has been shown that the value of entropy depends on the state of a substance. This state is independent of whether the substance is static or dynamic (alive or dead :eek:) and constitutes a closed system or is flowing through an open system (Kyle, B. G., 1984, Chemical and Process Thermodynamics). It follows that the principle of entropy increase applies to the open-primary-systems as well.

 

 

The conclusion: no matter whether we interpret the system (with its constituent life forms) as open or closed, the second law doesn't breakdown with evolution in time. On the contrary, the second law could even be used predict the emergence and evolution of life (at least with hindsight).

 

Indeed, the second law excludes the once-upon-a-time creation myth that many religions preach.

 

There’s a lot to chew there in one mouth-full. :)

 

 

CC

[Pyrotex]

...The cell is sort of a closed system. ....

No, HB.

Wrong, wrong, wrong.

Not just wrong, but egregiously wrong.

 

If you were a puppy, I would swat you with a rolled-up newspaper for making such a "mess".

 

Closed means closed. NO energy in, NO energy out.

 

Closed does NOT have a "sort of" definition.

 

The cell DIES in a matter of minutes if it is deprived of chemical energy.

It cannot be a "closed" system by any reasonable definition.

[Pyrotex]

...Closed system: A system that does not exchange mass with the surroundings. Heat and work may be exchanged with the surroundings and thereby induce changes in energy and volume....

CC,

read my response to HB above.

 

You cannot willy-nilly go around making up your own definitions for "closed system".

 

Closed means closed. No energy crosses the system boundary. Since mass in motion represents kinetic energy, that means also that no mass moves across the system boundary. Closed also means that you can't play mafia accountant and input some energy into the system, and simultaneously output the same amount of energy in a different form, so that your "books" balance out to zero.

 

However, the remainder of your post seems to make sense at first glance.

[coldcreation]

You cannot willy-nilly go around making up your own definitions for "closed system".

 

Actually, I'm pretty sure the definition above for closed systems came from the cited source (Kyle, B. G., 1984, Chemical and Process Thermodynamics), but I'll have to double check.

 

 

Closed means closed. No energy crosses the system boundary. Since mass in motion represents kinetic energy, that means also that no mass moves across the system boundary.

 

However, the remainder of your post seems to make sense at first glance.

 

This would perhaps be better in another thread. One designed to help clear up common misunderstandings (of which I may or may not be a victim) about thermodynamic processes.

 

The broader point, definition aside, was to point out that the sun-earth system, or even the entire solar system, along with the constituent forms of life present, may not be a closed system. I argue that it is not. Indeed, there are both exchanges of energy and mass from the inside-out and outside-in (there is no determined boundary).

 

And yet entropy remains a nondecreasing property in the solar system.

 

So your phrase "in a closed system" made all the difference in the world, and it was obvious" may not be so obvious, after all, at first glance.

 

At second glance, if what I write holds: double the reason for rejecting claims of the kind made in this thread.

 

CC