Evolution violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics

[REASON]

According to Wiki, the notion of a completely closed system is not so cut and dry.

 

Closed system - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

A closed system is a system in the "state of being isolated from its surrounding environment."[1] The term often refers to an idealized system in which closure is perfect. In reality no system can be completely closed; there are only varying degrees of closure.

 

In thermodynamics, a closed system can exchange heat and work (aka energy), but not matter, with its surroundings. In contrast an isolated system can not exchange any of heat, work, or matter with the surroundings, while an open system can exchange all of heat, work and matter. For a simple system, with only one type of particle (atom or molecule), a closed system amounts to a constant number of particles. However, for systems which are undergoing a chemical reaction, there may be all sorts of molecules being generated and destroyed by the reaction process. In this case, the fact that the system is closed is expressed by saying that the total number of each elemental atom is conserved, no matter what kind of molecule it may be a part of.

[Pyrotex]

When physicists speak of a closed system, they almost always conjur an ideal situation in their minds and equations, ignoring the tiny details.

 

It's like the old joke where a physicist offers to design the best and fastest racehorse track in the world for his best friend. The friend asks, "how are you gonna do it?"

 

The physicist grins, goes up to the blackboard, makes a big circle with a piece of chalk and says, "First, we assume perfectly spherical horses!"

 

There is, indeed, an ART to defining a system so that it is "closed" -- maybe to a first approximation, maybe to a finer degree. You could draw a boundary around our entire solar system and declare that it was a "closed system", and you would be close enough correct for most calculations. But to draw a boundary around a living cell and declare it a "closed system" pretty much violates whatever definition you choose for "closed system". Trying to base your reasoning on that will likely lead you to an invalid conclusion.

 

I was told that the origin of most if not all the Laws of Thermodynamics was among the builders of the first internal combustion engines.

[Boerseun]

While there are lots of talk about "closed" or "open" systems, there is only one truly "closed" system, and that is the entire universe.

 

You can, however, describe a mechanical device (let's say a petrol engine) as a "closed" system, sufficiently closed to serve in illustrating the point. There is energy and mass communication between this system and the rest of the world, but not in such a way as to interfere with the motor's working. For explaining how a "closed" system works, a fuel engine is just dandy - but it is useful to keep the apostrophes around the "closed" in mind. That engine generates heat (to be dispersed outside the system, else the engine would cease) and requires oxygen (to come from outside the system), etc. etc.

 

Where "closed" becomes serious, and we need to take away the apostrophes so that we're talking about a bona-fide CLOSED system, is when energy input from outside the system starts to have any influence on the motor's operation and output.

 

And that same argument applies to Life, and Evolution. If you were to enclose a terrarium and hermetically seal it, with enough water and air in it, you can have a perfectly viable eco-system in there. You can have algae that lives off the carbon dioxide exhaled by little critters that feed on the algae, that inhales the oxygen generated by the algae, and the little box can carry on indefinitely, for all practical purposes. This is a "closed" system, as far as the oxygen, carbon and nitrogen cycles are concerned. The same could be said of the Earth. Ignoring the initial carbon-rich impactors in the Earth's early history, as far as chemicals are concerned, the Earth (and thus Earthlife and Evolution), are, indeed, "closed" systems. But none of it, not a single wit, not for the little enclosed terrarium nor for the entire planet, is viable without energy input from outside.

 

To put it very simply, the only reason that the order in cellular composition is able to increase, is because the order in the sun is decreasing. There is no other way. Yet, as far as the chemical cycles in Life is concerned, it is a perfectly "closed" system. But auditing the chemical constituents of Earthlife is far removed from factoring in the energy which make it all shuffle around - and I think this is where the confusion stems from.

 

Ignoring impactors and nuclear decay, there is exactly as much carbon on Earth today as there was when the dinosaurs roamed about. Yet there are no dinosaurs. The very same carbon atoms that made up dinosaurs are now present in trees, bugs, and your left eyeball. Thus, the carbon cycle can be said to be closed. But this has nothing to do with Thermodynamics. It is a closed cycle, not system. This is merely bookkeeping, and does not address the energy input over the millennia that made that carbon atom slog all the way from a dinosaur's nostril into your eyeball.

[Pyrotex]

...and does not address the energy input over the millennia that made that carbon atom slog all the way from a dinosaur's nostril into your eyeball

Eeeeeeeeeewwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww!!! :P

[lemit]

Don't touch that atom! You don't know where it's been!

 

--lemit

[Moontanman]

Has anyone else noticed the original nay sayer of this thread has failed to defend his premise? Kind of sad really, he seemed so sure he was right, I would have had at least had the good manners to admit I was wrong. I am betting he doesn't care and is still spouting the 2nd law as proof that evolution is a false doctrine to anyone who will listen.

 

This in it's self separates out religion from science, science can be wrong, religion never is...... at least to those who need religion to be right.

[Eclogite]

Has anyone else noticed the original nay sayer of this thread has failed to defend his premise? Kind of sad really, he seemed so sure he was right, I would have had at least had the good manners to admit I was wrong.

On the off chance that he (or she) is still following the thread, let me address this to them.

 

Do you realise epitome that your failure to respond is a sin in the eyes of your God? Are you not bearing false witness? Are you not guilty of arrogance and pride as revealed through your willful ignorance? Will you not at least admit your error?

[coldcreation]

Has anyone else noticed the original nay sayer of this thread has failed to defend his premise?

 

Yes I noticed too. :P

 

Perhaps he/she didn't realize Hypographer's were armed with far-reaching tactical thermodynamic smart-bombs (with laser-guidance assembly of depleted uranium-titanium alloyed Chisel-Point Casings and hard target smart fuzes (HTSF)), that when deployed penetrate, reach and destroy deep fortified bunkers or underground safe-havens (where the walls are monstrously thick but over two thousand years old).

 

Nothing but basic physics. ;)

 

CC

[HydrogenBond]

The cell is not a closed system. However, as cells became more advanced, the chemicals that can enter the cell become more restricted, because they need active transport. The open system is restricted to water and small organic molecules. Most ions are restricted from the cell and will need transport. Life is heading toward a semi-closed system from its humble beginning in evolution, when simple replicators didn't restrict anything.

 

Let us do an energy and entropy balance of the earth relative to life. The sun adds energy. Increasing entropy needs to absorb energy, such as solar heat evaporating water, so the water has a higher degree of freedom. Photosynthesis, where life gains solar energy, is using this energy to build structure, which contains potential energy or caloric value; i.e., wood. It is not using it to increase entropy but to store energy.

 

Life fixes water, which prevents it from evaporating as easy. This lowers the ability of the solar energy from increasing its entropy. Even though water has free movement between inside and outside the cell, water fixation means the water lowers entropy as it enters the cell, with the exterior water easier to evaporate or increase entropy. If you took a plant in a pot and allow it to dry out, the last water will be in the plant. Life is resisting the entropy increase of the water, preventing evaporation.

[JMJones0424]

I invite any corrections to the following, as my understanding is far more important to me than my ability to argue.

 

The cell is not a closed system. However, as cells became more advanced, the chemicals that can enter the cell become more restricted, because they need active transport. The open system is restricted to water and small organic molecules. Most ions are restricted from the cell and will need transport. Life is heading toward a semi-closed system from its humble beginning in evolution, when simple replicators didn't restrict anything.

 

I honestly do not understand the point you are trying to make in this thread and a number of other threads. You can claim that a cell is isolated from its environment. You can claim that a cell is selective in the chemical compounds it allows to enter or exit. You can claim many things. But you can not support the claim that a cell, or any living thing found on earth, is in any thermodynamic way a closed system. I would like to see the basis for the conclusion you make in the last sentence of the above quote.

 

Increasing entropy needs to absorb energy, such as solar heat evaporating water, so the water has a higher degree of freedom.

 

What do you mean by the two statements that I have highlighted in the above quote?

 

Even though water has free movement between inside and outside the cell...

It most certainly does not because...

 

water fixation means the water lowers entropy as it enters the cell, with the exterior water easier to evaporate or increase entropy.

 

Do you even remember high school biology? Osmosis- the diffusion of water through a semi-permeable membrane. Under normal conditions, without the expenditure of energy, this occurs in one direction. Water moves from the side with less dissolved ions to the side with more dissolved ions because the water is seeking maximum entropy. Most living things must fight against this, and expend energy to do so, in order to maintain homeostasis. If one were to do a proper energy audit, the expenditure of energy in order to maintain homeostasis is always greater than the decrease in observed entropy.

 

You seem to be equating higher entropy to the ability of water to evaporate. I am not sure why. In an environment where a cell is surrounded by water, maximum entropy would be observed when the proportion of ions dissolved in the water (or the concentration of the solution) is the same both inside the cell and outside the cell. Any fight to maintain a state outside of this balance, is a fight to maintain something outside of equilibrium, and therefor requires the expenditure of energy. Whether or not a portion of the water outside of the cell evaporates has nothing to do with the entropy level of water between the cell and its environment.

 

 

If you took a plant in a pot and allow it to dry out, the last water will be in the plant. Life is resisting the entropy increase of the water, preventing evaporation.

Once again, a broad generalization that is not correct. First of all, even the driest of dry organic matter and the driest of dry soil still contains a small amount of water, but this is beside the point. Most plants actually require at least some evaporation (more properly referred to as transpiration) in order to facilitate the transport of mineral nutrients from the roots to the leaves. If you were to change the last word in the above quote to dessication, rather than evaporation, than I would be more inclined to agree with this statement, as long as you include the stipulation that it requires more energy for the plant to resist dessication than the potential energy gained by maintaining homeostasis. Yet again, this is not an example of decreased entropy. Furthermore, most plants actually require an increase in entropy in order to bring in water from the soil into the roots through osmosis. It is this increase in entropy as water moves first from soil to root, and finally from stomata to the air, that allows for enough hydrostatic pressure to fight against gravity and transport nutrients to the leaves without the aid of any pumping mechanism.

 

I think it may be correct to say that life seeks to decrease entropy locally, or seeks to resist the increase in entropy... only if you choose to ignore the expenditure of energy that the living thing requires in order to locally reduce observed entropy. This, as has been repeatedly pointed out, is the fallacy of all your statements in regards to life and entropy levels. You are defining the system being observed to contain only the cell or the living being, and then you are allowing for energy input from outside of that system, and declaring lowered entropy. Any way you change your wording, it is still an incorrect conclusion.

 

I think you should drop the whole notion of life decreasing entropy, and instead say that life seeks to maintain homeostasis. This would do away with all the inconsistencies of your argument, but I am afraid it may force you to re-evaluate some of your conclusions. I don't think I fully understand the conclusions you are trying to promote though, so maybe this approach would help in your explanation.

[Larv]

Life is resisting the entropy increase of the water, preventing evaporation.

Ah...er...huh? Not in my universe. Can't speak for yours, however.

[Pyrotex]

I'm sorry, HB, but your post is wrong on so many levels, I cannot keep them straight.

For one, I don't think you undestand entropy.

I was a Physics major in college, and it took me two years of graduate course, including Statistical Thermodynamics, to get my arms around what entropy meant, and how to use it in physical discussions.

I may have forgotten most of that over the decades, but I do know that mixing entropy and energy is usually a bad thing. Entropy is a measure of the amount of "disorder" in a system. As "disorder" (randomness, chaos, mixed-upness) goes UP, entropy goes UP, and vice versa.

Entropy has little if anything to do with trapping or releasing water.

 

Let me try to say what I think YOU were trying to say.

 

The Sun is in a low state of entropy--it is highly ordered.

As it gives off energy and ages, its entropy slowly goes up and will have less and less "free energy" that it can release.

 

The Earth was in a high state of entropy--highly disordered, with molecules randomly mixed together.

The molecules absorbed the free energy from the Sun. Grigogene, the French physicist, showed that when random systems absorb enough free energy, they inevitably "evolve" processes for channeling and disposing of this energy. The energy they get rid of will almost always be a degraded (high entropy) form of energy (like heat). The difference in entropy between the free energy they absorb and the degraded energy they release is the entropy of their channeling processes. In other words, the molecular systems will actually increase their "order" to more effectively channel off the energy.

 

Tornados are a prime example of a highly ordered process coming into existence out of total random air currents in order to channel off a huge flux of free heat enegy in the atmosphere.

 

Over time, life on Earth absorbs energy, converts it into more complex systems and decreases entropy.

 

But the total sum of entropy of Sun and Earth together, continues to rise.

[HydrogenBond]

Increasing entropy needs to absorb energy, such as solar heat evaporating water, so the water has a higher degree of freedom.

 

If we expand a gas, to increase the entropy of the gas molecules, the system gets cold, since the entropy increase needs to absorb energy. If we have an compression of the gas and lower the entropy, it will give off heat. Highest entropy needs energy, which is why it is connected to lowest energy. When a system seeks lowest energy, it gives off heat or energy which is fuel for entropy to increase.

 

With photosynthesis, the energy that should go into entropy, such as the energy that goes into the oceans to evaporate water into clouds, is not as available to entropy. The solar energy is going into the potential energy of carbon fixation, making it unavailable for as much entropy.

 

If we harnesses the solar energy to melt ice, we would increase entropy. But plants don't melt or increase entropy in the sun. They take molecules like CO2 with a high degree of freedom (entropy in rotation, translation, vibration) and fix it into the stored energy of carbon fixation, so it is not available as energy for the entropy.

 

If we took a volume of gas and slowly compressed it, the entropy decreases and energy is released. Evolution is analogous, with the original disorder of a bunch of randomly acting precursor molecules of life, compressing into polymers, organelles and cells, where things becomes more fixed into ordered arrangements. It is a simple graph. But at the same time, life is part of nature and is not totally closed off. The second law also acts, to create disorder or entropy within the order, but with the net entropy within life, decreasing over time. It is two steps forward and one step back, always going forward.

 

One way to create entropy in a cell is through a random genetic change, since random will create disorder. But evolution requires this be put back into order or its would not lead to an selective advantage. The cell tries to decrease the effect of the second law but can't fully close itself off. Proof reading enzymes attempt to remove the disorder but are not perfect, so the second law still has an impact.

 

In my opinion, the large size of the DNA molecule, which are about the biggest natural molecules, is a design that makes it almost impossible to totally remove entropy. Life still needs the second law for variations so it can branch into new areas. Life is willing to allow constant one steps backs because it often leads to more two steps forward.

[Larv]

HB, you're confusing classical (at equilibrium) thermodynamics with non-equilibrium thermodynamics. I hate to see you go on this way; it's almost pre-Schrödinger in terms of modern thinking.

[HydrogenBond]

In the 1982 textbook Principles of Biochemistry by American biochemist Albert Lehninger, for example, it is argued that the "order" produced within cells as they grow and divide is more than compensated for by the "disorder" they create in their surroundings in the course of growth and division. In short, according to Lehninger, "living organisms preserve their internal order by taking from their surroundings free energy, in the form of nutrients or sunlight, and returning to their surroundings an equal amount of energy as heat and entropy."[28]

 

I was focusing on the entropy of that system of chemicals we call life, which preserves internal order. The open system of cell plus environment is consistent with the second law.

 

In the above quote, he is only talking about maintenance of order, where the free energy is maintaining order and returning an equal amount of energy as heat and entropy. When cells divide and both daughter cells grow into mother cells, the amount of total order being maintained by life has doubled. If we go into a multicellular system, not only does oder exist within each cell, but there is order with respect to all the cells. There is another layer of order that needs to be maintained.

[Essay]

....

If we go into a multicellular system, not only does oder exist within each cell, but there is order with respect to all the cells. There is another layer of order that needs to be maintained.

...also "where the free energy is maintaining order and returning an equal amount of energy as heat and entropy."

Hence....

 

Life is just... => ...light ..into chemicals ...into heat (and accompanying increase in entropy).

[HydrogenBond]

Part of the problem with this discussion has to do with a misunderstanding of entropy or using only part of the puzzle. This is biology and not physics or engineering where this is bread and butter stuff. The second law only says that the entropy of the universe increases. It is possible to have subsystems, within a larger system, that lower entropy, as long as the net entropy increases.

 

From Wikipedia;

 

The classic example is a glass of ice melting in a room. The ice will increase entropy but the room lowers entropy, as heat is absorbed by the ice from the air in the room. One part of the system is lowering entropy, while the other is gaining entropy. However, the net total is gaining entropy such that the second law is not violated.

 

Over time the temperature of the glass and its contents and the temperature of the room become equal. The entropy of the room has decreased as some of its energy has been dispersed to the ice and water. However, as calculated in the example, the entropy of the system of ice and water has increased more than the entropy of the surrounding room has decreased. In an isolated system such as the room and ice water taken together, the dispersal of energy from warmer to cooler always results in a net increase in entropy.

 

To clarify entropy more, below is a list of the most common entropy definitions, that touch the many the faces of entropy, also from Wikipedia.

 

Entropy – energy broken down in irretrievable heat.[41]

-Boltzmann's constant times the logarithm of a multiplicity; where the multiplicity of a macrostate is the number of microstates that correspond to the macrostate.[42]

"In words, entropy is just the logarithm of the number of ways of arranging things in the system (times the Boltzmann's constant).".[43]

a non-conserved thermodynamic state function, measured in terms of the number of microstates a system can assume, which corresponds to a degradation in usable energy.[44]

-a direct measure of the randomness of a system.[45]

-a measure of energy dispersal at a specific temperature.[12]

-a measure of the partial loss of the ability of a system to perform work due to the effects of irreversibility.[46]

-an index of the tendency of a system towards spontaneous change.[47]

-a measure of the unavailability of a system’s energy to do work; also a measure of disorder; the higher the entropy the greater the disorder.[48]

-a parameter representing the state of disorder of a system at the atomic, ionic, or molecular level.[49]

-a measure of disorder in the universe or of the availability of the energy in a system to do work.[50]

 

The first definition is energy broken down into irretrievable heat. Entropy requires energy, with the irretrievable heat going into the entropy. In the ice water example, when the room gives heat to melt the ice, the energy within the entropy of the room is being giving to the ice, so the entropy lowers in the room.

 

Another definition is a measure of the partial loss of the ability of a system to perform work due to the effects of irreversibility. Work takes energy, with inefficiency in the work cycle, the waste heat that is lost into entropy. This energy is not recoverable as work, but becomes entropy.

 

If we look at Chlorophyl and compare this the same solar energy hitting the earth directly, the direct solar energy goes into entropy, as the irretrievable heat propagates from higher to lower temperature. With Chlorophyl, there is natural work cycle that is about 85% efficient, more or less. The work cycle pushes atoms up an energy hill and locks the potential into chemical bonding (carbon fixation). The entropy is now down to 15%, since 85% is now recoverable energy.

 

The second law is still in effect within the universe, but that little piece of the universe called chlorophyl, is altering what initially was 100% solar entropy conversion into 15% entropy. It is analogous to the room in the ice water example. The total entropy is still increasing for the entire system, even though one aspect lowers entropy. The entropy is converted to useful work since was can't create or destroy energy.

 

Let us look at another definition; a measure of the unavailability of a system’s energy to do work; also a measure of disorder; the higher the entropy the greater the disorder. Because chlorophyl is doing work and the residual heat of inefficiency is going into the residual entropy, the disorder has been reduced to 15%, with order now approaching 85%. The chlorophyl has a particular task, with a particular set of substrates, forming particular products. This is very ordered and not random, compared to the sun shining on the CO2 and H2O in the open, adding translation, rotation, vibration, and random interactions. etc. But it is not perfect order, since it is 85% efficient. There is still 15% entropy or disorder.

 

Let us look at another definition; an index of the tendency of a system towards spontaneous change.

 

The Chlorophyl is 85% efficient with 15% entropy potential, so is there a 15% chance of spontaneous change? Has anyone ever measured the by-products of chlorophyl to see if 15% are different? I don't think it is this high, since most of the entropy is being expressed directly via the waste energy released and not through just spontaneous change. These are two different ways to generate entropy. The total adds to 15%, with the amount of off byproducts maybe less than 1%.

 

Let us do another definition, to make sure we are not missing something; a parameter representing the state of disorder of a system at the atomic, ionic, or molecular level. Chlorophyl in the textbooks is a very particular ordering of atoms. We can't disorder this molecular system and get the same work efficiency. If we add disorder or increase the atomic entropy of the chlorophyl molecule, solar entropy would increase all the way to 100%, since it would mess up the work cycle and all the solar energy would become irretrievable heat once again. The only order left would be in the new molecular complex, but it just sits there looking pretty. This is order, but much lower than the original 85%, since its impact is only at its own molecular level, but it has lost the work cycle from the solar energy. It can't impact H2O and CO2 the same way to lower the entropy of these molecules, to add to the total.

 

The last part is logical extrapolation from the above. It is not based on experiment, but just common sense.

 

With biogenesis, entropy can lower within subsystems by forming simple molecular order, such as polymers. This does not violate the second law, as long as the net system entropy increases. Further lowering of entropy occurs when work cycles appear from the molecular order. Each enzyme is a work cycle. Further loss of entropy within subsystems occurs as they increase efficiency, so there is less irretrievable heat. As entropy lowers, there is less subsystem entropy for spontaneous change. Much of the entropy is being generated by irretrievable heat due to residual inefficiency. However, since the second law states the total system entropy must increase, the environment is gaining entropy and is becoming more subject to spontaneous change. Life causes the environment to quicken since the environment becomes the entropy sink due to the second law.

 

If we look in terms of entropy potential, the environment is at higher entropy potential and life is at lower entropy potential; i.e/. total system and subsystem. The second law states entropy needs to increase, so there is a flow of entropy into life from higher potential to lower potential. The tendency for spontaneous change lowers internally. But since the potential from the outside is higher, this is where the potential for spontaneous change is much higher. The result is that spontaneous change for adaptation to the environment, is higher than internal spontaneous change. This entropy logic indicate that changes in the DNA is more often induced by external entropy, since it is higher; necessity is the mother of invention causing life to change with the environment.