Evolution violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics

[Essay]

Your points sound more like a general argument about evolution. I think there is little disagreement about whether evolution happens or not; but the details, and specifics of various theories, are places where agreement is harder to find - places where discussions begin.

 

~ :hihi:

[Essay]

- places where discussions begin.

 

....Discussions such as whether or not the net increase in entropy -that is enhanced by living systems- is a stronger drive for evolution than the gross decrease in entropy that is evident on small scales within living systems.

 

Life is just nature's way of enhancing the net increase in entropy.

[snoopdogg]

First of all, the accepted belief in what entropy is, can be misconstrued. We know that there is only one way that a puzzle can be put together, yet an endless amount of ways in which it is chaotic, thus it is said that entropy will always increases and has to. The problem is, is that there is only one way the puzzle can be put together correctly in OUR PERCEPTION of correct. The universe does not hold favorites or perceive one way correct over another it merely is. Because a closed system can become more complex and organized over time, does not mean that system is gaining or losing entropy. We only perceive it to be. Matter clumps and organizes every wear, but to the universe it merely is.

 

Second, we know that particles can become entangled and share the same wave-faze. This implies that information is passed from one particle to another. For it is information that pushes evolution. Imagine the dying tree, as the tree dies, this is in itself a process of evolution. Slowly over time more and more decay builds up until the tree is gone. The tree does not die instantly; it slowly evolves into this state, through the passage of information from one particle to the next.

 

Last, having discussion over scientific principles is great ya (aren’t we intellectuals). The problem is over complicating things with our human minds. Simplicity lies at the heart of existence.

[timbot]

Second, we know that particles can become entangled and share the same wave-faze. This implies that information is passed from one particle to another. For it is information that pushes evolution. Imagine the dying tree, as the tree dies, this is in itself a process of evolution. Slowly over time more and more decay builds up until the tree is gone. The tree does not die instantly; it slowly evolves into this state, through the passage of information from one particle to the next.

 

 

But information does not have anything to do with evolution...? Evolution states that a game is being played with many participants. Some of these participants will be able to play the game better than others and hence survive longer to pass on their genes. Where a genetic component gave rise to their ability to survive the game then this will be passed on to their offspring who in turn will then compete amongst each other and so the cycle continues. The only way a dying tree is relevant is if it is dying prematurely due to a genetic fault or dying at an unusually old age due to a genetic advantage conferred to it?

[snoopdogg]

I was talking about evolution in general you know like technological evolution. Ya we all understand Darwin’s biological evolution and yes this system does rely on information. The information I am talking about is the passage of time from one event to the next.

[timbot]

I don't follow. What is evolution in general? Do you mean evolution like "the situation evolved"? I don't think that is what is being discussed.

[snoopdogg]

I don't follow. What is evolution in general? Do you mean evolution like "the situation evolved"? I don't think that is what is being discussed.

 

No we are discussing entropy as it relates to biological evolution. However my first point was if evolution can show the capacity to exist in any form, even generally speaking, it must exist every wear. And just because we perceive an increase or decrease in entropy does not mean that the universe sees it the same way. Our perception is limited by the idea of this or that being correct in a straight arrow of time. The universe is not limited to the perception. So no evolution does not violate the second law of thermodynamics.

[Pyrotex]

DNA carries information from one generation to the next.

DNA <<<*IS*>>> information.

If a specific configuration of DNA manages to reproduce, then that event is additional information: "this strand of DNA is viable and survived long enough to reproduce."

DNA not only explicitly carries the information to build a phenotype (critter), it also implicitly carries the information: "I am a descendant of an unbroken line of evolutionarily successful ancestors."

Entropy can (and often is) used as a measure of the accessible information in a system.

[snoopdogg]

DNA carries information from one generation to the next.

DNA <<<*IS*>>> information.

If a specific configuration of DNA manages to reproduce, then that event is additional information: "this strand of DNA is viable and survived long enough to reproduce."

DNA not only explicitly carries the information to build a phenotype (critter), it also implicitly carries the information: "I am a descendant of an unbroken line of evolutionarily successful ancestors."

Entropy can (and often is) used as a measure of the accessible information in a system.

 

Thank you, I agree completely. All and any evolution relies on the passage of information. Information in a system needs to be perceived. On a micro level, particle appearing and disapearing could be thought of as information. Entropy oly applies on our macro scale.

[timbot]

Second, we know that particles can become entangled and share the same wave-faze. This implies that information is passed from one particle to another. For it is information that pushes evolution. Imagine the dying tree, as the tree dies, this is in itself a process of evolution. Slowly over time more and more decay builds up until the tree is gone. The tree does not die instantly; it slowly evolves into this state, through the passage of information from one particle to the next.

 

Last, having discussion over scientific principles is great ya (aren’t we intellectuals). The problem is over complicating things with our human minds. Simplicity lies at the heart of existence.

 

OK, granted DNA is information and is important in the kind of evolution that I thought we are discussing here. I was confused over the introduction of concepts such as "technological evolution" or a description of a dying tree as being pertinent.

 

Unless you can show evidence that technological evolution occurs along the lines of a Darwinian game then we are not discussing the scientific conception of evolution which is what I thought was up for discussion. It seems to me that "technological evolution" is a more general use of the term invoking the (incorrect) assumption that to say something "evolves" mean to say it "develops" or "improves".

[snoopdogg]

It neither has to develope or improve. What I am talking about is SYMMETRY. The universe displays this strange symmetry every where we look, and evolution is no exception. Technological evolution behaves just like biological evolution in many ways. At the root of this evolution is information. We did not wake up one day and someone thought of cell phones. They used information from previous comunitication and expanded on it. Wither this was an improvement or not is debatable. Wither or not we are an improvement over Neanderthals is also debatable. Yet both products of information and symmetry have succeeded. However this does not mean the system gained or lossd entropy in the process.

[timbot]

OK, maybe we just have different conceptions over what is being discussed here.

 

I was interested in the relationship that the principle of evolution bears to the 2LOT. You are interested in a wider discussion but I don't really see the concepts of symmetry or technological evolution as being relevant to this particular discussion.

 

In relation to the symmetry you discuss, could this not be a psychological result of how humans process the information presented by the universe and not a fundamental property of the universe itself?

[snoopdogg]

The original discussion was, wither or not evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics. My point is no evolution does not violate this law which states, entropy will always increase in a closed system. If evolution did violate this law why do we see proofs of evolution every wear. It does not matter what type of evolution we are discussing. I say that it is only our perception of increased or decreased entropy; it is not the universe perception. For the universe merely is.

 

As far as symmetry goes yes I would agree allot of this thinking does rely on our psychological interpretation of what is shown to be symmetric. However symmetry does appear to be in all things. It seems that the universe likes to repeat itself.

[Pyrotex]

OK, maybe we just have different conceptions over what is being discussed here. I was interested in the relationship that the principle of evolution bears to the 2LOT. You are interested in a wider discussion but I don't really see the concepts of symmetry or technological evolution as being relevant to this particular discussion. ...

I share your pain, timbot. :(

 

I believe the original intention of this thread was limited to the biological theory of evolution. I am somewhat well read in both the BTOE and the 2LOT, and trying to eek out the relationships between just those two concepts is challenging enough. Expanding "evolution" to include any or all changes to any or all systems, technologies, rules of engagement, etc, etc, etc, pretty much ruins the conversation for me.

 

I have a degree in Physics (for what that's worth) and I just do not see any way that "symmetry" has much to do with evolution and the 2LOT. I do not see how "symmetry" applies to technological change and improvement. In fact, I would say that any "apparent" similarities between tech change and the BTOE are mere accidents of syntax or categorization.

 

:phones:

[snoopdogg]

I share your pain, timbot. :confused:

 

I believe the original intention of this thread was limited to the biological theory of evolution. I am somewhat well read in both the BTOE and the 2LOT, and trying to eek out the relationships between just those two concepts is challenging enough. Expanding "evolution" to include any or all changes to any or all systems, technologies, rules of engagement, etc, etc, etc, pretty much ruins the conversation for me.

 

:

 

Do not let symmetry ruin the discussion. By the way this is a very old discussion; man has had for many decades. Creationist will try to find any reason to rule out evolution and propose that God made the Earth about 10,000 years ago (come on). 2LOT applies to closed system, the earth is not a closed system nor are there many of these systems out there. The Universe itself might be the only natural closed system that exist. Earth is part of a system that includes the sun and all the planet. Our solar system is part of the galactic system and so on.

 

I interjected symmetry into the argument to try and take this in a new direction. But I guess we could always ramble over the same talking points over and over again. If one can't see how symmetry applies, one can not see.

[HydrogenBond]

Science essentially reduces evolution to genetics and selective advantage. Creationism has things appearing quickly. They both imply low entropy, since they both create an ordered path for evolution without many degrees of freedom.

 

If entropy was increasing within evolution, one would expect more degrees of freedom or more and more ways for evolution to progress. For example, we now have the genetic material as the basis of evolution. Increasing entropy would add other options, such as stemming from protein feedback. But science does not suggest this degree of freedom lowering the entropy to only one way.

 

To get more entropy or degrees of freedom, instead of just selective advantage for evolution, there should also be selective disadvantage, where the floor falls on certain critters, to create the illusion others rise above, even without genetic change. This would still show up as a selective advantage, but only because the floor lowered due to genetics on the floor critters.

 

Entropy might also add nonselective advantage. This might be analogous to being the right place at the right time. It is like winning a lottery ticket in nature, to become one of its millionaires. It is not due to genetic improvements but good luck of the draw. A clumsy critter falls down a hill and when it reaches the bottom finds a large food source. Now it is the big gun in the group when it returns.

 

Entropy might also add nonselective disadvantage. This is similar to drawing the short straw but also not because of genetics. Another critter falls down another hill and ends up as food. Now another critter appear to rise above, with big Joe gone.

 

But since these alternatives are not normally accepted, that means that there are few degrees of freedom for evolution. One could also infer lowering entropy from the DNA and the percent of the DNA that actually contributes to the genetics changes behind evolution; it is a tiny fraction less than 1% (being generous). Not much room for entropy, since most of the DNA doesn't have degrees of freedom.

[Pyrotex]

Do not let symmetry ruin the discussion. .... If one can't see how symmetry applies, one can not see.

Well, my problem is, given the context of the thread, I have no clue by what you mean by the word "symmetry". Even your description in an earlier post did not help at all. Perhaps you could be more explicit.

 

Pyro