Evolution's constituency

[infamous]

For all you evolution buffs, this subject is one that I personally have little expertise. I have never-the-less had an interest in this subject for some time and consequently I have many unanswered questions regarding the overall mechanism. I do believe in natural selection and this thread is not intended to deal with counter arguments with which to attack evolution. If you post arguments here attacking evolution, you will be asked to refrain from doing so. This thread is to deal strictly with the contributing factors that define the mechanism we refer to as evolution. With this hopefully understood, I would like to ask those here at Hypography interested in evolution to give their interpretation for how the following factors contribute to evolution.

 

#1............Entropy

#2............Complexity

#3............Equilibrium

#4............The Life force itself

#5............Gravity

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, and that may be highly likely because as I have already said, I'm no authourity on Evolution. Of these 5 factors that I have listed, only The Life force itself and Gravity seem to struggle against Entropy. I'm aware that even Life itself while trying to organize will in the final analysis contribute to the overall value of Entropy. But the Struggle it seeks is in opposition to the direction of Entropy. Gravity on the other hand congregates and orders system so I therefore believe it to be the only force in total opposition to Entropy. Your probably asking yourself, what does this have to do with Evolution. And this is also my question to the rest of you folks. Because life struggles against Entropy, Evolution is playing a role in the effectiveness of this struggle. Complexity and Equilibrium are also part of the equation.

 

My question is: How do all these factors tie together when we try to understand the Evolutionary process?

[Fishteacher73]

I think the biggest issue is to decide if there is sucha thing as a "life force". Living organisms are culminations of many biological processes, which in turn are electro-chemical processes which in turn are ruled by the laws of physics. There does not seem to be any greater result of the combination of such things.

 

There are two conflicting "forces"(using quotes because I really do not consider it a force per se); entopy and stability. Fl is highly reactive because it lacks only one electron to fill it's outermost shell, O is either diatomic or bound with something else because it is more stable. Yet these things also are constantly driven apart by entropy.

 

Life seems to be a cumualtive effect of the stuggle against entropy. (Although it fails in the end).

[infamous]

 

Life seems to be a cumualtive effect of the stuggle against entropy. (Although it fails in the end).

Thank you Fish for thinking about these questions. Accepting that life does fail as you say, and Gravity succeeds, can we assume that gravity in some way drives Evolution. This may sound like a silly question because we all understand that without Gravity none of this would exist anyway. But maybe on a more basic level, does Gravity, said in the only way I know how to verbalize it, push against Entropy to the benefit of Evolution.

[Fishteacher73]

I could see it as some sort of agent in abiogenis, perhaps, although the exact mechanism I really don't know (although if I did, I suspect I would be getting a free trip to Stockholm :eek_big: ).

 

Gravity in itself is quite a weak force when compared to the other forces, and I really do not see it playing a significant factor in evolution once life arose.

[Fishteacher73]

Sorry to double post, but kept thinking after I posted..

 

In accounting for equilibrium...Ideal gas law as an example. PV=Nrt.

It must ballance so, as one factor changes, other factors must change as well. Pressure goes up, volume decreases, or temp increases. Perhaps as a basic equation of gravity and life being equivilent to the force of entropy, so the net result is nil. But the effects of one are influenced and controlled by other factors.

 

Is that what you are thinking?

[infamous]

Sorry to double post, but kept thinking after I posted..

 

In accounting for equilibrium...Ideal gas law as an example. PV=Nrt.

It must ballance so, as one factor changes, other factors must change as well. Pressure goes up, volume decreases, or temp increases. Perhaps as a basic equation of gravity and life being equivilent to the force of entropy, so the net result is nil. But the effects of one are influenced and controlled by other factors.

 

Is that what you are thinking?

It would be rather difficult to make an absolute mathematical connection but, in a sense what your saying is sort of in line with what I was trying to bring out. The struggle between these forces maintains the status quo, so to speak, resulting in the equilibrium that is responsible for the passage of time resulting in Evolution. If the balance were not achieved no natural process would have enough time to take place, another name for Evolution.

[Fishteacher73]

I did not really mean in a strictly mathematical sence, but as a vague correlation of ideas.

Perhaps argument for multiverse or oscilating universe theories... :eek_big: That these forces may not be truly ballanced, or only ones that develop life may be.

[infamous]

I did not really mean in a strictly mathematical sence, but as a vague correlation of ideas.

Perhaps argument for multiverse or oscilating universe theories... :eek_big: That these forces may not be truly ballanced, or only ones that develop life may be.

I agree fish, maybe this one, if one accepts the notion for the multiverse theory, is a special universe indeed.

[Erasmus00]

No force fights entropy, not even gravity. Consider, for instance, that the most entropic entity possible is a black hole, the end result of gravitational collapse.

-Will

[infamous]

No force fights entropy, not even gravity. Consider, for instance, that the most entropic entity possible is a black hole, the end result of gravitational collapse.

-Will

I thought that Entropy was defined as a disordered system. Because a black hole is ordered, wouldn't that be in opposition to Entropy?

[Erasmus00]

I thought that Entropy was defined as a disordered system. Because a black hole is ordered, wouldn't that be in opposition to Entropy?

 

Entropy is one of those difficult to pin down concepts. One way to think about entropy is the lack of information about a system. The less we know, the higher the entropy. In a black hole we can only know the total mass and the angular momentum, we know absolutely nothing about the invidual constituants.

 

There is actually a nice entropy/information theory question in Dr. Jim Sethna's Statistical Mechanics book. You calculate the entropy of a black hole (which is proportional to surface area) and figure out how many bits of information could be stored ina black hole the size of a harddrive. Since a black hole has, in principle, the highest entropy possible, you calculate the upper limit in information storage. (in information theory, entropy is information)

-Will

[infamous]

The less we know, the higher the entropy.

 

Since a black hole has, in principle, the highest entropy possible,

If I read this correctly, gravity would then work with entropy instead of against it. Am I understanding this properly?

[Erasmus00]

If I read this correctly, gravity would then work with entropy instead of against it. Am I understanding this properly?

 

Yes, entropy pretty much always increases. Sometimes the details are very tricky (non-equilibrium thermodynamics is an extremely difficult field), but everything works with entropy. The increase in entropy is a side-effect of the fact that everything we study has many, many degrees of freedom that interact in very complex ways.

-Will

[Buffy]

Yes, entropy pretty much always increases.

Well, only in a closed system. If a system--like the Earth for example--is getting pumped full of energy (or information) from "outside" the system, then entropy can easily decrease! This is the fallacy of arguments of the form "The second law of thermodynamics says that entropy must always increase and thus it is impossible for life forms to become more complex without input from an intelligent creator."

 

Cheers,

Buffy

[infamous]

Well, only in a closed system. If a system--like the Earth for example--is getting pumped full of energy (or information) from "outside" the system, then entropy can easily decrease!

 

Cheers,

Buffy

Using this example as a true statement, wouldn't every stable celestial body in the universe be decreasing in entropy because of gravities influence? Would that hold for all bodies collecting more information in the form of energy than those bodies radiating it back into space, ex. stars?

[Buffy]

Using this example as a true statement, wouldn't every stable celestial body in the universe be decreasing in entropy because of gravities influence?

The vast majority of the energy is the radiation from the nearest star. We get an unbelievable amount of energy from the Sun every day (if solar cells were more efficient, we could really eliminate most other non-renewable energy sources...). So yes, most planets are sucking huge amounts of energy, decreasing their entropy while the stellar objects are *increasing* their entropy by spitting out that energy.

 

Also note that gravitational forces do not *transfer* that much energy (this is a slightly different notion than what Fish says above, which is true, that gravity is the weakest of the four forces). As discussed in another thread, its mostly potential energy...

 

As mentioned above, "information" in information theory is completely different than what most people think it means and is worthy of another thread. Check out the Wiki entry on the subject.

 

Cheers,

Buffy

[infamous]

So yes, most planets are sucking huge amounts of energy, decreasing their entropy while the stellar objects are *increasing* their entropy by spitting out that energy.

 

 

 

 

Taking these facts into account, could we also lump neutron stars into the class of object that have a decreasing value of Entropy? Their gravity is huge by comparison and should be accumulating information at rates substantially higher than even very large planets.