Evolution's constituency

[infamous]

I think the most accurate way to put things is that in a closed system, entropy always increases, wether the system interacts via gravity, electromagnetic forces, or nuclear forces. The beautiful thing about thermodynamic laws is that the specific mechanism of interaction is largely irrelevant to the behavior of very large systems.

-Will

I must say that I appreciate your indulgence with this topic. My purpose here is to find and or investagate the relationship between these influencing ingredients. I too enjoy the romantic implications present within physical phenomenon and something tells me there is an underlying symbiosis going on between these forces.

 

Now that we have determined that Gravity is not necessarily in competition with Entropy but, for the most part follows the same arrow of time, we'll turn our attention to Complexity and Equilibrium. First question: Following the arrow of time, does Equilibrium suggest that we have competing forces within Evolution itself. This question may seem useless because most will judge this as a forgone conclusion. Equilibrium may also suggest competing energies between Entropy and the struggle that the Life Force brings to the mix. Any ideas...........??

[infamous]

I think the most accurate way to put things is that in a closed system, entropy always increases,

Could you define what you mean by a closed system. I will assume that the current scientific position is; our universe is considered to be closed. Assuming this, how can a system such as our universe be closed if the big bang was responsible for it's creation and therefore must have come from outside. Logically, if a system can't stay closed, was it really ever closed to begin with?

 

wether the system interacts via gravity, electromagnetic forces, or nuclear forces. The beautiful thing about thermodynamic laws is that the specific mechanism of interaction is largely irrelevant to the behavior of very large systems.

-Will

Because Entropy will always increase in a closed system, dosen't that eliminate the possibility for an eternal universe. Because when all energy is used and there is nothing left but gravity, won't space begin to contract and eventually collapse?

[Buffy]

Could you define what you mean by a closed system. I will assume that the current scientific position is; our universe is considered to be closed.

Make sure you understand that the thermodynamic definition of "closed" is not the same as the cosmological definition of "closed". In the former, it basically only is saying that there is no "input" (e.g. energy, matter, whatever) that comes from "outside". In the latter, its refering to the "topology" of the universe: a "closed universe" will eventually collapse back on itself.

Assuming this, how can a system such as our universe be closed if the big bang was responsible for it's creation and therefore must have come from outside. Logically, if a system can't stay closed, was it really ever closed to begin with?

Here, it seems like you're mixing the two definitions, along with a third, the notion that theres an "outside" to the universe. This third definition is handled by theories like Andrei Linde's Multiverse theory that I think I linked above somewhere: most cosmologists will say, we can't really know anything about where the big bang "came from", but it is fun to conjecture, and who knows, some day some of it might be testable! That would be really cool!

Because Entropy will always increase in a closed system, dosen't that eliminate the possibility for an eternal universe. Because when all energy is used and there is nothing left but gravity, won't space begin to contract and eventually collapse?

There are two possibilities, refering now to the cosmological definition of "closed": if the universe is closed, we'll eventually end in a "big crunch", and of course who knows what will happen *after* the crunch. If the universe is "flat" or "open" it will expand forever, and eventually every elemental particle down to the very last quark will decay into a "great darkness" with no energy, which also means maximal entropy!

 

Whoo!

Buffy

[infamous]

Make sure you understand that the thermodynamic definition of "closed" is not the same as the cosmological definition of "closed". In the former, it basically only is saying that there is no "input" (e.g. energy, matter, whatever) that comes from "outside".

OK, but then let's consider the universe as a closed thermodynamic system, which BTW, was one of the questions I was trying to interject. Being thermodynamically closed, that would be after the Big Bang, was it open thermodynamically before. It would seem to me that the answer to this would be yes, am I correct in assuming this position?

 

if the universe is closed, we'll eventually end in a "big crunch", and of course who knows what will happen *after* the crunch. If the universe is "flat" or "open" it will expand forever, and eventually every elemental particle down to the very last quark will decay into a "great darkness" with no energy, which also means maximal entropy!

 

Whoo!

Buffy

However if the universe is open thermodynamically which it must be, to allow for an event like the Big Bang, there may exist a means by which new matter and energy could enter.

[Buffy]

OK, but then let's consider the universe as a closed thermodynamic system, which BTW, was one of the questions I was trying to interject. Being thermodynamically closed, that would be after the Big Bang, was it open thermodynamically before. It would seem to me that the answer to this would be yes, am I correct in assuming this position?

Maybe, but that's completely open to conjecture. Think about it: if the theories about "multiple universes" is not true, and say our universe is closed cosmologically, and it banging and crunching, then no, its not "open thermodynamically" because there isn't anything "outside" the system. In a Multiverse, maybe our universe pops out of a blackhole (or as my daughter laughs, "Horton's Dustspeck"), then sure it came from "outside", but there's nothing we can see of anything entering our closed system after....

However if the universe is open thermodynamically which it must be, to allow for an event like the Big Bang, there may exist a means by which new matter and energy could enter.

Maybe...but we'd probably notice if it was open *now* because our surveys of matter an energy seem to be stable over time...there'd be pretty wierd effects. I'm not sure I'm following which of these two notions you're proposing though: that there was "input from outside" before the bang, or "there's input now". I think the former is possible but not resolvable, and that there's no evidence of the latter.

 

Cheers,

Buffy

[infamous]

I'm not sure I'm following which of these two notions you're proposing though: that there was "input from outside" before the bang, or "there's input now". I think the former is possible but not resolvable, and that there's no evidence of the latter.

 

Cheers,

Buffy

I'm really not proposing a particular theory so much as I'm looking for information. BTW, you've been of considerable help to me in my pursuit of this goal. Even though I now have more questions than I had to begin with, I think we can begin to build a base upon which to construct a few ideas

 

Let's assume for arguments sake that the multiverse theory is correct. I make this assumtion because it seems to me that all this stuff had to come from somewhere. Accepting this as our foundation, at the time of the big bang, our universe must have been thermodynamically open. Because it appears now to be closed, some mechanism must have kicked in long enough for the big bang to take place after which it again closed. Sounds a lot like a few theories I've read about that propose the notion of what is commonly referred to as white holes.

 

Your probably thinking to your self; aren't we getting way off topic here? Actually no, and the reason why I say this is: my whole idea revolves around a suspicion that Entropy and Gravity are prime movers when we think about Evolution. One interesting fact that I just learned a few days ago. On one of our space missions they took along a dozen or so unhatched bird eggs. They wanted to see how gravity would influence the hatching process. When time came for the eggs to hatch, they failed to do so. This is just a small indication for the influence that gravity has on the life process. Small but not insignificant. What I would like to do is connect all the obscure dots that link these forces one to another. All the help I can get from the membership of Hypography is very much welcome.

[Buffy]

Let's assume for arguments sake that the multiverse theory is correct. I make this assumtion because it seems to me that all this stuff had to come from somewhere. Accepting this as our foundation, at the time of the big bang, our universe must have been thermodynamically open. Because it appears now to be closed, some mechanism must have kicked in long enough for the big bang to take place after which it again closed.

You have to pick your instant in time. Linde and similar theorists basically put that point of "thermodynamic closure" at the instant of the bang, and not one bazillionth later. It starts with what ya got, and there's no interval of time that its "pumping the gas tank" so to speak after the bang. Not to say that it *couldn't*, but there's certainly no evidence of it. On the "outside" you'd see a black hole collapsing or something, and the singluarity goes bang! into another dimensional space. If you're looking for conservation of the singularities energy and information, its in there, although when it pops out as our universe, who knows what transmogrification its undergone?

 

I just continue to ask you back, whether you're going in a direction I'm not seeing with our universe "being thermodynamically open". You mean something like it takes 5 seconds to empty the gas can into the fuel cell? What do *you* think that means?

...my whole idea revolves around a suspicion that Entropy and Gravity are prime movers when we think about Evolution.

Why not! But maybe not the way you think they do! Seems like there are lots of possible effects, to wit:

One interesting fact that I just learned a few days ago. On one of our space missions they took along a dozen or so unhatched bird eggs. They wanted to see how gravity would influence the hatching process. When time came for the eggs to hatch, they failed to do so. This is just a small indication for the influence that gravity has on the life process.

Or that someone dropped them on the way from the shuttle bay... There have been lots of interesting experiments along these lines, with hit or miss results, and its not like its easy to repeat the experiments! Certainly when you take a lifeform out of its environment, its going to have to do some adapting, and if we're looking for experiments that show evolutionary changes, creating new species in space actually makes a lot of sense because "lack of gravity" is a *major* environmental change that would leave those genes desperately seeking interesting adaptations to test, and would be severe enough to kill off the old dominant genes in a relatively small number of generations....

 

Vedddy interestink,

Buffy

[infamous]

 

I just continue to ask you back, whether you're going in a direction I'm not seeing with our universe "being thermodynamically open". You mean something like it takes 5 seconds to empty the gas can into the fuel cell? What do *you* think that means?

 

 

I really wouldn't know anything about how long it may have taken for this proverbial gas tank to get filled. Time is afterall somewhat difficult to define under these conditions. We have a few members here that are constantly arguing the proposition for the existence of absolute frame of reference. If I understand this concept properly, according to what the best minds have to say about it, there is no absolute frame of reference. Therefore, time as we understand it's passage may have done some very unusual things at the moment of the big bang. I'm not equipped with enough knowledge to define time during this epoch, as a matter of fact, I'm not sure anyone can. Never-the-less, enough ??Time??, passed for the big bang to initiate. At what point after this thermondynamic closure took place, I don't have a clue.

[Guadalupe]

Hi infamous. For some time I've been wondering about what evolution is really all about. So, after some years of research, I believe I have found something that may shed some light on the subject on "Evolution". Below are my findings and I hope it may help in some small way.

 

I call it, "Law of Evolution".

 

The Law of Evolution states: “Nothing created can naturally evolve”. This Law of Evolution is about having a better understanding on the foundation in the origin of evolution. Meaning that, all things created, can only evolve by a process of outside modification to alter the original design from which it was created. Without this process, all things created, in their original design, will forever remain constant in their natural order.

 

:)

[infamous]

“Nothing created can naturally evolve”.

 

:)

When You use the word naturally I'm assuming you mean 'without external influence'. To this I would agree, this is why I list these five influences as factors in the process of evolution.

 

#1. Entropy

#2. Complexity

#3. Equilibrium

#4. Life force, 'by this I mean the influence of external activity by other living forms'

#5. Gravity

 

I'm sure that many could easily add to this list, however, I am trying to condense the scope of responsable factors to narrow the focus of our attention. In this manner we may find a better understanding for the results we observe in nature?

[Guadalupe]

Hi! infamous.

 

Yes! I guess you could say, 'without external influence'. You see infamous, by definition, "Evolution", is classified as an alien to the natural order of creation. Evolution, is not a natural process, of any kind, to where creation can evolve by itself, regardless of the time frame. Evolution, is the invader that alters, the original design of creation, by a process of outside modification.

 

Your list of factors, is a great start on the right direction. :)

 

This strongly suggest that creation came first before evolution.

 

:)

[questor]

my conception of the theory of evolution is that organisms undergo spontaneous genetic

change to respond to enviromental stimuli. does this demonstrate the genes ''sense''

when a change is necessary? does this mean the genes actually ''think'' ? how else can this phenomenon occur ? especially in human beings with no predation and no temperature extremes that clothing or artificial temperature control can't handle.

[Guadalupe]

my conception of the theory of evolution is that organisms undergo spontaneous genetic

change to respond to enviromental stimuli. does this demonstrate the genes ''sense''

when a change is necessary? does this mean the genes actually ''think'' ? how else can this phenomenon occur ? especially in human beings with no predation and no temperature extremes that clothing or artificial temperature control can't handle.

 

 

Hi! questor.

 

Creation, such as humans, animals, insects, etc, are able to adapt to the enviroment. This does not mean that they evolve.

 

Creation alone, in its original design, can’t evolve from within itself. This is where “evolution” comes into play, by inducing outside modifications, known as factors, natural selection, etc, so as to alter the original design of creation.

 

:)

[infamous]

my conception of the theory of evolution is that organisms undergo spontaneous genetic

change to respond to enviromental stimuli. does this demonstrate the genes ''sense''

when a change is necessary? does this mean the genes actually ''think'' ?

That is a fair question questor; There are theories floating around today that suggest that there exists what is called quantum consciousness. These theories suggest that even the smallest of the subatomic particles such as the electrons and even quarks demonstrate a degree of consciousness.

 

Check out this link:

 

http://www.thymos.com/science/qc.html

[questor]

Infamous, would you give a simple definition and describe how you think these factors could influence evolution? entropy seems to have several definitions. what type equilibrium ? the ear type or the universe type? thanks

[infamous]

Infamous, would you give a simple definition and describe how you think these factors could influence evolution? entropy seems to have several definitions. what type equilibrium ? the ear type or the universe type? thanks

Yes, I will try to make a few connections regarding these factors for you but let me first say, that I'm also very interested in the feedback from all of the membership here at Hypography. My intent when starting this thread was to gain understanding and new ideas from the rest of you folks, not neccessarily to preach my own views. In any case, following is a short list of a few connections that I believe are pertinent to the question you ask.

 

Equilibrium: Any of you folks that are familiar with chemical processes will undoubtedly recognize the relative connection between this factor and evolution. When compounds are formed, whether in the lab or naturally in the enviornment, there are standards for predicting the outcome of the reactions. However, when dealing with the organic, the results of these reactions can become very difficult to predict. Never-the-less, the chemical equilibrium that these reactions seek will find it's way to completion. I therefore believe that this search for equilibrium that the chemical reactions take influences evolution.

 

Life force: When I use this term 'Life force', I'm referring to the influence that another organism might have on the evolution of said species. An example would be how the presence of an unfamiliar bacteria in the body of the host could lead to cell mutations resulting in a change in it's evolutationary path.

 

Complexity: These last three factors become more difficult for me to prove connectivity. So I will only suggest that I believe them to be factors without any positive evidence at my disposal. With regard to complexity, the law of probability suggests that if it can happen, it will, Murphy's Law by another name. For this reason I believe the complexity of quantum physics demands that change will take place. I therefore include complexity into the formula.

 

Gravity: The first point is well understood, the gravity of this planet earth demands a certain physical structure of the creatures that inhabit it's surface. Likewise, if life exists on Jupiter, the intense gravity of this planet will require a much different structure. A structure that would, no doubt, be much more robust. Along with these issues, I believe that gravity will influence developemental evolution in ways we can only imagine. Because it is ever present and constantly having known, and as yet, unknown effects upon natural selection.

 

Entropy: This is the tough one. Let me just say that, the reason I believe that entropy influences evolution is because; Entropy like time has built into it's character the essence of direction. And for me at least, the character of direction is the 'mind', for the lack of a better word, of evolution. Direction is the mind of evolution.

[Edge]

Okay, I'm not attacking evolution exactly, I do say that I don't totally believe in it.

 

Now, I don't know if you have seen this before, but apparently evolution does violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

 

An "open system" is a thermodynamic system in which energy and matter flow in and out. Evolutionists hold that the world is an open system: that it is constantly exposed to an energy flow from the sun, that the law of entropy does not apply to the world as a whole, and that ordered, complex living beings can be generated from disordered, simple, and inanimate structures.

 

However, there is an obvious distortion here. The fact that a system has an energy inflow is not enough to make that system ordered. Specific mechanisms are needed to make the energy functional.

 

The same thing applies in the case of life as well. It is true that life derives its energy from the sun. However, solar energy can only be converted into chemical energy by the incredibly complex energy conversion systems in living things (such as photosynthesis in plants and the digestive systems of humans and animals).

 

Indeed, the real problem confronting evolutionists is the question of how complex energy-converting mechanisms such as photosynthesis in plants, which cannot be duplicated even with modern technology, could have come into being on their own.

The influx of solar energy into the world would be unable to bring about order on its own. Moreover, no matter how high the temperature may become, amino acids resist forming bonds in ordered sequences. Energy by itself is incapable of making amino acids form the much more complex molecules of proteins, or of making proteins form the much more complex and organized structures of cell organelles.

 

I know it was something long to read, but according to this, the earth needs a energy convertion process to make evolution still valid. Too much time without no living being using the sun's energy can not mean on a order.

 

From here: http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/thermodynamics_01.html

 

Yeah, I know it's biased, but being biased does not mean being wrong. Besides the site uses scientific evidence and does not mention anything religious.

 

Anyway, my question is: are these claims true? possibly true? If not, where are the errors or fallacies in here?

 

Not attacking evolution, just making a question about it...