Login

Join for Free!
118342 members


Thermodynamics vs. Evolution

Discussion of everything related to the Theory of Evolution.

Moderator: BioTeam

Thermodynamics vs. Evolution

Postby Noumenalist » Wed Apr 04, 2007 12:26 am

As many of you probably know, there seems to be an enormous and insurmountable paradox between evolution and the second law of thermodynamics, principally, "increasing entropy."

After some research, the refute from evolutionists seems to be that the second law only applies to "closed systems," in that matter and energy cannot enter or leave the system, and evolution as we know it happened in an "open system," where readily availible energy is supplied by the sun.

On the contrary, i'm under the influence that the sun actually seems to increase entropy, not decrease it like the "open system" of evolution requires. Am I wrong about this? I'm sure you can see simple examples of it everyday! (i.e. a carcass rotting in the sun, essentially, faster and wood becomes brittle exposed to the sun long enough)

I'd like some feedback as to what many have to say about this! We can't just simply overthrow a fundamental part of accepted science, as well as the scientific method.

Thanks!
Noumenalist
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 7
Joined: Wed Apr 04, 2007 12:13 am

Postby mith » Wed Apr 04, 2007 1:34 am

Do you know what entropy is? Do you know why a carcass rots? Do you know what rotting is?
Living one day at a time;
Enjoying one moment at a time;
Accepting hardships as the pathway to peace;
~Niebuhr
User avatar
mith
Inland Taipan
Inland Taipan
 
Posts: 5345
Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2005 8:14 pm
Location: Nashville, TN

Postby Noumenalist » Wed Apr 04, 2007 1:54 am

It doesn't take a genius. Entropy, essentially, is:

Any, and every system, left to it's own, always moves from order to disorder and it's energy is transformed into lower levels of availability, eventually becoming totally random and unavailable for work. It's the measure of energy unavailable within the system, and the probability of it's distribution of randomness.

As for "rotting," I don't need to know the biological specifics, because it's not necessary at this point. It's intuitive to know that when organisms die, it results in a natural increase in entropy...The real question is, do YOU know what entropy is? It's obviously within direct conflict with evolution:

within the midst of " spontaenously self-assembled molecules," a vast and complex (key word) act of self-assembly took place, producing the first self-replicating molecule. If this doesn't defy the second law, I don't know what does. Understanding something's origin is entirely different than understanding something's everyday functionality.

So, mith, do you know what the second law states? and what evolution states? Surely you do...So, again, I ask for opinions on THIS, not questions to implore my knowledge on something insignificant in the large scheme of what I'm asking, like how exactly something rotts. Either way, a decrease in entropy is seen, regardless of "how" or "why." I'm merely stating that solar energy speeds up the natural processes that govern increasing entropy.
Noumenalist
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 7
Joined: Wed Apr 04, 2007 12:13 am


Postby mith » Wed Apr 04, 2007 2:40 am

Of course knowing rotting isn't insignificant lol, do you know where organic matter rots the fastest? The rainforest. However, the layers of vegetation ensure that very little sunlight actually reaches the ground. Hmm...and by your claim, things should rot fastest in the desert or maybe in snowy regions where there's a lot of sunlight.
Living one day at a time;
Enjoying one moment at a time;
Accepting hardships as the pathway to peace;
~Niebuhr
User avatar
mith
Inland Taipan
Inland Taipan
 
Posts: 5345
Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2005 8:14 pm
Location: Nashville, TN

Postby Noumenalist » Wed Apr 04, 2007 3:02 am

Okay, so, how does sunlight NOT speed up natural processes? It definitely does something, even if it's effects are miniscule. The bottom line is that there is no evidence that shows sunlight decreases entropy by providing available energy...nor is there evidence that shows it doesn't interfere with the closed system.

but again, this seems to be of little importance to main predicament:

Evolution requires a decrease in entropy, while the second law states there must be an ever increasing entropy in a closed system, yet there lacks clear evidence that shows evolution is an "exception" because it is an open system.
Noumenalist
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 7
Joined: Wed Apr 04, 2007 12:13 am

Postby mith » Wed Apr 04, 2007 3:49 am

Noumenalist wrote:The bottom line is that there is no evidence that shows sunlight decreases entropy by providing available energy...nor is there evidence that shows it doesn't interfere with the closed system.


Hmm, I wonder how solar panels work...oh wait better yet don't plants use sunlight to create glucose? Surely if you know your entropy that's a vast decrease in entropy when a gas(CO2) and a liquid(H2O) turn into a solid.

I'll only say this one last time, figure out how rotting works.
Living one day at a time;
Enjoying one moment at a time;
Accepting hardships as the pathway to peace;
~Niebuhr
User avatar
mith
Inland Taipan
Inland Taipan
 
Posts: 5345
Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2005 8:14 pm
Location: Nashville, TN

Postby Noumenalist » Wed Apr 04, 2007 4:36 am

hahahahaha. That's like saying the formation of a snowflake demonstrates a decrease in entropy! I'll start with a quote:

“...there are no known violations of the second law of thermodynamics. Ordinarily the second law is stated for isolated [closed] systems, but the second law applies equally well to open systems ... there is somehow associated with the field of far-from equilibrium phenomena the notion that the second law of thermodynamics fails for such systems. It is important to make sure that this error does not perpetuate itself.”
[Dr. John Ross, Harvard scientist (evolutionist), Chemical and Engineering News, vol. 58, July 7, 1980, p. 40]

The apparent increase in organized complexity in biological systems requires 2 things:

1. information to direct the growth of organized complexity
2. a mechanism for storing and converting the incoming energy

The information is analogous to DNA, and the latter is analogous to Photosynthesis and metabolism in organisms..So we see that living things seem to “violate” the second law because they have information and energy conversion mechanisms that allow them to build up and maintain their physical structures “in spite of” the second law’s effects (which ultimately do prevail, as each organism eventually deteriorates and dies).

While this explains how living organisms may grow and thrive, thanks in part to the earth’s “open-system” biosphere, it does not offer any solution to the question of how life could spontaneously begin this process in the absence of the information directions and energy conversion mechanisms described above—nor how a simple living organism might produce the additional new program directions and alternative energy conversion mechanisms required in order for biological evolution to occur, producing the vast spectrum of biological variety and complexity observed by man.

Food for thought: In the large scheme of things, entropy is still increasing...for example, an old lady gets a face lift, but does that stop the aging process? My car gets a bit rusty so I get a new paint job...does that make my car in any better condition than it was before?

Again, I'm going to this one more time: I'm looking for opinions to the the statements made above. I could really care less about rotting. There are larger obstacles. You tell me something about origin, and the case is closed. As I said before, learning how something originated is completely different from learning how something works day-to-day. Photosynthesis and solar panels are merely energy conversion mechanisms that don't explain the origin and continuation of increasing entropy.
Noumenalist
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 7
Joined: Wed Apr 04, 2007 12:13 am

Postby mith » Wed Apr 04, 2007 5:17 am

Noumenalist wrote:hahahahaha. That's like saying the formation of a snowflake demonstrates a decrease in entropy!


It doesn't?!!

http://www.holysmoke.org/thermo.htm

scroll to the bottom.

Btw, you should check out how the glucose reaction works and compare it to snowflake formation.
Living one day at a time;
Enjoying one moment at a time;
Accepting hardships as the pathway to peace;
~Niebuhr
User avatar
mith
Inland Taipan
Inland Taipan
 
Posts: 5345
Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2005 8:14 pm
Location: Nashville, TN

Postby narrowstaircase » Wed Apr 04, 2007 7:29 am

Noumenalist wrote:As many of you probably know, there seems to be an enormous and insurmountable paradox between evolution and the second law of thermodynamics, principally, "increasing entropy."

After some research, the refute from evolutionists seems to be that the second law only applies to "closed systems," in that matter and energy cannot enter or leave the system, and evolution as we know it happened in an "open system," where readily availible energy is supplied by the sun.

On the contrary, i'm under the influence that the sun actually seems to increase entropy, not decrease it like the "open system" of evolution requires. Am I wrong about this? I'm sure you can see simple examples of it everyday! (i.e. a carcass rotting in the sun, essentially, faster and wood becomes brittle exposed to the sun long enough)

I'd like some feedback as to what many have to say about this! We can't just simply overthrow a fundamental part of accepted science, as well as the scientific method.

Thanks!


there are four laws of thermodynamics. one doesnt invalidate any other. Ilye Prigogene (a chemist not an evolutionist) was awarded the nobel prize in 1977 for proving the second path to the second law of thermodynamics (negative entropy). the two paths dont invalidate eachother. they describe how matter behaves in different systems.

[dont say things like "i am under the influence" when trying to communicate your ideas. it sounds like youve been brainwashed.]

ok so you propose an idea that sunlight doesnt actually drive systems but helps break them down. the evidence you provide is a carcass rotting in the sun (supposedly faster than in the shade - do you have a reference for this ? or did you do the experiment yourself ? in which case i would like to see the stats). and branches that dry out in the sun. this is very poor evidence. infact its no evidence at all. can you ellaborate on these?

you also shouldnt provide decay as evidence then withdraw its relevance (without acknowledging the mistake) when someone else explains that it doesnt back your model up. how is your model effected by the fact that decay occurrs quicker in forests under minimal light (as stated by mith who can reference it if you want it)?

- systems. (i include these definitions simply for reference to what im talking about. i think there are two ways of defining systems so im using this one.)

isolated = the universe (no energy/matter exchange)
closed = Earth (no matter exchange. does have energy exchange)
open = all systems on earth (both matter and energy exchange)

"...there are no known violations of the second law of thermodynamics. Ordinarily the second law is stated for isolated [closed] systems, but the second law applies equally well to open systems ... there is somehow associated with the field of far-from equilibrium phenomena the notion that the second law of thermodynamics fails for such systems. It is important to make sure that this error does not perpetuate itself.”
[Dr. John Ross, Harvard scientist (evolutionist), Chemical and Engineering News, vol. 58, July 7, 1980, p. 40]"


- this quote you provide as well as in your subsequesnt examples you are giving open systems (person aging / metal rusting) as evidence for your idea as it relates to a closed system (earth). they are different functioning systems. their behaviour has been accounted for by the two paths of the second law of thermodynamics. entropy axplains the death of an individual on earth, negative-entropy explains the continuance of information-associations (DNA) on earth. when i die, do all humans die? no. the idea continues. we as individuals are open systems within the closed system of earth. we are under the influence of other systems around us as well as the systems above us therefore we are under the influence of entropy. earth is influenced by no other systems because it sits in isolation in space, except for the sun where only energy is an input. so the entropy occurring on earth resulting in lost energy is made up for (and beyond), by the energy coming fom the sun. which is why it functions differently as a whole and tends towards more complexity.

"it does not offer any solution to the question of how life could spontaneously begin this process in the absence of the information directions and energy conversion mechanisms..."

- this is a dichotomy. life is the information directions and conversion mechanisms. when matter began to use these functions it became life. you cant ask for an example of life without them. it doesnt make sense. so is it right to change your question to "what is the origin of life?". or do you disagree that that is your actual question?

"Photosynthesis and solar panels are merely energy conversion mechanisms that don't explain the origin and continuation of increasing entropy."

- you make it a premise that entropy is increasing on earth when we see that it isnt. and what are the origins of the laws of physics? /brainexplosion. maybe the laws of physics are god.
"Oh wearisome Condition of Humanity! Borne under one law, to another bound: Vainley begot, and yet forbidden vanity, Created sicke, commanded to be sound: What meaneth nature by these diverse lawes? Passion and Reason, selfe-division cause."
narrowstaircase
Death Adder
Death Adder
 
Posts: 74
Joined: Sat Oct 28, 2006 9:53 am
Location: gold coast, Australia

Postby mith » Wed Apr 04, 2007 2:42 pm

lemme be the devils advocate again, lets change sun to giant laser cannon. If you shoot the giant laser cannon into the tree it's going to vaporize-- obviously an increase in entropy right? Heck if you shoot the giant laser cannon into anything it vaporizes(except maybe a giant mirror). Conclusion adding energy into anything causes more entropy.
Living one day at a time;
Enjoying one moment at a time;
Accepting hardships as the pathway to peace;
~Niebuhr
User avatar
mith
Inland Taipan
Inland Taipan
 
Posts: 5345
Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2005 8:14 pm
Location: Nashville, TN

Postby Darby » Wed Apr 04, 2007 2:54 pm

Energy fed into a system can act as activation energy for molecular assembly - under current theory, hot organics in hydrothermal vents served this function with the first self-assembling molecules. It does this in hydrothermal vents even today - that's a complex soup bubbling out of those smokers.

Light is a trickier input to convert to activation energy, and probably was derived from a combination of chemosynthesis at hydrothermal vents and light absorption / sensing keyed to the "glow" they produce. There are very simple prokaryotic algae that do use hydrothermal glow as an energy source for their photosynthesis.
Darby
Viper
Viper
 
Posts: 1262
Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2006 5:29 pm
Location: New York, USA

Postby robertkernodle » Sun Apr 29, 2007 6:25 pm

.
Here's a wild-hair idea:

There is no such thing as disorder to begin with.

The ability to do work is only a human perception, whose absence is ignorance.

IGNORANCE = ENTROPY.

Robert Kernodle
robertkernodle
Death Adder
Death Adder
 
Posts: 83
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2007 5:14 pm

Next

Return to Evolution

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests