Evolution and the 2nd Law

Actually the 2nd Law applies to any closed system (where all energy remains accounted for). That includes the sun, earth, and the space into which earth radiates.

Taking the earth by itself, entropy could decrease (i.e. the number of possible states could theoretically decrease). But I don't think anyone seriously believes that is the case. Local negentropy occurs in relevant locations (those that manage future states of local systems.) That's all we need.
 
About the sun transferring energy instead of heat, According to most biology books the earth was a barren wasteland with a hostile atomosphere when the first amino acids just happened to bounce into one another and create life. This is just not possible and let me tell you why. The ultraviolet light coming from the sun is deadly and destructive, certainly not constructive the way that it would have to be to be in accordance with the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Thus life is only possible because of the ozone layer which prevents UV light from reaching the earth and because of the existence of photosynthesis of green plants, neither of which would have existed on a hypothetical primitive earth.

The Analogy about the computer works because there is a guiding program (the user) and energy conservation mechanisms (power supply ,transistors, etc.)

About mutations, if that was the case then there should be instances where useful genetic information is gained through mutations in our simplest organisms (IE bacteria, Viruses) however there is not one example.
 
BlackJackle : Are you really serious about wanting to learn about this, or are you just a young-earth creationist who likes to argue with people?

I just explained to you (in pretty good detail, I think) why the second law of thermodynamics doesn't have anything to do with the 'complexity' of a system in the way that you're using the term complexity. You seem to think that the second law of thermodynamics prohibits the spontaneous formation of complex molecular structures, but that isn't the case. Remember, in thermodynamics 'complexity' is just an analogy for the possible locations and kinetic energy of all the particles in a system. The second law of thermodynamics has nothing to do with the kind of complexity that you're talking about.
 
DNA is thought to have come about before amino acids in life by some theories; in any case, there are and have always been parts of the Earth that are not exposed to the Sun, like deep underwater.

Bacteria gain genetic information that is useful to themselves through mutation all the time. That's how we get bacteria that eat through the windows of space stations.
 
BlackJackal,
It looks to me like you've been studying the creationist slant on evolution and thermodynamics. Your posts are full of references to a "guiding program", which has nothing to do with the Second Law.

There are a number of other "telltales" (scientists are "trying to prove" evolution, ______ has never been observed, etc.).

For every creationist site on the Net, there are two others that refute every argument, including the "evolution violates the Second Law" argument.
Please do some research on non-creationist sites.
 
Blackjackal said:
the main point to me is that evolutionists argue that local order can increase just because the earth is an open system which is not a complete argument.
Click to expand...

Evolutionists don't say "local order can increase just because the earth is an open system", they say that "evolution doesn't break the second law of thermodynamics because the earth is an open system". Sounds like a strawman to me.

Blackjackal said:
Just to say that evolution can overcome the 2nd Law is not enough it has to be observed but the only thing that has ever been observed is deletions.
Click to expand...

The fact that evolution doesn't break the second law of thermodynamics has never been used as evidence for evolution. The 2nd law has only been used against the theory of evolution by creationists who don't understand it. As you said yourself in your first post "It violates the second law of thermodynamics". No one says "evolution doesn't break the 2nd law so it must be true!"

Blackjackal said:
Not one mutation has ever been found to add more information to a genome.
Click to expand...

Sometimes extra copies are made which can become useful over time. The fact that we can tell red from green is thought to have occured in this way, which would explain why these two genes are right next to each other while the one for the blue receptor is not.
 
BTW, I don't think he thinks it violates the second law anymore. After Nasor's post he seemed to be more concerned about other things.
 
BlackJackal:

You are wrong on many counts.

Even today, Scientists study mutations to help prove evolution but every mutation ever observed is mostly harmful, sometimes neutral, rarely beneficial but always deletrious.
Click to expand...

Scientists do not study mutations to prove evolution. Evolution is an established fact which underpins all research in biology.

Contrary to what you say, most mutations are neutral, not harmful. Some are beneficial, as you say, and others are harmful. Natural selection selects for the beneficial ones and weeds out the harmful ones.

Not one mutation has ever been found to add more information to a genome.
Click to expand...

Many mutations add information to the genome. Richard Dawkins has completely refuted this creationist chestnut.

Just to say that evolution can overcome the 2nd Law is not enough it has to be observed but the only thing that has ever been observed is deletions.
Click to expand...

That is wrong.

Also about making the sandwich argument. We are the guiding program making the more complex and ordered materials such as sandwichs, computers, etc. However if you throw your computer out the window, its not going to put itself back together again.
Click to expand...

But how can we make a sandwich? That would require creating order out of chaos, and you say the second law of thermodynamics doesn't allow that. Looks like its no more sandwiches for us!
 
But how can we make a sandwich? That would require creating order out of chaos, and you say the second law of thermodynamics doesn't allow that. Looks like its no more sandwiches for us!

I suspect that is the ultimate point of his argument. There has to be a willful power manipulating things such that the sandwich is made. There has to be someone or something using an 'intelligent design' to order the materials into a sandwich, circumventing the second law of thermodynamics (if it applied to large objects).

Of course that argument has little to do with evolution.
 
The Second Law of Thermodynamics applies to the fundamental possibility of a sandwich being made. It says nothing about "how" the sandwich is made or "who" made it.
If the Second Law of Thermodynamics was invalid, even "God" couldn't make a sandwich.
 
sideshowbob is correct. Having an "intelligent designer" for your sandwich doesn't get you around the laws of thermodynamics. They must always apply.
 
The second law of thermodynamics is only to do with heat (Thermo = heat).

Heat is just the measure of the average velocity of the atoms (The faster the atoms whiz around, the harder they hit other atoms, so the hotter they are).

All the law is saying is that if you put a hot item in with a cold item, they both end up the same temperature (lukewarm).

I have no idea why anybody talks about information. There is no information.

As for Entropy, I would have though that starting with a variety of different heat sources which then all merge into one, is disorder into order (yes I know what they really mean).

All of this has nothing to do with chemistry, biology or life.
 
Argument about UV radiation assumes that life originated in the atmosphere, and not underwater. (bad assumption). Underwater development (possibly SO2 based)-> ozone layer -> life in the atmosphere.

Mechanical processes do not need programming. They merely need to behave periodically and reliably for a long enough period for some other process to take advantage of their output.

Programming assumes a predefined function, but opportunism merely includes anything that systematically garners resources that increase its ability to garner resources.
 
Igor:

Perhaps you should find out what you're talking about before you make definite statements about it.

The second law of thermodynamics is only to do with heat (Thermo = heat).
Click to expand...

Fundamentally, the 2nd law is about entropy, not heat.

Heat is just the measure of the average velocity of the atoms (The faster the atoms whiz around, the harder they hit other atoms, so the hotter they are).
Click to expand...

That's not heat, that's temperature, which is a different thing. Do you know the difference?

I have no idea why anybody talks about information. There is no information.
Click to expand...

Have you ever heard of statistical mechanics, and in particular the statistical definition of entropy?

As for Entropy, I would have though that starting with a variety of different heat sources which then all merge into one, is disorder into order (yes I know what they really mean).
Click to expand...

Entropy is a very specific kind of measure, rather than a vague notion of order and disorder.

All of this has nothing to do with chemistry, biology or life.
Click to expand...

The laws of thermodynamics apply to life, chemistry and biology, just like they do to everything else.
 
James R said:
The laws of thermodynamics apply to life, chemistry and biology, just like they do to everything else.
Click to expand...

Be that as it may, it is apparent that this Jackal character is using thermodynamics as an argument against life, life's origins, and life's evolution, and clearly this is an invalid argument.

If Jackal thinks that the second law of thermodynamics contradicts the natural phenomena of life, wouldn't it be more appropriate to say that since life exists, and that this life had some natural origin, and since that origin, life has evolved into many diverse forms, then the second law of thermodynamics doesn't exist the way he thinks it does, or if it does, then it doesn't apply to life?

It's obvious that Jackal is a creationist trying to stir up some old creationists arguments against the evolution of life, by lying and misleading the general public, which is a sin, by the way Jackal, and very un-Christian.

"By their actions shall ye know them!"

Have fun burning in Hell!
 
Nasor said:
This term W is sometimes referred to as a measure of 'disorder' or 'complexity' because a substance with a high W would have many possible positions and velocities for its particles, which would make it more 'disordered' or 'complex'. The main thing to notice here is that W only relates to the phase and energy of the particles in the system. It doesn't really have anything to do with complexity in the sense that we normally think of complexity, ie. a finished building being more complex than a random pile of concrete and steel.
Click to expand...

In the "W" sense of complexity, could something that we consider complex not be as complex as something we consider simple. Like, could a campfire be considered more complex than a microprocessor or possibly something else that has more order?
 
BlackJackal said:
I have studied evolution for some time now......
Click to expand...

It always cracks me up when people say this before weaving a creationist fog. In response I always ask to what level of college education they studied evolution and what their specific subjects were. Funnily enough, they never respond, as most of the time their “study” of evolution constitutes nothing more than looking through Answersingenesis.com :bugeye:

So, BlackJackal, may I ask what evolution subjects you studied to get your B.S.? In what physics subjects did you study thermodynamics? :rolleyes:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top