0
   

Don't tell me there's any proof for creationism.

 
 
xingu
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Nov, 2007 02:17 pm
Does evolution contradict the second law of thermodynamics?
I probably won't get an answer to this one..... but entropy says the universe is breaking down... evolution says the universe is getting better! Please explain this.

This idea has been put forward by many people to try to prove that evolution is impossible. However, it is based on a flawed understanding of the second law of thermodynamics, and in fact, the theory of evolution does not contradict any known laws of physics.

The second law of thermodynamics simply says that the entropy of a closed system will tend to increase with time. "Entropy" is a technical term with a precise physical definition, but for most purposes it is okay to think of it as equivalent to "disorder". Therefore, the second law of thermodynamics basically says that the universe as a whole gets more disordered and random as time goes on.

However, the most important part of the second law of thermodynamics is that it only applies to a closed system - one that does not have anything going in or out of it. There is nothing about the second law that prevents one part of a closed system from getting more ordered, as long as another part of the system is getting more disordered.

There are many examples from everyday life that prove it is possible to create order! For example, you'd certainly agree that a person is capable of taking a pile of wood and nails and constructing a building out of it. The wood and nails have become more ordered, but in doing the work required to make the building, the person has generated heat which goes into increasing the overall entropy of the universe.

Or, if you prefer an example that doesn't require conscious human intervention, consider what happens when the weather changes and it gets colder outside. Cold air has less entropy than warm air - basically, it is more "ordered" because the molecules aren't moving around as much and have fewer places they can be. So the entropy in your local part of the universe has decreased, but as long as that is accompanied by an increase in entropy somewhere else, the second law of thermodynamics has not been violated.

That's the general picture - nature is capable of generating order out of disorder on a local level without violating the second law of thermodynamics, and that is all that evolution requires.

The idea of evolution is simply that random genetic mutations will occasionally occur that lead an individual organism to have some trait that is different from that of its predecessors. Now, it is true that these mutations, being random, would probably tend to increase the "entropy" of the population as a whole if they occurred in isolation (i.e., in a closed system). That is, most of the mutations will create individual organisms that are less "ordered" (i.e., less complex) and only some will create individual organisms that are more complex, so overall, the complexity goes down.

However, evolution does not take place in a closed system, but rather requires the existence of outside forces - i.e., natural selection. The idea is that there can be some environmental effect that makes organisms with a particular mutation (one that makes them more "complex") more likely to survive and pass their genes on to the next generation. Thus, as generations go by, the gene pool of the species can get more and more complex, but notice that this can only occur if the gene pool interacts with the outside world. It is through the course of that interaction that some other form of entropy (or disorder) will be generated that increases the entropy of the universe as a whole.

If the above is too esoteric, consider a simple analogy: a poker tournament. In poker, good hands are less likely to be dealt than bad ones - for example, the odds of getting three of a kind are much less than the odds of getting two of a kind. So in a poker tournament, most people will be dealt bad hands and only a few will be lucky enough to be dealt good hands. But it is the people with good hands who will be more likely to win and "survive" to the next round. So the "outside forces" (in this case, the rules of poker) acting on a random distribution (all the poker hands that were dealt) will tend to select out the best, least likely ones.

For further information, the Talk.Origins website has an extensive discussion about the evolution/thermodynamics controversy.
http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=441
0 Replies
 
TheCorrectResponse
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Nov, 2007 03:15 pm
RL posts:
Quote:

TheCorrectResponse wrote:


you on the other hand know more about geology than the geologists, more about biology than the biologists, more about ecology that the ecologists, more about chemistry than the chemists, more about physics that the physicists, more about astronomy than the astronomers, and more about religion and the mind of God than anyone on this site.....


Quote:

Again, where did I state or imply this?
Quote:

No, I'm just playing the A2K game. But just to show you I can play the game and still be a man about it...you can take this as my response. I accept the standard theory in every field of science. I have real knowledge in only 2 or 3 (chem, physics, astronomy, and computer science if you want to count that as a field of science) and an interested by-stander understanding in the others but even in those I will accept their standard theories. When they change with new data or modify the old standard theories or create new ones I will accept them too.

You may find this a weakness to joke about. I think it the strength of science.

To which you replied:

Quote:

OK. So you simply follow the crowd.
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Nov, 2007 04:19 pm
real life wrote:
Again , my position (for those who joined us late) is that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics applies to the entire physical universe. That is why it is a law.

Evolutionists who say 'evolution doesn't violate the 2nd Law, because the earth is an OPEN system. it receives abundant energy input from the sun. the 2nd Law ONLY applies to closed systems' have a problem.

They cannot name any naturally occurring closed systems to which the 2nd Law would apply using their own misapplied definition.

I feel like this is my fault.

Poor RL, by telling you (many threads ago) that the SLT only applies to closed systems, I have inadvertently jiggered up your already miniscule understanding of physics.

I'm so sorry. If I had known that you were going to treat one simple sentence in a conversation as the scientific definition of the SLT, I would have made up something far more ridiculous for you to latch onto. Smile

Now that we've clarified that the SLT applies to everything, and that Earth is an open system which, according to the SLT, does NOT inhibit evolution, can we move on?
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Nov, 2007 04:33 pm
TheCorrectResponse wrote:


Maybe you should think of another way to understand it and not make poor assumptions.

I don't care how much expertise someone says they have -- if their reaction to someone who questions the status quo is defensive or based on ad homs , then I know that they are feeding me opinions, not facts. They probably know it too.

If you can't defend what you think on an adult level, then it deserves suspicion.

With rare exception, evolutionists (on this board and elsewhere) don't handle dissent well.

And if you tell me you accept uncritically what experts in other fields think, then I gotta wonder where your curiosity has gone.

A classic case is the evolutionary response to questions about SLT. I didn't just makeup the exchange I quoted. I have had that conversation on many occasions, even with members of this community.

Now if an evolutionist defines the earth as an 'open system' based on the sun pouring energy into it on a continual basis, I don't mind calling them on it by asking what WOULD BE a closed system? To what would SLT apply if nothing that is open to energy from the outside qualifies? (You have asked the same question yourself.)

I point out that THEY are the ones who have misapplied the terms and definitions relating to SLT. I didn't make up the definition that they mangled. I just call 'em on it.

Contrary to what you think, I am not blowing off FM or anyone. But that doesn't mean I give 'em a pass either.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Nov, 2007 04:46 pm
real life wrote:


If you can't defend what you think on an adult level, then it deserves suspicion.


There you have it folks. Even real life thinks he deserves suspicion because he hasn't told us why the math is wrong when it proves that evolution doesn't violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

You made the claim that evolution violates the 2nd law.
I posted a mathematical proof that shows it does NOT violate the 2nd law.
Your response was not an adult one of showing how the math was wrong.

Your response as been to avoid the math and make claims about how "evolutionists" say it only applies to closed systems. Then you avoid the definition of the term "evolutionist" when I say I am an evolutionist. I think we can all agree that you have been unable to defend what you think on an adult level therefor you deserve suspicion.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Nov, 2007 04:50 pm
Quote:
Contrary to what you think, I am not blowing off FM or anyone. But that doesn't mean I give 'em a pass either.


You are just refusing to address any of the scientific issues that we raise.

When you tell us where the math is wrong in the proof that shows evolution doesn't violate the 2nd law THEN you can maybe you claim you aren't "blowing anyone off." Until you do provide your evidence I don't think you can make such a claim with a straight face.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Nov, 2007 05:50 am
rl
Quote:
if you tell me you accept uncritically what experts in other fields think, then I gotta wonder where your curiosity has gone.



If we take RL's way as an approach to education, wed have to reinvent all the principles of the sciences with every generation.RL, youre not submitting to "curiosity" youre, instead , avictim of effortless dogma.

Ive been reviewing work by a geochemist whose been studying the episodic eruptions at Yellowstone. All her data involves stable and radioisotopes that are attempting to explain the mechanisms of this complex caldera system and, ultimately, act as an "early warning" for a potentially catastrophic volcanic system that could (and has) turn most of the US into a brief wasteland. Her data is quite compelling based upon zircons that are older than the tuff rock in which they reside, or the stable isotope ratios that occur in basalt deposits which overlie glacial moraines.

We have an analog system going on in my project site in ARgentina and were using her approaches to focus in on our work (which is more mineral resource centered)

If I were to deny the previous work available to me , including disparate views of ho older zircons get inserted into later tuffs, Id be back at an impossible starting gate. Just to satisfy some quaint reliance on Biblical inerrancy.
When you invoke the rule to "QUESTION EVERYTHING"
Why is it that you dont start with the Bible's interpretive science..

I have a good idea why not Cool
0 Replies
 
USAFHokie80
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Nov, 2007 10:18 pm
maybe i missed something... but... how does the 2nd law ONLY apply to closed systems ? i'm not aware of that rule.
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Nov, 2007 10:41 pm
USAFHokie80 wrote:
maybe i missed something... but... how does the 2nd law ONLY apply to closed systems ? i'm not aware of that rule.

It doesn't.

RL is intentionally misinterpreting the standard answer to why evolution is not in violation of the SLT, and using the inaccuracy of the common vernacular to create what appears to be any oxymoron.

Usually when someone says something stupid like, "evolution is in conflict with the SLT", someone else will immediately point out that the Earth is not a closed system, and then unfortunately, they will add, "therefor the SLT does not apply" (something I've probably said myself), when in fact the SLT does apply, it just applies differently to an open system than it does to an ideal closed system.

RL latches onto the last part of the answer, with total disregard for the actual meaning of the answer, and builds any entire mythos around his misinterpretation.
0 Replies
 
Wilso
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Nov, 2007 02:32 am
rosborne979 wrote:

RL latches onto the last part of the answer, with total disregard for the actual meaning of the answer, and builds any entire mythos around his misinterpretation.


That's hardly a big leap for him, since his entire existence is based on a mythos created from pure delusion.
0 Replies
 
TheCorrectResponse
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Nov, 2007 08:04 am
0 Replies
 
baddog1
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Nov, 2007 08:47 am
As posted by xingu:
Quote:
...However, the most important part of the second law of thermodynamics is that it only applies to a closed system...


And USAFHokie80:
Quote:
maybe i missed something... but... how does the 2nd law ONLY apply to closed systems ? i'm not aware of that rule.


And rosborne:
Quote:
It doesn't.


And TheCorrectResponse:
Quote:
The second law of thermodynamics does only apply to closed systems.


And Dr. John Ross, Harvard University:
Quote:
Ordinarily the second law is stated for isolated systems, but the second law applies equally well to open systems.


Who's right?
0 Replies
 
TheCorrectResponse
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Nov, 2007 09:36 am
Funny Baddog1, in response to one of my previous questions you stated you were unsure if the second law of thermodynamics was even valid, yet that professed lack of knowledge does not preclude comments. Laughing

And of course a sentence taken with NO context is expected to be commented upon.

As I said above it all depends on how you are defining these terms. Since the physical sciences are not written in pros on stones that Moses brought down from the mountain but rather in terms of mathematics I am providing a link to the MIT web site and an online course on thermodynamics.

The link takes you directly to the lecture on the second law. The interested reader can follow the math for themselves and make their own conclusions. You will not specifically find the terms open and closed systems, as this is the jargon used to speak to non-technical audiences. You will be getting the full math treatment and would be expected to understand the implications from the technical terms we use and from the mathematical treatment.

http://web.mit.edu/16.unified/www/FALL/thermodynamics/notes/node31.html

When baddog1 or RL want to attempt to disprove the math, they are free to do so!

However, Baddog1, you aree free to use pros to comment on my "open system" example above to explain how I could not simply add order to the system indefinetly and thus violate the 2nd law. I know this is just giving you an easy way out of the real science but since you love to argue with everyone so much I thought I'd give you all a starting point that doesn't involve calculus and differential equations. Since the interjection of real science seems to bring these discussions to a halt.
0 Replies
 
xingu
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Nov, 2007 10:29 am
baddog1 wrote:
As posted by xingu:
Quote:
...However, the most important part of the second law of thermodynamics is that it only applies to a closed system...


Who's right?


First of all I didn't write that, an astronomer at Cornell Univ. did. You would know that if you had checked my source.

Second according to the source below;

Quote:
The second law of thermodynamics is an expression of the universal law of increasing entropy, stating that the entropy of an isolated system which is not in equilibrium will tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value at equilibrium.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics

This is a Creationist argument;

Quote:
The second law of thermodynamics binds the universe. It is constantly running down. The sun and stars burns up energy at a furious rate. There is not one place in the universe where we see energy created and stored up without the further expense of disorder. Therefore, the second law of thermodynamics demands that some time in the past, the universe had to be created and put in order.

The theory of evolution is in direct violation of the second law of thermodynamics. Evolutionists ask you to believe that the world started in a state of disorder, with life coming about by accident, and gradually increased in complexity and order. They say that over the course of millions of years, it produced the world we have today. This idea is in direct opposition to what we observe. The theory of evolution hides behind great expanses of time. Evolutionists reason, "Given enough time, anything can happen." If you consider the second law of thermodynamics, you'll find that's not true. Time is an enemy to order: as time increases, disorder increases.

A biology textbook offers this reasoning: "It has been said that living systems are an exception to the Second Law of Thermodynamics because they represent a greater state of order and organization than that found elsewhere in the universe."1 But, they maintain that a regular input of energy sustains this apparent reversal of the second law.

The answer to that argument is that unless there is an energy conversion mechanism, a machine channeling the energy into something useful, the addition of external energy will speed the process of disorder, and evolution cannot occur. The second law of thermodynamics demonstrates creation!2

http://www.rae.org/revev1.html

They're treating evolution as if it were in a closed system. If your going to talk about the SLT in reference to creationism than the closed system is the most important part. It is in that system that one finds the type of disorder that Creationist insist is happening in an open system. The answer the Cornell astronomer was giving was in reference to Creationism, not SLT in general.
0 Replies
 
baddog1
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Nov, 2007 11:11 am
xingu wrote:
baddog1 wrote:
As posted by xingu:
Quote:
...However, the most important part of the second law of thermodynamics is that it only applies to a closed system...


Who's right?


First of all I didn't write that, an astronomer at Cornell Univ. did. You would know that if you had checked my source.


First of all - I didn't say that you "wrote that". You would know that if you had read what I wrote.

Secondly - why would you copy & paste the article if you did not support what it says?

Now please provide your answer. Who's right?
0 Replies
 
xingu
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Nov, 2007 11:13 am
I have already answered you. Don't you understand what I wrote?
0 Replies
 
TheCorrectResponse
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Nov, 2007 11:33 am
Xingu,
Your not playing Baddog's game. He purports to be a mechanical engineer, but can't go to the MIT web site I offered and refresh his memory regarding thermodynamics.

I think what is supposed to happen now is a semantic argument that adds 'isolated' system to 'closed' and 'open' systems. Anything to prove the born-again agenda.

Well lunch is over and I have to get back to work, but it should make for an enjoyable afternoon of argument for those that want it. Laughing
0 Replies
 
baddog1
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Nov, 2007 11:42 am
TheCorrectResponse wrote:
Funny Baddog1, in response to one of my previous questions you stated you were unsure if the second law of thermodynamics was even valid, yet that professed lack of knowledge does not preclude comments. Laughing Please provide the link you're talking about or paste it on this topic.

And of course a sentence taken with NO context is expected to be commented upon.

As I said above it all depends on how you are defining these terms. Since the physical sciences are not written in pros on stones that Moses brought down from the mountain but rather in terms of mathematics I am providing a link to the MIT web site and an online course on thermodynamics.

The link takes you directly to the lecture on the second law. The interested reader can follow the math for themselves and make their own conclusions. You will not specifically find the terms open and closed systems, as this is the jargon used to speak to non-technical audiences. You will be getting the full math treatment and would be expected to understand the implications from the technical terms we use and from the mathematical treatment.

http://web.mit.edu/16.unified/www/FALL/thermodynamics/notes/node31.html

While interesting; the link you provided has to do with the "background of the 2nd law..." My open question was in response to whether the law applies to an open, closed (or both) :wink: systems. Your claim was that it does not apply to closed systems. At least that is what I thought you wrote.


When baddog1 or RL want to attempt to disprove the math, they are free to do so! Is this the Science & Math Forum?

However, Baddog1, you aree free to use pros to comment on my "open system" example above to explain how I could not simply add order to the system indefinetly and thus violate the 2nd law. I know this is just giving you an easy way out of the real science but since you love to argue with everyone so much I thought I'd give you all a starting point that doesn't involve calculus and differential equations. Since the interjection of real science seems to bring these discussions to a halt. Hmmm. Let me get this straight. You claim that I "argue with everyone so much", when your assertion differs from others and I ask who's right. Please explain why you would make that claim - mathematically of course. :wink:
0 Replies
 
TheCorrectResponse
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Nov, 2007 11:50 am
0 Replies
 
xingu
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Nov, 2007 12:02 pm
TheCorrectResponse wrote:
Xingu,
Your not playing Baddog's game. He purports to be a mechanical engineer, but can't go to the MIT web site I offered and refresh his memory regarding thermodynamics.

I think what is supposed to happen now is a semantic argument that adds 'isolated' system to 'closed' and 'open' systems. Anything to prove the born-again agenda.

Well lunch is over and I have to get back to work, but it should make for an enjoyable afternoon of argument for those that want it. Laughing


I think it has been explained by those who know than him that evolution does not in any way, shape or form violate the SLT. If he or RL want to play silly semantic games they can play with themselves.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 12/29/2025 at 02:37:54