Thermodynamics vs. Evolution

[Noumenalist]

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!

[mith]

Do you know what entropy is? Do you know why a carcass rots? Do you know what rotting is?

[Noumenalist]

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.

[mith]

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.

[Noumenalist]

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.

[mith]

quote Noumenalist:

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.

[Noumenalist]

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.

[mith]

quote Noumenalist:

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.

[narrowstaircase]

quote Noumenalist:

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.

[mith]

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.

[Darby]

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.

[robertkernodle]

.
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

[david23]

guys this kind of topic is just something to make real scientists puke. Why even waste time on this thing. There shouldnt even be a debate like this in first place if it wasnt for the religious nuts.

[kotoreru]

Judging by the standard of your English, I assume you are still in Secondary Education. You are not a Scientist, and cannot presume to understand how one would argue a point like this.

[david23]

right right and u are one? just because you speak english so perfectly that qualifies you as one. Maybe u should read definition of science again.

Thermodynamics should not even be an issue with evolution debates. Using one branch of science to refute another by creating false conditions is nothing more than nonsense. You are doing nothing but embarrassing yourself trying to use thermodynamics like this. If everyone is so idiotic to support you, then they can, and enjoy the rest of their lives wandering in forums online.

Looking at your past posts, all you do is google answers and cite wiki. I presume you havent taken biochem yet, and dont have a single degree yet. If you did, the first themodynamics chapters would cover these issues pretty nicely.

But let me help you out

When idiots try to refute evolution they usually first go after the process in which polymers are formed, resulting in lower entropy. Well guess what, all these molecular synthesis happen in water, and water is part of overall reaction. Call that the system, open close whatever. If you want me to close it, I’ll dump some ATP, GTP whatever in there, and close the whole freaking system. When polymers are being synthesized using the energy from ATP, the polymers themselves become less entropic, and build up potential energy. While this is happening, the water now free from interacting with individual monomers become more entropic because it doesnt take a scientist to know that when you add junk in water, you are adding constraints to the water molecules. So once the polymers get made, the water will have less contraints. When you add the overall S of the water to the S of the peptides it should definitely be greater zero, to show that there is a net gain.

CASE CLOSED or do you want me to explain it all in simpler terms for someone that hasnt taken biochem yet. Or maybe you think there is this God somewhere mysteriously putting little molecules together every second of day trying to overcome the universe’s will of constantly trying to take them apart.

[charles brough]

quote mith:

quote Noumenalist:

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.

I found the link very helpful. It seems to me that "entropy" is, for our practical purposes, only that energy is transfered (dissipated) because of friction. So what? So, it is dissipated but there has always been plenty of energy on this Earth in one form or another. I don’t understand how anyone can claim this has anything to do with evolution. No one has as yet made that clear.

charles, http://humanpurpose.simplenet.com

[narrowstaircase]

quote david23:

right right and u are one? just because you speak english so perfectly that qualifies you as one. Maybe u should read definition of science again.

Thermodynamics should not even be an issue with evolution debates. Using one branch of science to refute another by creating false conditions is nothing more than nonsense. You are doing nothing but embarrassing yourself trying to use thermodynamics like this. If everyone is so idiotic to support you, then they can, and enjoy the rest of their lives wandering in forums online.

Looking at your past posts, all you do is google answers and cite wiki. I presume you havent taken biochem yet, and dont have a single degree yet. If you did, the first themodynamics chapters would cover these issues pretty nicely.

But let me help you out

When idiots try to refute evolution they usually first go after the process in which polymers are formed, resulting in lower entropy. Well guess what, all these molecular synthesis happen in water, and water is part of overall reaction. Call that the system, open close whatever. If you want me to close it, I’ll dump some ATP, GTP whatever in there, and close the whole freaking system. When polymers are being synthesized using the energy from ATP, the polymers themselves become less entropic, and build up potential energy. While this is happening, the water now free from interacting with individual monomers become more entropic because it doesnt take a scientist to know that when you add junk in water, you are adding constraints to the water molecules. So once the polymers get made, the water will have less contraints. When you add the overall S of the water to the S of the peptides it should definitely be greater zero, to show that there is a net gain.

CASE CLOSED or do you want me to explain it all in simpler terms for someone that hasnt taken biochem yet. Or maybe you think there is this God somewhere mysteriously putting little molecules together every second of day trying to overcome the universe’s will of constantly trying to take them apart.

what you lack in sublety you make up for in… oh wait, you dont make up for it. 😛

but seriously. you are very clever it seems. if you took such offense to an observation on your communication skills dont you think your attack on the OP question deserves to be questioned in the first place? where you are very clever in your field of study other people are lacking and are smarter in utterly different subjects. why didnt you just explain what you have to contribute in a way the OP (and I) can understand since you know we arent as educated as you in the matter. you could just explain why it is so and not reject a question that is valid in the mind of the OP. that would be considerate and nice of you.

[i_r_e_d]

Okay… okay… Lets settle down children… Lets all hold hand and sing "Why can’t we be friends…"

[david23]

quote narrowstaircase:

quote david23:

right right and u are one? just because you speak english so perfectly that qualifies you as one. Maybe u should read definition of science again.

Thermodynamics should not even be an issue with evolution debates. Using one branch of science to refute another by creating false conditions is nothing more than nonsense. You are doing nothing but embarrassing yourself trying to use thermodynamics like this. If everyone is so idiotic to support you, then they can, and enjoy the rest of their lives wandering in forums online.

Looking at your past posts, all you do is google answers and cite wiki. I presume you havent taken biochem yet, and dont have a single degree yet. If you did, the first themodynamics chapters would cover these issues pretty nicely.

But let me help you out

When idiots try to refute evolution they usually first go after the process in which polymers are formed, resulting in lower entropy. Well guess what, all these molecular synthesis happen in water, and water is part of overall reaction. Call that the system, open close whatever. If you want me to close it, I’ll dump some ATP, GTP whatever in there, and close the whole freaking system. When polymers are being synthesized using the energy from ATP, the polymers themselves become less entropic, and build up potential energy. While this is happening, the water now free from interacting with individual monomers become more entropic because it doesnt take a scientist to know that when you add junk in water, you are adding constraints to the water molecules. So once the polymers get made, the water will have less contraints. When you add the overall S of the water to the S of the peptides it should definitely be greater zero, to show that there is a net gain.

CASE CLOSED or do you want me to explain it all in simpler terms for someone that hasnt taken biochem yet. Or maybe you think there is this God somewhere mysteriously putting little molecules together every second of day trying to overcome the universe’s will of constantly trying to take them apart.

what you lack in sublety you make up for in… oh wait, you dont make up for it. 😛

but seriously. you are very clever it seems. if you took such offense to an observation on your communication skills dont you think your attack on the OP question deserves to be questioned in the first place? where you are very clever in your field of study other people are lacking and are smarter in utterly different subjects. why didnt you just explain what you have to contribute in a way the OP (and I) can understand since you know we arent as educated as you in the matter. you could just explain why it is so and not reject a question that is valid in the mind of the OP. that would be considerate and nice of you.

Oh my I got no subtlety, or perhaps you are simply looking for an excuse to cover the fact that u dont understand, but trying to do it in a much more graceful manner than I did. Maybe I should learn from you. No, wait, I will learn from you. From now on, whenever I attack someone for their mistakes and utter blasphemy against any science field, I will be graceful like you, and add some, I guess subtlety to the matter. How about it, would that make you happy? Can we be friends like IRED has suggested. If we can, then there is no problem is there?

Lastly, I’m pretty sure you know more stuff than I do in some fields. I’m just a lowly PHD biochem candidate. I’ll admit that I have forgotten some basic anatomy and physiology stuff, which I’m sure you can beat me. But when someone makes blasphemous statements in fields that I know, I get pretty angry. Let me apologize right here in case I were to offend you in the future.

[kotoreru]

Are you seriously a PHd?

[david23]

PHD candidate, there is a difference. But you are asking the question implying that you have doubts and you want other people have doubts too. So if you have doubts then just come out and say it. Where did I make mistakes with my arguments, please point them out. Again you can always attack my lack of punctuation, capitalizing, spelling mistakes, and attribute that as a sign of inexperience, or perhaps not PHD worthy. But I can assure you that if I were to publish a paper, it will take me a week to fix all these mistakes as oppose to typing it out in less than 2 minutes here. Then again, if you were to point out me mistakes in my scientific arguments, which I probably made somewhere, granted I do a lot, it will take a while for you, considering you were someone who did not know what redox potentials are? Perhaps you didnt take analytical chemistry yet.

After skiming through your posts, a rough estimation would be that you have had ecology to some degree, as expected of a first year biology major. Some basic human biology again expected of first year. On the other hand you also have some level of genetics, the basic ones granted, something still within the realm of using simple phrases like dominant and recessive, and of course you started cell bio. So what exactly are you first year, second year? I dont know how the curriculum works in UK, so you will have to help me out, wont you.

[kotoreru]

You’re quite easy to offend…and so far you have contributed nothing to this topic – only spoken of yourself and criticised others.

I simply shall not give you the satisfaction of knowing ‘what’ I am, needless to say that arguing with you is a waste of this Forum’s time and resources.

[david23]

oh my I contributed more than you did. I gave a pretty good example of how entropy can be decreasing in part of a system while not breaking the law of thermodynamics. What have you ever contributed? If you cant understand, then I cant help you there. Although I did offer to explain it in simpler terms, but you haven’t asked me to. What you are is a wannabe undergraduate scientist who offer nothing but suggestions and references to search engines. Your 113 posts haven’t had any significant information to contribute. While we are busy reading journals and going after grants, you are here, posting little suggestions that dont offer any clues to the real answer. Now you want to leave this topic, ooooh now who’s offended. Do you want hide your lack of experience that bad.

You have taken some basic sciences so you think that makes you smart enough to discuss like a real scientist? You might think you are so clever, but to a professional we see it all the time. It’s not a good sign. Oh and I am happy that you decided to leave and be all high and mighty. It definitely saves me time to do other studies. Lastly, evolution is acceptable and integral in mainstream science. If a real scientist used thermodynamics to counter it, he’ll be out period. No more publications, no more grants, no nothing. I hope you can learn something from this, and dont ever attempt something like this again when you become a pro.

[kotoreru]

david23, please just shut up now – it’s just becoming boring.

[david23]

quote kotoreru:

david23, please just shut up now – it’s just becoming boring.

losers like you should know your place, know where you belong, you little undergraduate trying to act big. You cant answer anything but say something like "thats a tough one", " I like your idea" or "you need to think" in every post. why dont u just say that you dont know. You are just a poser, a fraud. You dont know anything about thermodynamics, and yet u are here. I am starting concern about the integrity of this forum. Your credibility is being questioned here, and shut up is the only thing you can reply? Why should I, a real scientist even bother with the likes of you. Come back when you get a degree.

[kotoreru]

quote david23:

I am starting concern about the integrity of this forum.

Then by all means leave.

[david23]

quote kotoreru:

quote david23:

I am starting concern about the integrity of this forum.

Then by all means leave.

Like many others I have a use for this place for my own purpose, not that it concerns you. Just run along will ya.

[Author]

Posts