Is evolution the only thing to contradict the Second law of Thermodynamics?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Conspirator:
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAA.....

​

Here's a link that explains the closed system myth that evolutionists love to use and avoid it by saying that it only applies to closed systems when it actually applies to BOTH systems.

​

http://trueorigins.org/steiger.asp

---

Ahh, so you haven't gone away.I eagerly await your response to the Haldane issue. Thanks!

Dear Dr PAge,I noticed that you are already involved in another thread:Message 16 of 16 12-22-2002 05:02 PM--------------------------------------------------------------------------------quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Conspirator:
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAA.....
Here's a link that explains the closed system myth that evolutionists love to use and avoid it by saying that it only applies to closed systems when it actually applies to BOTH systems.http://trueorigins.org/steiger.asp--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Ahh, so you haven't gone away.I eagerly await your response to the Haldane issue. Thanks!PB: I am eagerly waiting for YOUR point-by-point reply how you explain the pointmutaions in the ZFY region. You were the one that introduced this example, not me. And since I didn't get it please explain. Educate me.Best wishes,
Peter

quote:

---

Originally posted by peter borger:
Dear Dr PAge,

​

I noticed that you are already involved in another thread:

​

Message 16 of 16 12-22-2002 05:02 PM

​

---

I am involved in several threads.YOU brought up ZFY, you should remember. I simply did what you could/should have done - download the actual sequence data, make an alignment, and present it for the board's perusal.Your 'interpretation' is, interesting, to say the least. But I am curious - why didn't you must do that from the start? Surely, a molecular biologist like you must have all sorts of experinece doing that sort of thing...

Slpx, sorry about not responding to your post.I can't seem to get on the internet lately and I probably won't respond until tomorrow.But I'll try to respond as soon as I can.

I hadent thought of this question reposed like this before and beofre looking up the thread I thought an answer within the works of Maxwell that was about how artists, physiologists and physicists DO see to color the same way as to how modern art may "contradict" IF the "art" interest in fractals was extended to any and all symbolic coputation using Mathematica but since the threading was more on topic as to biology and chemistry etc I guess it will be just my point to stick this Larmark in here for Croizat...answer-yes (but I dont want to get into it...)

Do you mean Maxwell's demon? Or something else?

I thought there were some bacterial cell-membranes
that had D-amino acids in ... read that somewhere
but can't think where now.

Thread seems no longer to be addressing the original topic.------------------
--EvC Forum Administrator

Brad McFall informs me that he was planning a response, so I have reopened the thread.------------------
--EvC Forum Administrator

Imo, all the while evolution has allegedly been busy performing billions of entropic accidents organizing things on planet earth, 2ld has been busy eroding the rest of the planets.

The theory of evolution is consistent with all known laws of physics, and hence is consistent with 2LOT (2nd Law of Thermodynamics). No one within biology resorts to speculations of "entropic accidents" to explain evolution.One way of stating 2LOT is to say that the entropy of a closed system cannot decrease. But in an open system, such as the earth which receives energy from the sun, the input of energy can cause entropy to decrease.An analogy that might help is cooking. If all the ingredients of a recipe are in pot on the stove, but the stove is off, nothing will happen. But if you add heat by turning the stove on then the ingredients will combine in ways that they cannot at room temperature and you'll have lunch.By the way, it is not the addition of heat that decreases entropy. In fact, in general heating something will *increase* entropy. Heat increases the energy and and thereby the disorganization of molecules, and this increases entropy. But the increased energy of the molecules encourages chemical reactions, thereby storing some of the energy in chemical bonds and decreasing entropy. The rest of the energy dissipates as heat and is lost, so overall entropy of the system, which for this analogy is the kitchen, increases, but the important part of the kitchen that we are most interested in, namely our lunch, has decreased entropy.To carry the analogy back to the 2LOT discussion, lunch is life on earth, the stove is the sun, and the kitchen is the universe.--Percy

Stickman wrote at the top of the thread, "I heard that evolution is the only thing that contradicts the Second Law of Thermodynamics. I have had a lot of trouble getting a straight answer, so i decided to try here [wishful thinking maybe?]. Some articles say that the 2nd Law is only to do with heat transfer, while others use it more broadly in chemical and biological situations that are independant of heat. My physics teacher was"Peter, I suppose as far as "heat transfer" goes I must have meant something like Maxwell's demon but the question had taken me more afield into the difference perceptions of colors that seem to *actually* exist between say a critique of asethetic judgment (of art) and say I equally a critique of reasoning facility facultatively etc...I could start to explain this interms of my thinking that we need a better way to express focus on regression to the mean that is not simply split between focal and periferal else Bateson vs Pearson could continue to prevent a better disucssion of the science of wright vs fisher for any artist who chooses their own "view" of the color , shape and then size or some other way around the conceived perception with or without the sense of touch haptically involved in the "seeing".Nonetheless the observer of art and not science in this answer would have some physioloigical continutiy with the body of any body the biologist included such that if the neurology of the artist was the standard on which to measure any variation for the artists tend to be able to sense focal vs periferall chagnes more flexibly which makes them better artists than scientists trying to be artists etc it would only remand in some kind of way how it is that the 2nd law is contradicted and sicne wolfram certainly thinks mathematica could be used to make art if this hypotheitcal artists I have left unnnamed also was able to do symbolic programming then and ONLY on Wolfram's notion of cost of computation which he disagrees with Von Neumann on it seems on Wolfram's notion that by simple program discurive talk into the presentation there could be something other than evolution which would then be SHOWN (it would have to be visible) to "contradict" the 2nd law in the sense that standard wise creationist can be found to present such arguments IN c/e boards on the web netting this result only the brain however and not in the discussion of the visible effect.I think wolfram is mistaken however and I would have to argue about how I think biometry can be matured from some cybnetic physicists postion in order to show how the contradiction if it logically exists is identically the same in both cases but nonetheless I, BSM, do not see this as but finanically prohibitive.Hope this helps- and is worth re-opening for else maybe the admins will simply revert to the purple icon. Best. Brad.

quote:

---

The theory of evolution is consistent with all known laws of physics, and hence is consistent with 2LOT (2nd Law of Thermodynamics). No one within biology resorts to speculations of "entropic accidents" to explain evolution.

---

The so called "laws" of physics you speak of, then are rather unproven "theories." Why? Because by actural experimentation of the true laws of physics, nothing which explodes or becomes disorganized on earth EVER becomes more structured and orderly without continuous work of intelligence. And, of course, I'm sure this is repeated agnausium to you folks, but the explosion in the tinkerman's garage simply will not settle out in the form of a Rollex watch, or anything intricate or complex, no matter how many eons of time you give it.

quote:

---

One way of stating 2LOT is to say that the entropy of a closed system cannot decrease. But in an open system, such as the earth which receives energy from the sun, the input of energy can cause entropy to decrease.

---

But the other planets of our Solar System ALL attest to the fact that entropy clearly does not decrease apart from the manipulation and work of an intelligent entity. Planet earth simply can't have billions upon billions of entropic happenings as opposed to zero for the rest of the observable bodies of our Solar System without some super intelligent outside help.

quote:

---

An analogy that might help is cooking. If all the ingredients of a recipe are in pot on the stove, but the stove is off, nothing will happen. But if you add heat by turning the stove on then the ingredients will combine in ways that they cannot at room temperature and you'll have lunch.

---

That all sounds dandy on the surface, but sorry, I'm declining the invitation for dinner if you take away:
1. The created pot.
2. The created stove.
3. The correctly regulated heat, so as not to fry to charred crisp or so raw so as to be unpallatable.
4. The fuel for the heat.
5. The ignition to light the stove.
6. The edible ingredients (all grown, prepared, cleaned and processed so as to be pallatable and healthful)

quote:

---

By the way, it is not the addition of heat that decreases entropy. In fact, in general heating something will *increase* entropy. Heat increases the energy and and thereby the disorganization of molecules, and this increases entropy.

---

Without the heat, planet earth will be like Jupiter, i.e. lifeless and all. It is neither the abundance of heat as in sun or the lack of heat as in Jupiter that brings a decrease in entropy, but the regulation of heat by intelligence applied to billions of other works of intelligence to effect what you are labeling entropic decreases in a system to bring about organization as we observe on earth.

quote:

---

But the increased energy of the molecules encourages chemical reactions, thereby storing some of the energy in chemical bonds and decreasing entropy. The rest of the energy dissipates as heat and is lost, so overall entropy of the system, which for this analogy is the kitchen, increases, but the important part of the kitchen that we are most interested in, namely our lunch, has decreased entropy.

---

And respectfully, sorry, but I'd have to decline any invitation to the "lunch" your kitchen would bring. You remind me of 40 years ago when, as a "yute," I had some visitors and needed something to feed them. I went to the cupboard and opened a can of about everything in there and threw it in a pot. Yuk! And to think how much worse it would've been if I had bombed the kitchen for lunch!

quote:

---

To carry the analogy back to the 2LOT discussion, lunch is life on earth, the stove is the sun, and the kitchen is the universe.

---

And just think. The other planets all have all these wonderful features, but alas, no giver of life, design and regulation to effect the organization of these into something beautiful, intricate and wonderfully complex as we observe on planet earth![This message has been edited by buzsaw, 03-15-2003]

Let's not go off into fantasyland here. No such experiments have ever been performed - if you think otherwise then just try to find some concrete information about them. The accepted view within science is that no violation of 2LOT has ever been observed on macroscopic scales, and that life on earth came about through known, established physical processes. This is the caricature you argue against, but it is not something anyone within science is claiming. The analogy is false because the Big Bang has nothing directly to do with life on earth. The Big Bang happened about 13.7 billion years ago, while life arose on earth maybe around 3.8 billion years ago. There is no direct causal relationship between the Big Bang and life, and no one within science would make the mistake of saying that the Big Bang caused life, except in the most indirect sort of way.By the way, it's "ad nauseam", a Latin phrase meaning "to a sickening extreme". There's a lot of misunderstandings here, so it's difficult to know where to begin. If by "entropic happening" you mean a violation of 2LOT, then no "entropic happenings" are thought to have ever occurred here or anywhere. All biological processes obey 2LOT. If you think you've found an exception then name it. If you won't follow an analogy then I'll simply stop using analogies, but I'll give clarification one try. An analogy is a tool of explanation that works by placing an unfamiliar concept in a familiar context. In my analogy the familiar context was cooking. All the things you mentioned, like who created the pot, the stove, the fuel, and so forth, are completely irrelevant to the analogy of comparing the decrease in entropy of your lunch by cooking it to the decrease in entropy of any chemical mix by heating it.Look at analogies another way. When poet Robert Burns writes, "Oh, my Love is like a red, red rose...", do you argue against the analogy by saying, "A rose cannot love"? No, of course not. Whether a rose can love or not is irrelevant to the analogy. There's a lot here to comment on.While I agree that life on Jupiter is probably unlikely, we cannot say at this point that there is no life on Jupiter. And Europa, a volcanically active moon of Jupiter, is thought by many scientists to be the most likely body in the solar system, other than our own, to possibly harbor life (for example, see Possibility of Life on Europa). So the conclusion that all other bodies of the solar system have no life would be premature at this point.But let's say for the sake of argument that earth is the only planet in the solar system with life and that all other planets are lifeless. What are the implications regarding 2LOT here on earth? Would the absence of life on other planets imply that 2LOT has been violated here on earth? No, of course not. Life is simply chains of chemical processes that follow well known physical laws. If you think otherwise then merely provide an example of a biological process that violates 2LOT.I think part of your problem is that you don't understand that 2LOT applies to the entropy of a system. If you divide your system into two parts A and B with entropy E_A and E_B, then you can decrease the entropy of B by increasing the entropy of A by an equal or greater amount. If we say that the entropy at time 1 of our system is E_A1+E_B1, and that the entropy of at a later time 2 is E_A2+E_B2, then 2LOT requires that this relationship hold: The entropy of A and B can change over time, becoming either larger or smaller, as long as this equation is obeyed. Any decrease in entropy at B would have to be compensated for by an equal or greater increase in entropy at A. And if A is the sun and B is the earth, then this says that any decrease in entropy on the earth has to be compensated for by an equal or greater increase in entropy of the sun. Which is precisely what happens when the sun radiates huge amounts of elecromagnetic radiation into space thereby gaining huge amounts of entropy, and the earth receives a small amount of the radiation thereby losing a small amount of entropy.You also seem confused about the role of intelligence in 2LOT. The fact of the matter is that intelligence has no role. The universe was following 2LOT long before intelligence came on the scene, and it continues to follow 2LOT.Meteorites provide a good example of producing complexity in the absence of intelligence. Most meteorites that fall to earth contain complex organic compounds that obviously have much lower entropy than the original simple elements from which they formed. How did these compounds come about? Heat from the sun.--Percy

'entropic "accidents"'-- I do and will to answer Gould on stasis and why there was an overabundance of saddle points in "stablizing selection" but I will raise this speculation on the speed issue of such in a line when I come to redress Fisher's restricted recombination case and I have not found the bio-assay I would/want to use such that we should refrain from entering as Percy mentioned "fantasy" land here for I indeed opened out to a non-biological existentialism here which would be against as I said in another thread what scientifically gives me any crediblilty to the extent I have been able to get any more etc. This thinking however requries a detailed discussion and comprehension of Wright probability arrary for genes IN Cricks (not FIsher's) notion of the STRING IS THE GENE.I think this notion is what caused the problem not the use of math someone may not follow or deal with artistically. Best. Brad.