|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Entropy and the immutable law of death | |||||||||||||||||||||||
ChemEbeaver Junior Member (Idle past 6003 days) Posts: 18 From: Aloha, OR, USA Joined: |
Combustion and decomposition are thermodynamic systems
They're not a system, they're processes...
combustion, a chemical process
Combustion Processes do not have measurable quantities, systems do.
thermodynamic system are characterized by...pressure and volume, magnetic field and magnetic dipole moment, etc.
http://www.jgsee.kmutt.ac.th/exell/Thermo/Systems.html Evolution comes from mutation, which can be explained by entropy and the laws of thermodynamics (and other laws such as conservation of mass, etc.) just as much as the rest of biology can be explained by chemistry.
A system can be anything, for example a piston, a solution in a test tube, a living organism, a planet, etc.
Thermodynamic system - WikipediaSince living organisms are systems, they can change in entropy. Evolution is not a thermodynamic system
Yes, like I explained I was just keeping it simple:
It's true, evolution is not technically a system, it's a process like combustion or decomposition. I was trying to keep it simple. Let me rephrase, the process of evolution takes place in an open system that can be decreased in entropy. Evolution is a process in which they organism (system) can undergo change in entropy. Contrary to Creationist believes, it can decrease in entropy. This is possible because the surrounding balances the loss in entropy by the system, by increasing in entropy. The second law of thermodynamics states that only the universe (system + surrounding) must always increasing in entropy or remains the same and not the system.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1495 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
They're not a system, they're processes... Systems. That's why burning produces heat; it's a thermodynamic system. If combustion isn't thermodynamic, how do you explain the heat of the flame?
Evolution comes from mutation, which can be explained by entropy and the laws of thermodynamics (and other laws such as conservation of mass, etc.) just as much as the rest of biology can be explained by chemistry. Evolution is a description of what happens to populations of organisms. Evolution is not a mutation. Mutation of individuals is partly why it happens to populations, but the mere fact that mutations are occurring - which does represent something thermodynamic, incidentally - doesn't make evolution into a thermodynamic process, because you can't describe evolution as a function of moving heat. It's simply not possible.
Since living organisms are systems, they can change in entropy. Yes. And evolution is a description of what happens to populations of these systems. It is not, itself, a system, not any more than the laws of thermodynamics themselves represent a system. They're a description of traits of systems.
Evolution is a process in which they organism (system) can undergo change in entropy. Evolution doesn't cause any changes in entropy. The changes in entropy that organisms experience are functions of metabolism. Populations of organisms experience a certain kind of change over time that is not entropic in nature, it isn't related to the movement of heat, and therefore is not a thermodynamic system. The description of that change is evolution. Evolution is not a thermodynamic system, open or closed. The evolution of organisms causes no change in entropy to any system, no movement of heat, does no work. Evolution is not a system; it's a description of a trend in populations of organisms.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ChemEbeaver Junior Member (Idle past 6003 days) Posts: 18 From: Aloha, OR, USA Joined: |
Quote from crashfrog:
Evolution [is]...not a process A Process is a naturally occurring or designed sequence of changes of properties or attributes of an object or system
Process - Wikipedia
Evolution as a process
Page not found - OneLife
Evolution is a process
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-definition.html Quote from crashfrog:
molecules break and form chemical bonds causing a net change in the total heat of the system
I assure you living organism (systems) always does this. Evolution is the process, or change, living organisms undergo in genotype and (leading to change in) phenotype. Edited by ChemEbeaver, : clarify quote origin
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ChemEbeaver Junior Member (Idle past 6003 days) Posts: 18 From: Aloha, OR, USA Joined: |
If combustion isn't thermodynamic, how do you explain the heat of the flame?
Energy (ie a match) is imputed into a system of fuel (ie gasoline) that increases the energy of the fuel past the activation energy of the fuel causing the process of combustion and generating energy (light, heat) as its product (and byproducts water CO2, CO, gasoline vapor etc). simplified: gasoline = system. combustion = process the system undergoes
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1495 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Energy (ie a match) is imputed into a system of fuel (ie gasoline) that increases the energy of the fuel past the activation energy of the fuel causing the process of combustion and generating energy (light, heat) as its product (and byproducts water CO2, CO, gasoline vapor etc). Right. Why don't you think that process is thermodynamic? Why do you think evolution is thermodynamic if combustion is not?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
I assure you living organism (systems) always does this. Evolution is the process, or change, living organisms undergo in genotype and (leading to change in) phenotype. A living organism doesn't evolve, in the sense used in the science of biological evolution.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
aviator79 Junior Member (Idle past 6009 days) Posts: 17 From: Chandler, AZ Joined: |
Evolutionary processes are thermodynamic in a roughly similar sense as I am a quantum dynamic system. That is, There are quantum interations going on inside me and I cannot do anything that violates quantum mechanics. Nonetheless, quantum mechanics is totally useless when trying to analyze me as I sit here and type.
Similarly, everthing which takes place during the evolution of a species must obey thermodynamic principles, but it is impossible to analyze the process from a thermodynamic perspective. It is a waste of time to even talk about entropy is a discussion about evolution. This was my point earlier in the thread. Creationists read a blurb in Popular Science and try to throw around the word "entropy" because they think it makes their argument "scientific" if they use words they don't understand.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ChemEbeaver Junior Member (Idle past 6003 days) Posts: 18 From: Aloha, OR, USA Joined: |
Why don't you think that process is thermodynamic?
Where did I say that processes is not thermodynamic?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Brad McFall Member (Idle past 5061 days) Posts: 3428 From: Ithaca,NY, USA Joined: |
quote: Then I have wasted ALL my time. That is not the case see .I have been able to sustain some level of readership above the zero baseline (only me) I am working upto demoting the replicator asto a simple relation to metabolism and the "interactor" into something other than that used against gene selectionism. The weakest part of my argument is not the link to Darwin’s work itself. The wasted time was in talking too much about selection and not enough about organization (historically in biology). This was a result of failing to consider homogenal systems (particular when asking if viruses in rabbits released in Australia being demes were structured or not). What makes it so difficult is that one must start from the small and work to a large (size) whereas human intuition (especially in evolutionary theory so far) tends to favor the organism level itself. So if I had said that motion is independent of the frame for Newton rather than that rest might be thought chemically I would have been better understood (in another thread on EvC) but keeping the order of thought intact is, as much the problem as the solution, when it comes to a right understanding of the application of thermo into living reality of taught evolutionary thought, no matter the road less traveled.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
aviator79 Junior Member (Idle past 6009 days) Posts: 17 From: Chandler, AZ Joined: |
Your line of reasoning is a bit difficult to follow. It seems perhaps you are doing research of a specific reaction or interaction which is involved in evolution?
In an appropriately narrowed problem, thermodynamic analysis could certainly be used to analyze a specific metabolic process which I know nothing about. However, in the broad stroke that the typical creationist tries to apply the concept of entropy, it is totally meaningless.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ChemEbeaver Junior Member (Idle past 6003 days) Posts: 18 From: Aloha, OR, USA Joined: |
A living organism doesn't evolve
Right A living organism doesn't evolve; the change comes from between parents and offspring over a long period of time. That's why I said living organismS instead of A living organism. I suppose it would be more correct using species instead, but we were using living organisms as the subject.
I assure you living organism (systems) always does this.
I was referring to cashfrog's comment:
molecules break and form chemical bonds causing a net change in the total heat of the system
I was saying that living organisms ARE systems, and therefore CAN undergo change in entropy. Edited by ChemEbeaver, : typo Edited by ChemEbeaver, : typo
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Brad McFall Member (Idle past 5061 days) Posts: 3428 From: Ithaca,NY, USA Joined: |
If you find me hard to follow perhaps you can try to read
ICR speakers, and it is in their books as well, consistantly call on evolutionists to supply an "energy converter mechanism" that is concurrent with any form changes during (time). With a discrete QM mentality and a certain geneic reductionism one can think that evolution should be thought about without having to address this complaint of creationists but for me I have both no interest in that particular biological thought process and I HAVE been interested to figure out how to extract energy from biological form that despite time still sustains. Gladyshev's formalism provides the only means to this goal that I am aware of. Dr. Gladyshev thinks that the decision in favor of science over creationism is clear (against the latter) EXCEPT insofar as his own idea might be able to express the creation itself accurately. I do not see how the creationist call for an "energy converter mechanism" is out of line with the application of Gibbs phenomenological thermo to biology. All is not said and done so however.... Edited by Brad McFall, : serious logical typo
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1495 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Where did I say that processes is not thermodynamic? Messages 42 and 48. From my reading you've been consistently denying that combusting fuel is a thermodynamic system. You've been insisting that it's a "process", like evolution. But it's obvious that combustion is nothing like evolution. Combustion can be modeled as the movement of heat and the use of energy to do work, and as a result, its a thermodynamic system to which the LoT all apply. Evolution is not thermodynamic, it's not a system, it can't be modeled as the movement of heat or as the use of energy to do work. Evolution doesn't do work. It's just a description of a trend in populations to change in certain ways over time. The Second Law of Thermodynamics doesn't apply to evolution. It doesn't not apply because "evolution is an open system", it doesn't apply because evolution is not a system at all. I don't understand what about that remains unclear to you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1495 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
I was saying that living organisms ARE systems, and therefore CAN undergo change in entropy. I don't disagree; in fact that's what I told you back in messages 41, 44, and 45. Living organisms are systems. Evolution is not a system. It's a description of what happens to populations of organisms over time, in the way that the Second Law is a description of what happens to systems over time. Do you get it? Evolution is no more a system than the Second Law is a system. They're both descriptions of things, not systems themselves.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Brad McFall Member (Idle past 5061 days) Posts: 3428 From: Ithaca,NY, USA Joined: |
Just for the record Crash (and really this is probably for lurkers other than you posters etc...)
The question I always pose is, "Can evolution work?", can it be made to DO work. If we showed how to use evolution theory to reduce human labor, directly via the supposed process of evoution itself, and it works (then) THEN all the silly arguing over creation and evolution would be over, for me, it seems to me.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024