Pianoprincess,
I just wondering how evolutionist can explain the second law of thermodynamics when evolution says that the universe is evolving 'upwards' and the 2nd law says that things are backsliding? Thanks.
OK, I'll have a crack at getting this back on topic...
Firstly, as Crashfrog correctly states, evolution doesn't say anything about the universe evolving upwards, nor does the second law of thermodynamics (hereafter known as 2LOT) say it is backsliding. So your opening post is based upon false premises to begin with.
The second law of thermodynamics states that in a
closed system, entropy will increase to a maximal level. A closed system is one in which energy can neither leave nor enter. A bit like a thermos flask that stays hot forever (or cold, for that matter). Entropy is the
unavailability of energy in that system for work use. For example, say we have some sugar, oxygen & a match in our magic thermos flask. The potential energy available for work is at a relative high, whilst entropy is correspondingly low. Assume now that the match is struck & the sugar begins to burn. This results in the sugar breaking down into carbon dioxide & water. Note that the system has
exactly the same energy as before (a closed system cannot receive or let it go), it is now distributed amongst the molecules differently in a much more stable way. The carbon dioxide & water aren't going to react with each other (ie. do work), so we can see that despite the energy in our system being absolutely the same, the energy available for work has decreased. And therefore the unavailability of that energy has increased, or put another way, the entropy of the system has increased.
There is now no real way that we can make sugar again out of the carbon dioxide & water. This is what creationists mean by complexity can only decrease. If we had an open system & applied energy in the correct way, we could make sugar out of water, oxygen, & carbon dioxide.
The problem with the creationist interpretation of the 2LOT is that they dishonestly ignore the fact that it was formulated to apply to a closed system. The earth, however, is demonstrably an open system where energy is contantly being gained & lost. In this system, sugar is indeed "remade", plants do it all the time when they photosynthesise. According to creationists who say "complexity can only decrease", photosynthesis is an abberation. If complexity increases were not allowed by the 2LOT in an open system, then we shouldn't be able to make anything more complex than the component parts, but we can, 2LOT doesn't forbid it. An embryo shouldn't be able to increase in complexity from a single cell to a fully adult organism with specialised cells, tissues, organs, & organ systems, but it does & they do. And consequently there is no reason why random mutation & natural selection cannot maintain & "improve". We demonstrate that this happens in the laboratory, again it isn't forbidden in an open system.
Nor are any of the above forbidden in a closed system that hasn't yet reached maximum entropy, because there is still energy available for work.
The creationist misinformation is based upon, not understanding what the 2LOT is in the first place, inappropriate conflation of terms like entropy & complexity (2LOT says absolutely NOTHING about complexity), evolving upwards, backsliding, in order to come to a totally vacuous conclusion. It sounds technical & scientific, & the creationist masters of misinformation know that the vast majority of their target audience will be completely unable to critique their claims, but it's just plain wrong.
The creationist 2LOT fallacy has been around for decades & is still being trotted out. Why? Bad science it may be, but creationists aren't about science, they are about propaganda, getting "bums on seats", & scientific mumbo-jumbo combined with the easily swayed scientifically illiterate means they are onto a winner.
Hope that helps.
Mark
There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't
.
™ Version 4.2