Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Thermodynamics and The Universe
Fosdick 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5500 days)
Posts: 1793
From: Upper Slobovia
Joined: 12-11-2006


Message 166 of 186 (388540)
03-06-2007 12:36 PM
Reply to: Message 162 by Percy
03-05-2007 10:35 PM


The PRINCIPLES of biological self-organization
Percy wrote:
The puzzles about how life managed to obey thermodynamic laws have long since been answered.
If that is true then please identify and explain the thermodynamic principles that enable biological self-organization to occur. I've made my shot at it. What do you have to contribute beyond your snooty arrogation?
Neither Prigogine nor dissipative structures appear in the index of any of my four biology textbooks. You don't appear to have an accurate understanding of his views anyway...
Let me see if I can get this straight: You don't know anything about Prigogine's work, but you think that my understanding of his theory is inaccurate.
There's no excuse for becoming irrelevant while still able to think.
Irrelevant to the topic of 'Thermodynamics and the Universe'? I don't think so, considering the trouble I took to expain the relevancy of Prigogine's principles. Is that your idea of how to counter a principled argument? Your forum is becoming more of a smash-mouth attitude party than an organ of reasonable debate.
What is the point of this forum, anyway?
”HM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 162 by Percy, posted 03-05-2007 10:35 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 167 by crashfrog, posted 03-06-2007 12:43 PM Fosdick has replied
 Message 170 by crashfrog, posted 03-06-2007 2:01 PM Fosdick has not replied
 Message 174 by Percy, posted 03-06-2007 3:11 PM Fosdick has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 167 of 186 (388541)
03-06-2007 12:43 PM
Reply to: Message 166 by Fosdick
03-06-2007 12:36 PM


Re: The PRINCIPLES of biological self-organization
What is the point of this forum, anyway?
Lately? It seems to be about watching you make hilarious science gaffes while telling us all how stupid we are.
I'm gonna go make some popcorn.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 166 by Fosdick, posted 03-06-2007 12:36 PM Fosdick has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 169 by Fosdick, posted 03-06-2007 1:49 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 168 of 186 (388546)
03-06-2007 1:04 PM
Reply to: Message 164 by Hyroglyphx
03-06-2007 8:43 AM


Re: Dissipative structures
Many people on both sides assume that the 2LoT forbids any decrease in entropy. That is wrong, it permits local decreases, provided that they are balanced by increases elsewhere. Thus it is necessary to take into account the energy coming into the system (which represents an increase in entropy at it's source).
Berra's argument is, in fact, not bad. The mere fact that energy is coming in - and the fact that we know that life can and does use this energy - is sufficient to rebut any naive claim that evoltuion violates the 2LoT. And I woudl add that any claim that Berra needs to provide more detail needs to consider the context in which the remark was made and the audience it was addressed to. Would, for instance a detailed description of metabolism be worth providing under those circumstances ? If not, then why insist that he should be providing one ?
If you want something really bad you have to go to the creationist side. The creationists often equivocate between the 2LoT and the supposed need for mechanisms while being really vague about what the supposed violation of the 2LoT is in the first place.
In fact I've never seen a creationist seriously try to show that evolution does violate the 2LoT or even point out what part of the actual processes of evolution is supposed to include this never-demonstrated ot explained violation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 164 by Hyroglyphx, posted 03-06-2007 8:43 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 179 by Hyroglyphx, posted 03-06-2007 7:06 PM PaulK has replied

  
Fosdick 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5500 days)
Posts: 1793
From: Upper Slobovia
Joined: 12-11-2006


Message 169 of 186 (388562)
03-06-2007 1:49 PM
Reply to: Message 167 by crashfrog
03-06-2007 12:43 PM


Re: The PRINCIPLES of biological self-organization
It seems to be about watching you make hilarious science gaffes...
Speaking of hilarious gaffes: Message 76:
crashfrog wrote:
Moreover, a code is a rule for converting information into another form, but that's not what DNA does at all. DNA simply catalyzes the formation of specific polypeptide sequences.
No code? DNA simply catalyzes...? You didn't mean to say this, did you?
”HM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 167 by crashfrog, posted 03-06-2007 12:43 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 170 of 186 (388566)
03-06-2007 2:01 PM
Reply to: Message 166 by Fosdick
03-06-2007 12:36 PM


Re: The PRINCIPLES of biological self-organization
If that is true then please identify and explain the thermodynamic principles that enable biological self-organization to occur.
It seems pretty obvious to me that the thermodynamic principle at work here is that an ordered state isn't inherently less entropic than a disordered state; it's just more likely, statistically, to represent a less entropic state.
Obviously, biological self-organized states occur when those states represent more entropy than a disorganized state. Since a chemical system tends to wind up at the lowest local energy level (and I may not be putting this exactly right; I'm not a chemist - is "potential" the better word here?), such a system should, eventually, wind up in a self-organized, self-assembled state, if such a state represents a lower local energy level.
That's how proteins assemble, for instance. Their quaternary structure represents a lower energy level than a straight-line polypeptide within the environment of the cell.
It's like asking what gravitational principle is at work when a ball rolls down a hill. The question makes it sound much more mysterious than it really is.
No code? DNA simply catalyzes...? You didn't mean to say this, did you?
Is this like when you tried to correct my grammar? Maybe you should get your own ducks in a row, first.
Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 166 by Fosdick, posted 03-06-2007 12:36 PM Fosdick has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 176 by Percy, posted 03-06-2007 3:25 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 171 of 186 (388577)
03-06-2007 2:36 PM
Reply to: Message 164 by Hyroglyphx
03-06-2007 8:43 AM


Re: Dissipative structures
nemesis_juggernaut writes:
We'd first have to ask whether or not 2LoT is even applicable to terrestrial, biological systems, such as evolution would be. Some creationists are apt to assign everything to 2LoT and some evolutionists are apt to dismiss by saying that earth is an open system, and therefore, does not qualify in practical terms. Both versions are extreme, so I generally take the middle ground on this one.
Any evolutionist who says 2LOT does not apply to open systems is beyond extreme - he's wrong! Closed systems more often come up in discussions of 2LOT because regardless of what is happening within the closed system, it is absolutely known that entropy can never decrease. This makes closed systems much simpler to talk about. Open systems are much more complicated since entropy can both increase and decrease depending upon what energy and matter crosses the system boundary.
Planets are extremely complex open systems, and in many cases it likely isn't practical to calculate whether entropy is increasing or decreasing for them. We know less about our oceans than we do about outer space, and even less than that about the solid portions of our planet beneath the surface. The best we could do in calculating whether earth's entropy is increasing or decreasing is draw some informed approximations that could easily be wrong. Of course if some well known overriding factor were identified that would be a different matter, but I'm not aware of one.
Repeating your last sentence again:
Both versions are extreme, so I generally take the middle ground on this one.
The middle ground between two incorrect positions is still unlikely to be correct. The best way to identify the correct position is to learn and understand the applicable science.
On the other hand, when evo's talk about 2LoT, they are often referring to things like heat and heat transfer. And so they often say that since earth has a constant source of energy, namely, the Sun, that 2LoT does not effect things like evolution.
I'm not sure whether this is just loosely phrased or if it represents a misunderstanding. 2LOT is a fundamental law of nature. All natural processes obey 2LOT, including evolution.
In a sense, both are right, but they are talking about two different kinds of entropy-- classical and logical-- which have been distinguished.
I think you're referring to thermodynamic entropy and information entropy? Anyway, no, they are not both right. As you have stated it they are both wrong, plus this is not an issue of thermodynamic versus information entropy. The two are thought to be different but equivalent perspectives.
About Tim Berra's analogy, I don't know that there is really any good way to communicate 2LOT to a lay audience. There seem only two choices, neither of them very attractive. Either you take the approach that Tim Berra does and leave the audience thinking that folding their laundry reduces entropy, or you explain it properly and nobody understands it. I don't think 2LOT is for the masses.
Anyway, the point is that this is often where the confusion lies with the topic of entropy. Because people often end up talking about different meanings of entropy. I suspect this is what you and Percy were some what quibbling about about in a roundabout way.
Hoot Mon appears to think that systems can be divided into two types of entropy: thermodynamic and informational. This is incorrect. As mentioned above, they are two equivalent ways of looking at the same thing. You can either examine a system from a thermodynamic perspective, or from an information theoretic perspective, but not from both simultaneously. The confusion is analogous to using meters and feet in the same equation.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 164 by Hyroglyphx, posted 03-06-2007 8:43 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 172 by PaulK, posted 03-06-2007 2:42 PM Percy has not replied
 Message 173 by crashfrog, posted 03-06-2007 3:04 PM Percy has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 172 of 186 (388578)
03-06-2007 2:42 PM
Reply to: Message 171 by Percy
03-06-2007 2:36 PM


Re: Dissipative structures
IIRC information theory does not include an equivalent of the 2LoT. Unless I am wrong any discussion of the 2LoT must refer to thermodynamic entropy (or at least entropy in the sense of physics and not information theory).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by Percy, posted 03-06-2007 2:36 PM Percy has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 173 of 186 (388580)
03-06-2007 3:04 PM
Reply to: Message 171 by Percy
03-06-2007 2:36 PM


Re: Dissipative structures
All natural processes obey 2LOT, including evolution.
Does it? I mean, I see how thermodynamics would apply to an organism, obviously an organism is a system that intakes, uses, and outputs energy and heat, but I don't see how thermodynamics would apply to changes in a population over time, which is what evolution is.
If a way to model changes in species over time in a thermodynamic way has been put forward, I must have missed it. Evolution isn't a process powered by energy; it's a description of what happens to organisms that inherit characteristics from their ancestors and experience differential success at passing those characteristics on to their descendants.
Evolution isn't solar powered; it happens under any physical conditions appropriate for life. Life and living things might very well be applicable to questions of thermodynamics, but I don't see how evolution, as a description of what happens to living things, would be.
Where am I going wrong? Aside from not being a physicist?
Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by Percy, posted 03-06-2007 2:36 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 175 by PaulK, posted 03-06-2007 3:18 PM crashfrog has not replied
 Message 177 by Percy, posted 03-06-2007 3:40 PM crashfrog has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 174 of 186 (388582)
03-06-2007 3:11 PM
Reply to: Message 166 by Fosdick
03-06-2007 12:36 PM


Re: The PRINCIPLES of biological self-organization
Hoot Mon writes:
If that is true then please identify and explain the thermodynamic principles that enable biological self-organization to occur.
I don't think anyone would describe biological processes as being made possible by thermodynamic principles. Rather, like all other natural processes in the universe, biological processes obey the laws of thermodynamics. And Schrodinger knew this, of course ("Life exists, therefore life obeys the laws of thermodynamics."), but scientists were having a difficult time imagining what the actually chemistry would be like. In some ways Schrodinger's speculations anticipated some of the properties of DNA and the surrounding chemical machinery.
Let me see if I can get this straight: You don't know anything about Prigogine's work, but you think that my understanding of his theory is inaccurate.
Well, yes, of course. Prigogine's work is based upon thermodynamics, and you have some things wrong regarding thermodynamics that is causing you to misinterpret his work. Don't you recall that just a few posts ago you were claiming that dissipative structures were high in entropy? And that you were arguing that structures far from thermodynamic equilibrium were high in entropy? If you saw Cavediver's message you noticed that he speculated that Prigogine may have been thinking of dissipative structures as low entropy structures at a local maxima, and you may want to check if that's what Prigogine was actually saying.
There's no excuse for becoming irrelevant while still able to think.
Irrelevant to the topic of 'Thermodynamics and the Universe'? I don't think so, considering the trouble I took to expain the relevancy of Prigogine's principles. Is that your idea of how to counter a principled argument? Your forum is becoming more of a smash-mouth attitude party than an organ of reasonable debate.
You were trying to claim that the puzzles facing Schrodinger and Prigogine in the 50's and 60's have relevance to this discussion. They don't appear to as far as we can tell by what you've presented here. Prigogine's work is mentioned in no modern textbooks and may have actually sunk into obscurity. And while Schrodinger's observations about the self-organizing principles of life are an extremely fascinating story in the history of science, especially because of the prescience he demonstrated, they are not particularly relevant today. Science has moved on. Welcome to the 21st century!
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 166 by Fosdick, posted 03-06-2007 12:36 PM Fosdick has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 175 of 186 (388583)
03-06-2007 3:18 PM
Reply to: Message 173 by crashfrog
03-06-2007 3:04 PM


Re: Dissipative structures
I'll agree that it is very difficult to sensibly apply thermodynamics to evolution (it's one of the reasons why creationists don't really try).
But look at it this way. Evolution is an outcome of what life does. All the actual processes involved obey the 2LoT. It's difficult - perhaps impossible - to apply the 2LoT directly because evolution is at a higher level of description and we don't usually consider a lot of the details that would be relevant to a thermodynamic analysis. But - so far as we can tell - if we went to the bother of adding things up we'd find that everything involved obeyed the 2LoT.
In that sense evolution obeys the 2LoT. (So far as anybody knows.)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 173 by crashfrog, posted 03-06-2007 3:04 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 176 of 186 (388585)
03-06-2007 3:25 PM
Reply to: Message 170 by crashfrog
03-06-2007 2:01 PM


Re: The PRINCIPLES of biological self-organization
Crash writes:
It seems pretty obvious to me that the thermodynamic principle at work here is that an ordered state isn't inherently less entropic than a disordered state; it's just more likely, statistically, to represent a less entropic state.
I won't comment too much on a statistical approach to thermodynamics, but I think this is a bit off. I think any measure of entropy includes the statistical possibilities as part and parcel of the concept.
Obviously, biological self-organized states occur when those states represent more entropy than a disorganized state.
I think you probably meant to say "less entropy".
Since a chemical system tends to wind up at the lowest local energy level (and I may not be putting this exactly right; I'm not a chemist - is "potential" the better word here?), such a system should, eventually, wind up in a self-organized, self-assembled state, if such a state represents a lower local energy level.
I think you've got a contradiction in terms here. Organization and high energy levels (think gasoline) go hand in hand. They would have lower entropy than the same chemicals in a disorganized low-energy state.
That's how proteins assemble, for instance. Their quaternary structure represents a lower energy level than a straight-line polypeptide within the environment of the cell.
If protein formation is exothermic then you're probably right about this.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 170 by crashfrog, posted 03-06-2007 2:01 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 177 of 186 (388587)
03-06-2007 3:40 PM
Reply to: Message 173 by crashfrog
03-06-2007 3:04 PM


Re: Dissipative structures
Crash writes:
All natural processes obey 2LOT, including evolution.
Does it? I mean, I see how thermodynamics would apply to an organism, obviously an organism is a system that intakes, uses, and outputs energy and heat, but I don't see how thermodynamics would apply to changes in a population over time, which is what evolution is.
I'm not trying to set myself up as an expert in thermodynamics, but over the years I have managed to correct enough of my own misconceptions to have become significantly less dangerous than I once was. But that's no immunity from error.
I think Cavediver has a much better understanding of the physics than I do and as a consequence has a greater reticence for issuing definitive statements, and I get the feeling that he is cringing at some of the limbs that I am allowing myself to be drawn into venturing upon. But with that said, let me comment anyway.
Earlier I was arguing that it is really difficult to make definitive comments about the entropic properties of objects, like manure and rocks in Hoot Mon's example. This is always going to be true of anything as complex as life. Is a living creature gaining or losing entropy? At any given point in time, who knows? Set fire to the creature thereby setting up an overwhelming overriding factor and I can tell you that the creature's entropy is increasing, but otherwise, no, I can't.
Populations of organisms are so incredibly complex that I can't imagine anyone approaching the problem from a thermodynamic perspective. It isn't that thermodynamic laws don't apply, it's just that the complexity defies accurate thermodynamic analysis. Perhaps it's similar to why we don't model gas behavior at the molecular level.
If a way to model changes in species over time in a thermodynamic way has been put forward, I must have missed it. Evolution isn't a process powered by energy; it's a description of what happens to organisms that inherit characteristics from their ancestors and experience differential success at passing those characteristics on to their descendants.
All true, but a relentless reductionist approach would ultimately break the process down to simple levels amenable to thermodynamic analysis. In other words, processes obeying thermodynamic laws contribute to evolution. But that isn't a practical or I think even useful level of abstraction for thinking about evolution.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 173 by crashfrog, posted 03-06-2007 3:04 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 178 by crashfrog, posted 03-06-2007 3:54 PM Percy has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 178 of 186 (388591)
03-06-2007 3:54 PM
Reply to: Message 177 by Percy
03-06-2007 3:40 PM


Re: Dissipative structures
Earlier I was arguing that it is really difficult to make definitive comments about the entropic properties of objects, like manure and rocks in Hoot Mon's example. This is always going to be true of anything as complex as life. Is a living creature gaining or losing entropy? At any given point in time, who knows? Set fire to the creature thereby setting up an overwhelming overriding factor and I can tell you that the creature's entropy is increasing, but otherwise, no, I can't.
I thought that entropy could be described as the energy unavailable for work, and under that description, it seems to me that a living creature represents a system where energy is being converted from a usable state to unusable states to do work. Simplistically, that's why animals have to eat.
Populations of organisms are so incredibly complex that I can't imagine anyone approaching the problem from a thermodynamic perspective.
Maybe that's what I was trying to say.
But that isn't a practical or I think even useful level of abstraction for thinking about evolution.
Agreed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 177 by Percy, posted 03-06-2007 3:40 PM Percy has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 179 of 186 (388632)
03-06-2007 7:06 PM
Reply to: Message 168 by PaulK
03-06-2007 1:04 PM


Re: Dissipative structures
Many people on both sides assume that the 2LoT forbids any decrease in entropy. That is wrong, it permits local decreases, provided that they are balanced by increases elsewhere. Thus it is necessary to take into account the energy coming into the system (which represents an increase in entropy at it's source).
I was specifically referring to two kinds of entropy, not two different second laws of thermodynamics.
Berra's argument is, in fact, not bad. The mere fact that energy is coming in - and the fact that we know that life can and does use this energy - is sufficient to rebut any naive claim that evoltuion violates the 2LoT.
I don't believe that 2LoT refutes evolution, per say. I'm saying very simply that things never organize themselves. I've heard it argued that such processes like crystals are formed by an unguided process, and for face value, I would agree. However, just saying that and leaving it alone misses a much greater point, especially if someone wants to use this as an analogy to a biological system. Configurations are ordered, not disordered, for the sole reason the mechanisms necessary for that configuration is already present. And its this simple understanding that makes IC so attractive, like it or not. The formation of crystals (or snowflakes, as I've heard it argued at times) is a simple chemical reaction in accordance to physical laws that do not in any sense, evolve and certainly could not be compared to genetics.
As for Berra's supply of heat making all things possible, its only partly true. If I turn on my stove and place a pot full of water, what am I going to find after I introduce energy? When entropy increases, there might be a few micro-organisms that didn't die. But simply supplying energy isn't the magic formula. Like I said, its pointless unless there is a designed mechanism in place, beforehand, to convert that energy into something useful. As an example, I would offer photosynthesis as process that harnesses energy.
Secondly, the bike didn't design itself. It took people not only to design the bike, but to manufacture it, and to ship it. It then was required for somebody to assemble based on the schematics provided by another intelligent mind. The bike in no way organized itself, which Berra clearly wants us to believe about natural systems.
And I woudl add that any claim that Berra needs to provide more detail needs to consider the context in which the remark was made and the audience it was addressed to. Would, for instance a detailed description of metabolism be worth providing under those circumstances
Metabolism is a great example. But metabolisms are an orderly mechanism, not some series of happenstances. That would best described as a converter.
If you want something really bad you have to go to the creationist side. The creationists often equivocate between the 2LoT and the supposed need for mechanisms while being really vague about what the supposed violation of the 2LoT is in the first place.
I would never say that evolution "violates" 2LoT, because nothing does. However, if creationists say that anything using energy must need some sort of converter, I obviously would agree that.

"He has shown you, O man, what is good; And what does the Lord require of you but to do justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God. -Micah 6:8

This message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by PaulK, posted 03-06-2007 1:04 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 180 by cavediver, posted 03-06-2007 7:28 PM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 181 by ringo, posted 03-06-2007 7:29 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 182 by Percy, posted 03-06-2007 7:43 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 183 by PaulK, posted 03-07-2007 2:30 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3644 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 180 of 186 (388633)
03-06-2007 7:28 PM
Reply to: Message 179 by Hyroglyphx
03-06-2007 7:06 PM


Re: Dissipative structures
I'm saying very simply that things never organize themselves. I've heard it argued that such processes like crystals are formed by an unguided process, and for face value, I would agree. However, just saying that and leaving it alone misses a much greater point, especially if someone wants to use this as an analogy to a biological system. Configurations are ordered, not disordered, for the sole reason the mechanisms necessary for that configuration is already present. And its this simple understanding that makes IC so attractive, like it or not. The formation of crystals (or snowflakes, as I've heard it argued at times) is a simple chemical reaction in accordance to physical laws that do not in any sense, evolve and certainly could not be compared to genetics.
You're quite right, Nem... crystals do not make a good analogy to biological organisation. Instead, consider the evolution of stars. You will soon realise that self-organisation is very common in the Universe without anything more magical than gravitation and hydrogen. Not that gravitation is not magical

This message is a reply to:
 Message 179 by Hyroglyphx, posted 03-06-2007 7:06 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 184 by Hyroglyphx, posted 03-07-2007 1:18 PM cavediver has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024