Evolution vs. Thermodynamics

quote:

---

Originally posted by blitz77:
No, that is not true. Ever heard of this law in chemistry? The entropy of a perfect crystal at absolute zero has zero entropy. If you increase its temperature by adding energy, its entropy increases.

---

My point was to disassociate 'order', 'disorder', and 'entropy' You're crystal analogy pushes that point for me. I used ice.But based on your comments, I have to reformulate my statement. Again using my box-o-gas analogy, the entropy of the whole system goes up but you get self-organizing behavior-- the convection currents-- at least up to a point. You get power to drive reactions, which living things require. This illustrates the problem of associating 'disorder' and 'entropy' I fell into that trap too.Entropy has to go down for life to develop, since a state of complete entropy is a state of zero energy. No energy, no reactions, no life. Steven Hawking argues this. I just grasped his logic.Geez!!! I hate to reverse myself like this (but its your fault )------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com

In general, simply adding heat to a system increases its entropy, its degree of disorder. Heat a gas and the molecules will bounce around in even greater disorder. Cool a gas and it becomes a more ordered liquid. Cool it even further and it becomes a highly ordered crystalline solid. The most common example is steam, water and ice.The process becomes very complex when the added heat causes chemical reactions. Energy becomes stored in chemical bonds, particularly in the case of chemicals involved in life-processes, thereby reducing entropy for the chemicals involved. But most of the heat is wasted and simply dissipates into the environment, a net increase in entropy.--Percy

I will post up and slam but now is not the time for I have also left some unfinshised synthesis on the created kind of thread but with Pascal's triagle and my simple question of what numbers to count organisms answered this time it will become less insane to understand me but I get ahead of our all story line I keep. later.I am starting to find the equalities that allow both the open system and two thermo without the Mendel proprotion but still I do not know which definition in mathematica this will be -- a bit too subjective even for creationists.I never understood what Pascal was doing. I now do and Robby Zack is not a Riot.Before this was "panbiogeography" enunciated. First keep open or closed that the position effect is to genetic recombination as the arithemetic triangle(Pascal) is to gambler's combination. Rest of theretical biology will come in/with time.Cornell jousted me becasue any new theory, such as the one Gould seeks now in his death, must first find the platform of demonstration but the eilites were only permitting the existing theory-expt cycle and not a pure-math --anthropology one which permitted me finally to have found without proof the demonstrable biology I have always known without getting too philosophical. Pascal converted at the correct time.

Deleted.Edited by Lewissian, : Outdated.

quote:

---

Because of challenges, Tim Wallace has made a distinction between the 2LoT and the G2L (Generalized Second Law) that should be noted. I'm not up on this, but it might make a difference.

---

Just what is this generalized second law that Wallace refers to?? I agree with Zhimbo that the requirements that Wallace tries to add are not part of the laws of thermodynamics. The only generalized second law I know of is from Bekenstein’s work stating that the entropy of a black hole is proportional to the surface area of its event horizon. I don’t think this has much to do with evolution. There is also the generalized entropy expression of Constantino Tsallis which modifies the Boltzmann-Gibbs formulation of entropy in statistical mechanics to deal with situation such as shock waves, where entropy is not a purely extensive variable but I don’t think that has much to do with evolution either. I have often heard creationists talk of the generalized second law but I have never seen a derivation or even a clear description of this law and how it prevents evolution. Again I ask, just what specific process required for evolution is prevented by the second law?Meanwhile, It is clear that not all creationists accept the claim that the second law prevents evolution. Creationist Physicist Doug Craigen has written an interesting page on entropy and disorder
Entropy, Disorder and EvolutionAnd one on entropy and evolution
The page you were looking for doesn't exist (404)and creationist Allan Harvey, a Ph.D. chemical engineer has written a page on
The Second Law of Thermodynamics in the Context of the Christian Faith by creationist Allan H. Harveyhttp://members.aol.com/steamdoc/writings/thermo.htmlNeither of these creationists thinks that the second law prevents evolution.By the way, I have read a lot of stuff by Wallace and never found any of it convincing. I suggest you read the papers by Wicken, Prigogene and Smith that Wallace quotes to see how far out of context he has taken them. You should also note that Thaxton, Bradley and Olsen who Wallace quotes while talking about evolutionists are actually creationists but Wallace somehow fails to mention this fact.Randy

I'll give you another article, which explains it quite clearly. (In my opinion). Read the whole article (the start deals with the big bang, later on it talks about evolution).Create a Website | Tripod Web Hosting

Thanks, I was not aware of the distinction; but from the condition /; of biology specfically )( if the entropy changes than some of the triple quantites are "the where" which may be form, space or time it 'goes' (chemical equilibrium also at least in part involved) development, environment, and/or heritibility in one instance of theory. Strict Physical Chem only has this all in e^2,whatever the square root becomes on the same in piece model biologically. Of course the statics need not follow the prescription I gave or was given.

quote:

---

Originally posted by blitz77:
I'll give you another article, which explains it quite clearly. (In my opinion). Read the whole article (the start deals with the big bang, later on it talks about evolution).

​

Create a Website | Tripod Web Hosting

---

There are many mistakes and mistatements on this page. I also see that the so called "Generalized Second Law" as used by creationists is really nothing different from a common statement of a consequence of the classical second law though it should say isolated rather than closed systems. The statement that closed systems move toward states of greater entropy is only correct if it is specified that the "closed system" is adiabatically closed(isolated). If heat can flow out of the system it can easily move to a state of decreased entropy. The statement that evolutionists claim that maturing of fauna, crytallization and precipitation violate the second law is false. Steiger certainly does not say this on his page which is referenced for this claim. What is true is that many systems spontaneously form ordered structures, human concepts of order and disorder are not precisely related to entropy and free energy changes determine the direction of reactions. For example, the formation of ordered liquid crystalline phases in surfactant/oil/water systems or the folding of globular proteins represent increases in structural order that are actually entropy driven by the so-called hydrophobic effect. There some other problems with this web page that I don't have time to address right now. I can only conclude that the writer either knows very little about thermodynamics or is being deliberately deceptive.While some creationists such as the author of the page you reference claim that evolution violates the second law using vague statements about entropy and order, other creationists such as Doug Craigen and Alan Harvey who have extensive backgrounds in thermodynamics understand that evolution does not violate the second law. I have never seen a creationist specify what exact physical processes or chemical or biochemical reactions required for evolution violate the second law. Unless you can make this identification you have no valid argument.
Randy
Note: Edited to add water to surfactant/oil/water systems above[This message has been edited by Randy, 07-30-2002]

[QUOTE][B]
"Exactly which step required for evolution is prevented by the second law each and every time that it might occur"[/QUOTE][/B]iN MY own approach to the reason Figenbaum left Upstate for NYC etc, I would never be able to answer this question "genetically" (difference of physiological and transmission genetics) until after I had a good handle on how conservation via the 1st law is to be written (for instance in non-equilihbrium thermodynamics generally) but if I take it this specific question has no effect on the integrable form or any other calculus of the problem I really to feel we need a new division of the study even before strictly from 2nd law thermo motivations one attempted an open or closed sytem by, by which even if the space of some of the steps be claimed to exist populationally it is still far from evident how destruction of the environment in Fisher's sense is to be ordinated for any SAME cardinality to Newton's. One could operate wholly outside this idea by using Gladyshev, Galileo and Maxwell but then again, is there some reason that the divisions of forces that quarks begot isnot not sufficient to the question rasied here.??Seems to me we either have to decide to let biology have its own theory dept or admit that we need to teach students more broad scinece than the current univeristy depts support for each field (chem, phys, bio) gives too much busy work to students but I do not take this question in the same vein.Nice query.

"Before you dismiss the article at trueorigin.org, why don't you read the whole article first. The usual evolutionist dismissal of thermodynamics vs evolution is that the second law applies only to a closed system, and life as we know it exists and evolved in an open system. The evolutionist rationale behind this is that a constant supply of energy can reduce entropy."
--I use a relatively same explanation behind this specific 'area of discordance' but I'm a YEC. I simply find it a bit obvious to my knowledge. But hey, I could be brainwashed, I have an open mind -- convince me otherwise."(i.e., increased organized complexity, or build-up rather than break-down). Raw solar energy alone does not decrease entropyin fact, it increases entropy, speeding up the natural processes that cause break-down, disorder, and disorganization on earth (consider, for example, your car’s paint job, a wooden fence, or a decomposing animal carcass, both with and then without the addition of solar radiation)."
--Kinda like saying that letting a car sit there isn't going to evolve on itself, eh? You just can't compare the mechanics of a system of hardware to a biological system."1. a program (information) to direct the growth in organized complexity"
--The very process of Evolutionary development, mutation."2. a mechanism for storing and converting the incoming energy.""
--Photosynthesis? And see below."Now, before organisms arose (before abiogenesis), there wouldn't have been such a program of mechanism in place.
--Gosh darn. Well I thought we were talking about Evolution and Thermodynamics. IE, the development, rather than origin."Now, you might take talk.origins example: "In fact, there are many examples in nature where order does arise spontaneously from disorder: Snowflakes with their six-sided crystalline symmetry are formed spontaneously from randomly moving water vapor molecules. Salts with precise planes of crystalline symmetry form spontaneously when water evaporates from a solution. Seeds sprout into flowering plants and eggs develop into chicks."
However, these examples don't have reduced entropy. Their formation is simply a movement towards a lower energy level (thus more stable)."
--"A movement towards a lower energy level"? This developmental process has required the use of environmental energy and has thusly put it to use. In that, your statement seems irrelevant to me."And also, before you knock off the site's articles, why don't you give a proper reason for refusing it? Explain and refute their argument that even in an open system entropy does not decrease.
--Overall, in a closed system, entropy technically does not increase nor decrease. It is, however, transferred by whichever mechanism. The sun's release of energy in the form of heat and light is the necessary example.--Also, this post does reinstate my participation in this forum. If there are any posts which immediately come to someone's mind here which would like response, let me know. Otherwise I'll just look through the topics a bit.------------------

I agree that entropy does not mean disorder. Entropy is actually measured by the number of ways the particles can be arranged while having the same properties. However, we are talking about abiogenesis.
Now, the formation of proteins is against the energy gradient. Just the accumulation of peptides in one spot is against the diffusion gradient. The input of energy supposedly in early earth is lightning. However, wouldn't it be much more likely that lightning would decompose any products that occur? Also, this supposedly happens in an anoxic environment. This would mean that there would be no ozone layer. But this ozone layer also protects organisms from cosmic rays and UV. You can't have it both ways. Just the sufficient accumulation of peptides in one area is quite improbable. It also requires energy for the peptides (which, after forming in the atmosphere, enter the water) to link up to each other. And what is the probability that they are all left-handed? Macromolecules also form from both L and D forms. And then there's the heterotrophic vs autotrophic debate. Most models I've seen have them start out as heterotrophs, assimilating organic molecules nearby until they become autotrophic. If they start out as heterotrophs, you would need an even greater concentration of organic molecules. And this isn't even including the time required for them to evolve into autotrophic organisms (which means that those molecules would be assimilating nearby organic molecules for quite a time).[This message has been edited by blitz77, 07-30-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by blitz77:
The input of energy supposedly in early earth is lightning. However, wouldn't it be much more likely that lightning would decompose any products that occur?

---

Why not geothermal energy? [/quote][/b]Also, this supposedly happens in an anoxic environment. This would mean that there would be no ozone layer. But this ozone layer also protects organisms from cosmic rays and UV.[/b][/quote]1) Modern life forms are vulnerable to UV and cosmic rays. This doesn't mean that early life was so vulnerable. But even if it was...2) The models I have seen usually involve thick clouds rich in volcanic material. Ozone does not have to be the only shield.

quote:

---

Just the sufficient accumulation of peptides in one area is quite improbable.

---

The ocean surf concentrates this stuff, or at least it concentrates stuff, today. It could have done the same for peptides.

quote:

---

It also requires energy for the peptides (which, after forming in the atmosphere, enter the water) to link up to each other.

---

How much energy? Last model I looked at had the oceans at a couple of hundred degrees.

quote:

---

And what is the probability that they are all left-handed? Macromolecules also form from both L and D forms.

---

Am I wrong in thinking that left and right molecules are not perfect mirror images? If so, they must function at least slightly differently.

quote:

---

And then there's the heterotrophic vs autotrophic debate. Most models I've seen have them start out as heterotrophs, assimilating organic molecules nearby until they become autotrophic. If they start out as heterotrophs, you would need an even greater concentration of organic molecules. And this isn't even including the time required for them to evolve into autotrophic organisms (which means that those molecules would be assimilating nearby organic molecules for quite a time).

---

Good thing we have a billion or so years for all of this to happen.[/B][/QUOTE]------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

I agree that entropy does not mean disorder. Entropy is actually measured by the number of ways the particles can be arranged while having the same properties. However, we are talking about abiogenesis.

---

That’s funny. I thought we were talking about evolution. The claim is usually made that the second law prevents evolution as well as abiogenesis. Are you not making that claim? In fact neither claim can be shown to be correct. The problem with claiming that the second law prevents abiogenesis is that abiogenesis can be assumed to be the result of a series of as yet unknown chemical reactions. Since the reactions are not known one certainly cannot say that they are prevented by the second law. End of story. If you want to discuss the viability of the various scenarios postulated for abiogenesis, I suggest going to the Origin of Life discussion area.Randy

quote:

---

Why not geothermal energy?

---

While hydrothermal energy could be a possible source, they harm other vital components of life. Stanley Miller himself points out that polymers are too unstable to exist in a hot prebiotic environment. He also points out that RNA bases are quickly destroyed in water at 100C. It destroys many complex amino acids (eg serine and threonine). Heating also racemizes amino acids, preventing exclusive left-handed amino acids.

quote:

---

1) Modern life forms are vulnerable to UV and cosmic rays. This doesn't mean that early life was so vulnerable. But even if it was...

​

2) The models I have seen usually involve thick clouds rich in volcanic material. Ozone does not have to be the only shield.

---

Clouds are not that great at stopping UV. With no ozone organisms are destroyed in 0.3 seconds, and for organic molecules it would be comparable.Also, the evidence for a reducing environment is not as strong as it seems. Most evolutionists give the example of magnetite. However, the iron formations also contain oxidized oxygen which requires an oxidizing atmosphere, making it quite debatable. Then there's sulfur deposits. If earth had a reducing atmosphere, you'd expect sulfide precipitates in archaen rocks. However, none have been found. Then there's also evidence for oxidized weathering crusts below banded iron formations. Archaen oxygen is also indicated once again.

quote:

---

The ocean surf concentrates this stuff, or at least it concentrates stuff, today.

---

But how concentrated can a surf concentrate the peptides? Enough for the formation of proteins, along with enough for the self-replicating molecules to reproduce? And also, I thought you were talking about the hydrothermal model. Where would it concentrate, as it requires energy to link up the peptides?

quote:

---

How much energy? Last model I looked at had the oceans at a couple of hundred degrees.

---

As I said before, hot water destroys complex amino acids and destroys RNA.

quote:

---

Am I wrong in thinking that left and right molecules are not perfect mirror images? If so, they must function at least slightly differently.

---

Yes, but the simple fact is that most of the organic macromolecules that would form would contain both L and D forms.
And by the way, they are optical isomers, and they are mirror images. Surely abiogenesis would have some use for D forms as well if it occurred.

quote:

---

Good thing we have a billion or so years for all of this to happen.

---

So you have these self-replicating heterotrophs eating up organic molecules nearby for the length of time until one becomes autotrophic? And abiogenesis supposedly occurred soon after when surface water became available.But really, maybe this thread should go into the origin of life section.[This message has been edited by blitz77, 07-31-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by blitz77:
[B][quote]While hydrothermal energy could be a possible source, they harm other vital components of life.[/b][/quote]

​

We are talking about a planetary system. Components from many sources will mix and match.

​

Besides, there are living thingies very near hydrothermal vents today.

​

Nature - Not Found
No webpage found at provided URL: http://gsa.confex.com/gsa/2001ESP/finalprogram/abstract_8352.htm

​

quote:

---

He also points out that RNA bases are quickly destroyed in water at 100C. It destroys many complex amino acids (eg serine and threonine). Heating also racemizes amino acids, preventing exclusive left-handed amino acids.

---

​

I think you are jumping ahead of me.

​

quote:

---

Clouds are not that great at stopping UV.

---

​

Well, for one we are not talking about rainclouds but clouds rich in volcanic material.

​

And two...
EvC Forum: Information and Genetics

​

[quote][b]Also, the evidence for a reducing environment is not as strong as it seems.[/quote]

​

[/b]

​

The nature article cited does not assume a reducing atmosphere. It seems the consensus is that the reducing atmosphere assumption is wrong.

​

quote:

---

Most evolutionists give the example of magnetite. However, the iron formations also contain oxidized oxygen which requires an oxidizing atmosphere, making it quite debatable. Then there's sulfur deposits. If earth had a reducing atmosphere, you'd expect sulfide precipitates in archaen rocks. However, none have been found. Then there's also evidence for oxidized weathering crusts below banded iron formations. Archaen oxygen is also indicated once again.

---

​

I think this falls with the fall of the reducing atmosophere.

​

[quote]But how concentrated can a surf concentrate the peptides? Enough for the formation of proteins, along with enough for the self-replicating molecules to reproduce?[/b]

---

I would argue so, tentatively. They concentrate on shore in little pools. But this is only one of the options.

quote:

---

And also, I thought you were talking about the hydrothermal model. Where would it concentrate, as it requires energy to link up the peptides?

---

I am talking about hydrothermal energy, perhaps not the hydrothermal model per se. The energy I am thinking of permiates the planet. Initially the whole planet was very hot. The energy I am thinking of is the energy released as it cooled. Initially, it was much too hot for anything to form, but the temperature slowly dropped to more or less modern degrees. There is a lot of energy in that period of cooling. Of course there are hydrothermal vents and lightning and whatnot as well, all contributing in some way or messing things up in other ways. [quote][/b]As I said before, hot water destroys complex amino acids and destroys RNA.[/quote][/b]Why do we need to start with complex amino acids and RNA? I think you are jumping ahead of me. [quote][/b]they are mirror images.[/b][/quote]ummm.... Chiral molecules lack reflection symmetry. San Diego Supercomputer Center

quote:

---

Surely abiogenesis would have some use for D forms as well if it occurred.

---

Well, assuming that both forms had an equal chance of occuring.
No webpage found at provided URL: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/142514.stm

quote:

---

So you have these self-replicating heterotrophs eating up organic molecules nearby for the length of time until one becomes autotrophic? And abiogenesis supposedly occurred soon after when surface water became available.

---

Well, yeah...Actually, I see abiogenesis starting soon after surface water became available. It would have taken quite awhile for something resembling modern life to evolve.------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com