Evolution vs. Thermodynamics

I have just joined here but I think some of you know me from OCW and other boards over the years.If you read the article on thermodynamics by Wallace on the grossly misnamed TrueOrigins archive as I have done and then read the original papers that Wallace quotes as I have also done you will see that Wallace's work represents a classic case of creationist out of context quoting. I have posted my analysis of Wallace's page on other boards but don't have time to post it all again right now. Maybe later.Meanwhile the key question for those who claim that the the second law prevents evolution is the following."Exactly which step required for evolution is prevented by the second law each and every time that it might occur"I first saw this question raised by Tim Thompson on OCW.If you cannot identify a step in a process that violates the second law you cannot prove that the process violates the second law.Randy

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

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:

---

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

The thermodynamic arguments on this thread that has become about abiogenesis rather than evolution seem a little confused to me. I only have time to reply to a few made by Blit77Blitz77: But anyway, correct me if I'm wrong, wouldn't the lipid membrane prefer to stay in 1 globule instead of splitting into two, as splitting into two exposes a bigger surface area to the water, which is disfavored by thermodynamics.Randy: OK, You are wrong. You are thinking of the splitting up of oil droplets which is unfavorable because of increased oil/water interfacial area. The bilayer membrane is a thermodynamically stable phase. The hydrophilic portions of the lipid molecules are exposed to the water so there is no thermodynamic cost to expose more area to water and I don’t think splitting a hollow shell into two hollow shells results in much change in surface area anyway. The only cost may be a very small one from increased curvature of the membrane. This can be more than compensated for by other factors especially if more lipid can be incorporated into the new membranes.Blitz77:The two great trends in the universe is for higher entropy and lower energy.Randy: No energy is conserved. You have forgotten the FIRST law of thermodynamics.Blita77:Let me put it this way-Making a complex molecule is a decrease in entropy. The absorption of heat makes a temperature gradient with the surroundings (yet another decrease in entropy). Thus it doesn't work (you can't have them both decreasing in entropy).
I'm not sure whether this makes sense, tell me if I'm wrong please.Randy: OK you are wrong. If this were true polymerization reactions would not be spontaneous and many of them are highly spontaneous. Complex molecules can form spontaneously under the appropriate conditions of temperature and pressure. Polymerization reactions release heat to compensate for the decrease in entropy of the monomers. It is the free energy change and not the entropy change that determines the direction of a reaction and the free energy changes depends on temperature and pressure. You are trying to argue that the second law of thermodynamics prevents unknown reactions that may have occurred at unknown conditions of temperature and pressure. This invalidates all your thermodynamic arguments leaving you with arguments from incredulity.Randy

Blitz77 wrote

quote:

---

Not really. Forming peptides does not release as much heat as is required to produce them. Without a reducing atmosphere, you can't form peptides without having a net loss of entropy. Same thing as for producing proteins from peptides; more energy is required to produce proteins than is released by the polymerization process. I am saying that converting heat into bond energy reduces the amount of free energy. Any reaction that reduces Gibbs-free energy is not spontaneous, and requires a increase of entropy somewhere else. What I am saying is that converting the heat into bond energy is thermodynamically unfavorable, as heat has a higher entropy than bond energy. Thus, if you convert heat energy into bond energy, you need something else to supply the increase in entropy to compensate for the loss of entropy from converting heat into bond energy. So you need something else as well as heat, as heat only supplies the energy, it doesn't supply the required increase in entropy.
Let me demonstrate this with the Gibbs-Helmholtz equation: -
dG = dH - TdS (d = delta symbol, and at constant T and P).
Since we are converting heat into bond energy, dH is positive.
dS is also negative, as the order of the system is increasing. Now, if dH is positive and dS is negative, then dG must also be positive. Now, according to the general chemistry textbook next to me, if dG is positive, reaction is nonspontaneous. If dG is zero, the system is at equilibrium. If dG is negative, the reaction is spontaneous.
Since the reaction is non-spontaneous (the absorption of heat into bond energy to form a lower entropy molecule), it won't happen without an increase of entropy somewhere else (a -dH + TdS somewhere else that is > than the dH - TdS).

---

Your thermodynamics still seems a bit confused to me and while you have stated the expression for the free energy change correctly you seemed to have completely missed the point. The point of the free energy argument is that delta G depends on temperature and pressure. It is positive for peptide formation from amino acids at room temperature and one atmosphere pressure but it is negative at some higher temperatures and pressures such as those in the range found in the neighborhood of hydrothermal vents. Everett Shock (Origins of LIfe and Evolution of the Biosphere, 22, 67-107), showed this theoretically about ten years ago and it has also been shown experimentally at least for elongation of glycine oligopeptides (Imai, E., et. Al. . 1999, Science 283(5403): 831—833. ).
Since you don’t know the temperatures and pressures or even the reactions that may have occurred during abiogenesis, if it indeed occurred naturally, you can not say that those reactions violate the second law. You are still arguing from incredulity and your arguments do not have the force of the second law behind them as much as you might wish otherwise.Randy

Blitz77:So you are suggesting that the proteins formed at around or over 400C?Randy: I see you finaly acknowledge that peptide formation is not necessarily against the "energy gradient" as you claimed before. What I am saying is that you don't know the conditions of temperature and pressure, the temperature gradients, what the exact reactants were, reactions that may have been coupled to protein formation, when protein formation must have first occurred during abiogenesis, or much of anything else about what may have happened. When you don't know the reactions or sequences of reactions or the conditions when and where said reactions may have occurred you cannot say that any of them violated the second law of thermodynamics. You can say that abiogenesis seems highly improbable to you and that no currently proposed scenario is convincing to you but you cannot prove that the process could not have occurred without violating the second law.I see you have given up all arguments about evolution violating the second law to focus on abiogenesis. Does this mean that you agree that evolution does not violate the second law? That was the original topic of this thread after all.Randy

quote:

---

Originally posted by blitz77:
No-I admit that it that polymerization of the amino acids can occur spontaneously at high temperatures (>500C at 5kbars)-but glycine is the most stable of the amino acids (as it is the simplest). You can't have it both ways-a high temperature + stable amino acids / proteins. That's why John didn't specify that it occurred in the hydrothermal vents-there are other problems there. And how would the amino acids form in the first place without a reducing atmosphere? Without a reducing atmosphere, it is against the law of thermodynamics that amino acids can form spontaneously-only in a reducing atmosphere it can, as only in a reducing atmosphere can the reactions necessary to produce the amino acids be spontaneous (given a spark of energy to get over the activation energy requirement).

​

[This message has been edited by blitz77, 08-05-2002]

---

So we are fortunate that the prebiotic earth had a reducing atmosphere for a couple billion years. Creationist claims to the contrary there is still solid evidence for this. Gary Hurd gives references for this in his critique of Sarfati's critique of the Imai paper.Account SuspendedIt is also possible smectite clays catalized reactions, protected reactants and products and preferentially bound optical isomers and there are other scenarios that can be postulated. As I said before, you don't know the reactions or the conditions under which they occurred so you can't prove that they violated the second law. You are still arguing from incredulity and your claims do not have the force of the second law behind them.Randy

quote:

---

Blitz77:Interestingly, in the self-test question 8 it says that a hydrothermal origin of life is unlikely because of a.Organic molecules are unstable at high temperatures
&
b.The proposed temperature gradient would be too small to produce a significant amount of organic compounds

---

Randy: No the self test says that some scientists believe that the gradient was too small. The self test also says the oceans would not completely freeze over because the sun was 30% less luminous which is obviously some sort of mistake.Regarding the reducing atmosphere question, my literature research on the subject indicates that virtually all scientists working in this area think the atmosphere had about 0.1% of its current oxygen content 3.5 billion years ago and most think that it began to rise to its current levels about 2-2.5 billion years ago. This conclusion is not drawn because a reducing atmosphere is required for organic chemistry as the exobiology site says but because minerals exists which could not have formed in the presence of oxygen. There is some controversy about when the rise to current levels of oxygen began but not about whether oxygen was originally low. While the atmosphere is no longer considered to be as strongly reducing as the mix used in the Miller-Urey experiments most seem to agree that reducing conditions existed on the pre-biotic earth.

quote:

---

Blitz77:This was what I was talking to you about before, John. The heat by itself can't do anything in lowering the molecular entropy-only the temperature gradient.

---

Randy: This statement does not make sense. It indicates to me is that you don’t have a very good grasp of thermodynamics. Adding heat increases the entropy of a system (dS = dQ/T) but that is not very relevant to this argument. The statement that only the temperature gradient can lower molecular entropy seems to me completely nonsensical. As you have admitted free energy changes depend on reaction conditions and the free energy change determines the direction of any reaction. You don’t really know the reaction conditions so your conclusions can not be shown to be valid.
Randy

quote:

---

Originally posted by Percipient:
If I'm following the discussion properly, the Creationist position in this thread has shifted from "2LOT doesn't permit abiogenesis" to "2LOT permits abiogenesis, but the heat gradient on the ancient earth was insufficient for abiogenesis." Do I have this right?

​

--Percy

---

Well it started out with 2LOT prevents evolution and when that creationist argument fell flat it moved to peptide synthesis in abiogenesis being against 2LOT and now to heat gradients and reducing atmospheres. That last does seem to be that the heat gradient was insufficient as you say but I don't know if you have this right or not since it is a bit hard for me to make sense of some of Blitz's thermodynamics. How about you?Randy

quote:

---

Originally posted by blitz77:
It is because the heat gradient is insufficient that it violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics-because entropy always increases. The supposed counter-increase in entropy is supposed to come from the decrease of the energy gradient, which is quite insufficient for the job.
Unless you are suppposing that the resultant molecules have a higher entropy?

​

[This message has been edited by blitz77, 08-06-2002]

---

This makes so little sense that I find it difficult to frame a logical reply but I will try. First, entropy only "always increases" in isolated systems and the systems in question were clearly open. While it is true that energy gradients can lead to self organizing behavior this is not what I am saying here. I say that I am supposing the reaction conditions might have been such that the free energy changes favored the necessary reactions what ever they may have been and I said that before more than once. It really is the answer but I don't suppose you will ever accept it so I am probably wasting my time. Unless you know what the required reactions were and the specific conditions under which they must have occurred, things that you will probably never know, you are only arguing from incredulity and cannot logically invoke the second law of thermodynamics to say they were impossible. I don't see any point in repeating this further. It should be clear and obvious to anyone with even a basic understanding of thermodynamics.Randy

quote:

---

Hello all and greetings. Perhaps we can learn a few things from each other.

​

Well lets move this discussion back to '2LOT does not permit abiogenesis, and we will add to that Evolution also.

​

I have read many of the post and it is sad that our education system has failed its' students in teaching science, including the 2LOT. It is taught as it was taught over 100 years ago when it uses were for designing more efficient and powerful steam engines. Let's start by addressing some of the mis-notions about the 2LOT.

---

Hmm. I certainly learned thermo starting with the Carnot cycle and I expect most of the others who have taken classes on thermo did as well. I think the mis-notions presented here come from posters with little or no formal training in thermodynamics. The subject is more subtle and complex than many people realize.

quote:

---

The following statements are true.
1. When something moves, entropy increases.
2. All real processes increase entropy. Therefore, all real processes are irreversible.
3. The 2LOT applies equally well to open systems.

---

OK so far but since you seem to be claiming such a superior science education why don’t you explain to us just how to apply the second law in open systems and how that prevents evolution? I assume from your intro that you think 2LOT somehow prevents evolution but that was not completely clear. Just what do you think?

quote:

---

4. Crystallization is brought about by nuclear forces taking charge when the crystallizing molecules movement decreases enough (i.e. Heat Loss). In all steps of this process, entropy increases.

---

Crystallization has virtually nothing to do with either the stong nuclear force or the weak nuclear force. Maybe the education system teaching science has failed you.

quote:

---

5. The 2LOT is true solely due to the fact that the natural flow of molecules is toward an equilibrium of disorder. The flow is from low probability states to higher probability states. The difference in the probabilities of the lower and higher probability states is the reason for irreversibility in the real world. All other ways of stating the 2LOT are simply special cases of this truth.

---

And are you saying that this flow to higher probability states (actually movement of the system toward states with more microstates in the energy range E +/- dE) somehow prevents evolution? If so you should be able to point to the specific step required for evolution that is prevented. I should also point out that equating entropy and the second law purely with order and disorder as you are apparently doing here is not nearly so straightforward as you may think. However, I don’t see the point of going into the meaning of the fundamental postulates of statistical mechanics and a long discussion of the nature of entropy unless you can point to a step required for evolution that is prevented by the second law. That is if it is indeed your position that 2LoT prevents evolution. You really didn't make it very clear.
Randy

Bart007,All I can say is deja vu all over again! I have refuted the same list of creationist claims and out of context quotes so many times before that I have no interest in doing it again. Just provide a specific answer to the question"Exactly what step required for evolution is prevented by the second law of thermodynamics?"I don't mean vague generalizations about entropy and order or the supposed requirement for "energy converting mechanisms". If you cannot provide a specific answer to this question your argument falls flat.BTW, If you copied the stuff in either of your posts from one or more creationist websites you should probably acknowledge them.Randy

So Bart you think I am insulting and maybe bigoted. Maybe you shouldn’t have started talking about how the education system failed in teaching science including the 2LoT. I am getting tired of creationists implying that scientists, including myself, don’t really understand thermodynamics and I replied in kind. I have studied the subject off and on for about 40 years, I have done thermodynamic work professionally and now teach thermodynamics of surfaces and colloids. There are many evolutionists with even more detailed training and experience in thermodynamics and statistical mechanic who agree with me. Some of them even post on internet boards. Of course there are also quite a few creationists, some with considerable understanding of thermodynamics who also understand that the second law does not prevent evolution(See below). Since you insist I will answer the major points you have obtained from creationist books and/or sites. In my experience these debates lead to long posts very fast and can chew up a lot of time.

quote:

---

Creationists agree that there is more than sufficient energy available
for living processes to occur. Those ardent anti-creationists who write the anti-creation literature up a straw man and have played a clever word game by carelessly focusing on 'crystals', 'closed systems', 'open systems', the earth, the sun, etc. to refute an argument never made by creationists and to lead people think that creation scientists are not capable scientists. From reading posts written on these type forums, it appears that their misinformation campaign has been very successful.
I don't care how much the sun shines on it, I would not invest money or time in any patent that violates the second law, nor would I want an electrical system installed in my home which violates the 2nd law.

---

This might be relevant if evolution actually violated the second law but since it doesn’t this is meaningless. It is a subset of the creationist who are carrying out the misinformation campaign. Maybe you don't think accusing science of a misinformation campaign was insulting but I might disagree. If you are going to dish it out you should be ready to take it.

quote:

---

Yes, even in an open system, the 2LOT can be violated, bit I'm sure you know that already.

---

What??

quote:

---

In its differential form, the second law states that the quantity of entropy generated locally cannot be negative irrespective of wether the system is isolated or not, and irrespective of wether the process under consideration is irreversible or not. Harvard Scientist Dr. John Ross wrote in a letter published in the 'Chemistry and Engineering News' (July 27, 1980). Stated:
"There are no known violations to the second law of thermodynamics. Ordinarily the second law is stated for isolated systems, but the second law applies equally well to open systems. ... there is somehow associated with the field of far-from equilibrium phenomena the notion that the second law of thermodynamics fails for such systems. It is important that this error does not perpetuate itself."

---

So do you have this issue of C&E News? I was taking it then but can’t find issues that far back. Maybe I’ll get it at the library. The point is that while the differential of the entropy produced in parts of the system considered to be in or near local equilibrium is positive the entropy flow term can be negative. There are many examples of this.

quote:

---

Physicists have known since the early twentieth century that the reason why the 2nd Law is true is 'probability'. The 2LOT is true solely due to the fact that the natural flow of molecules is toward an equilibrium of disorder. The flow is from low probability states to higher probability states. The difference in the probabilities of the lower and higher probability states is the reason for irreversibility in the real world. All other ways of stating the 2LOT are simply special cases of this truth.

---

Equating entropy with probability and disorder is not as straightforward as you think. If you are going to do Boltzmann-Gibbs statistics, which is where the idea comes from, the system in question must follow the fundamental postulates of statistical mechanics. That is it the ensemble average must equal the time average in the limit that the ensemble size approaches infinity and also the system must be ergodic. You must also specify that the disorder is represented in a 6 dimensional phase space consisting of the position and momentum of each particle in the system. Further, this is not relavant because entropy, however defined can decrease in open systems.

quote:

---

Physicist Richard P. Feynman explained entropy as the flow from order to disorder, from states of lower probability to states of higher probability. He gives the example of filming two gases, a gas of white particles and a gas of black particles, in a container separated by a boundary. He calls this state highly ordered as all the black particles in the container are all on one side and all the white particles are on the other side. When the boundary is removed, the particles will mix together, order decreases and disorder increases. This is considered an irreversible process. But Feynman has an objection, if you play the film backwards, the particles separate and all the white particles go to one side of the container and the black particles go to the other side of the container, and not only that, but careful observation shows that no physical laws are broken, all the particles are moving at just the right speed and are forming just the right collisions at just the right angle for this to happen. Thus the process is reversible and, Feynman adds, so are all the fundamental laws of physics. So what is it that makes the natural mixing of the two gases irreversible? Feynman's answer is `probability'. The number of states (particle distribution) of disorder far outnumber the number of states of order, so much so that it becomes unrealistic to expect reversibility. The gases are moving from states of very low probability to states of very high probability. From order to disorder.

---

I have Feynman’s lectures on physics and he uses this example, which is also found in one form or another in virtually all undergrad thermo texts and statistical mechanics texts usually to illustrate how to calculate the entropy of mixing. Have you actually read the lecture or just someone else's take on it? Clausius understood that the second implied an arrow of time about 150 years ago. Is this supposed to be news to us?

quote:

---

That ardent atheist and anti-creationist evolutionist Isaac Asimov, once described the 2nd Law this way:

​

"Another way of stating the second law then is: 'The universe is constantly getting more disorderly.' Viewed that way we can see the second law all about us. We have to work hard to straighten out a room, but left to itself, it becomes a mess again, very quickly and very easily. Even if we never enter it, it becomes dusty and musty. How difficult it is to maintain houses, and machinery, and our own bodies in perfect working order; how easy to let them deteriorate. In fact, all we have to do is nothing, and everything deteriorates, collapses, breaks down, wears out - all by itself - and that is what the second law is all about."

---

This is a popular way to try to explain entropy and the second law but it is fundamentally wrong to equate human concepts of order and disorder with entropy. For more on the subject see Frank Lambert’s explanation
Just a moment...

quote:

---

The problem evolutionists have is that they know the second law is a fact and they KNOW evolution is a fact, therefore the two must be compatible. This forces them to believe that order and specified complexity arises out of chaos, that nonsense generates sense, that information has arisen spontaneously within systems.

​

To satisfy the second law, more is required than simply having an open system and a flow-through of energy. The flow through of energy is a necessary condition for reversing entropy in a system, but not a sufficient one. Sunshine may flow into Asimov's room, and the heat may be turned on at night, but neither will reverse the increasing entropy in that room. In fact, the sun's energy speeds up the increase of entropy of the paint on the exterior of my home and inside Asimov's room.

---

The problem that creationists have is that an open system is enough to generate order from disorder and there are many examples and the room example is bogus.

quote:

---

What is needed is an engine, a converting mechanism, some sort of coupling mechanism that will convert the negative entropy associated with energy flow into negative entropy associated with configurational entropy and the corresponding information. This is the problem the second law presents to evolution. Until such an engine is found, evolution is in violation of the second law.

---

This is something some creationists have invented that is no part of the laws of thermodynamics. Why do you think Dembski is trying to invent a fourth law of thermodynamics? It is because he knows that the first three laws (or four if you count the 0th law) do not prevent evolution.

quote:

---

The 2nd law is a central question for those who hold to spontaneous generation:

---

Strawman alert!! I don't want to get into an endless debate on term but I think that equating abiogenesis with spontanous generation is a strawman. Maybe this should be another thread.

quote:

---

Nobel Laureate, Biologists Christian De Duve, in his 1995 book `Vital Dust', states that any and all scenarios for spontaneous generation must be certain that each step of the process flows from lower probability to higher probability so as not to violate the 2nd law.

​

According to the eminent information theoretician & evolutionist Yockey:
"An uninvited guest (Schroedinger, 1955; du Nouy,1947; Prigogine, and Nicolis 1971; Gatlin, 1972; Prigogine, Nicolis & Babyloyantz, 1972; Volkenstein, 1973) at any discussion of the origin of life and evolution from the materialistic reductionist point of view, is the role of thermodynamic entropy and the 'heat death' of the universe which it predicts. The universe should in every way go from states which are less probable to those which are more probable. Therefore, hot bodies cool; energy is conserved but becomes less available to do work. According to this uninvited guest, the spontaneous generation of life is highly improbable ( Prigogine, Nicolis, and Babyloyantz, 1972). The uninvited guest will not go away nor will the biological evidence to the contrary notwithstanding."

---

Prigogene and Yockey! You should read Yockey’s paper "Origin of life on earth and Shannon's theory of communication, Computers and Chemistry 24(2000) 105-123. IIRC he is quite definite in his opinion that the second law does not prevent evolution or abiogenesis and that information and entropy should not be equated. I'll look it up again tomorrow. As for Prigogene here is a quote from Modern Thermodynamics from Heat Engines to Dissipative Structures, by Dilip Kondepudi and Ilya Prigogine (which I highly recommend, it is available online in paperback.)
Many detailed studies of such structural instabilities and molecular evolution have been conducted[34-37]. These models are beyond the scope of this text but we will note an interesting thermodynamic feature summarized in Fig. 19.13. Each new structural instability generally increases the dissipation or entropy production in the system because it increases the number of reactions. This is in contrast to the near-equilibrium situations discussed in chapter 17 in which the entropy production tends to a minimum. Structural instability may progressively drive far-from-equilibrium systems to higher states of entropy production and higher states of order. Needless to say, biochemical evolution and the origin of life is a very complex process which we are only beginning to understand. But now we see instability, fluctuation and evolution to organized states as a general nonequilibrium process whose most spectacular manifestation is the evolution of life.

quote:

---

Evolutionist and anti-creationist John Patterson wrote an article in an evolutionists publication attacking creation scientists meant for public consumption. His article was supposed to debunk the Creationists claims that evolution violates the 2nd law. After writing much nonsense similar to what has been posted in this forum, Patterson inadvertantly put forward the Creationists true 2nd law argument when he wrote:

​

"It is one thing for an internally organized, open system to foster uphill processes by tapping downhill processes, but how did the required internal organization come about in the first place? Indeed the so-called dissipative structures that produce uphill processes are highly organized (low entropy) molecular ensembles, especially when compared to the dispersed arrays from which they assembled. Hence, the question of how they could originate by natural processes remains a challenging one."

---

Are you sure this quote is in context? Perhaps he gave an answer in the following paragraph. Quoting rhetorical questions out of context as if they had no answer is a favorite creationist tactic. Wallace does it more than once on his TrueOrigin thermo page, in fact he does this on every quote I have checked to the original paper (3 out of 3) and I wouldn’t be surprised if he did it here since this quote is on his page. Do you have the book? I don’t but I can try to get it. If anyone wants to read what Patterson actually has to say on the subject here is a link.Thermodynamics, Creationism, and Evolution - Summer 1997Watch out. He really is insulting.

quote:

---

This is the problem creationists have with the 2nd law. And as you can see, the problem concerns evolutionists as well.

​

I think Asimov's example is most appropriate. Rooms are made to perform a function, and a large collection of dust is not the function most people have in mind. For most people, that room will have to be swept clean, the blankets or table cloths washed, the furniture dusted and/or repaired, the walls painted. Thus work must be done for the room to be restored to its' original function. An engine must be provided to perform that work (in our case human beings) and the engine will expend energy in doing the work and must itself consume energy to also function.

---

As I said above Asimov’s example is bogus.

quote:

---

For life processes, disorder is a loss of function, very broadly speaking. The loss of function may be due to loss of order, or of specified complexity, or of information, or energy.

​

I'm getting older, my body does not function as well as it use to do. When I play ball, my mind knows instinctively what to do, but my body no longer responds like it use to do. I'm a lot slower now. My body is undergoing decay, even as I live.

---

Please! Your are reminding me of Jeptha. I don’t want to go through all that again. (about 40-50 pages of debate with myself and many others on OCW and ARN)

quote:

---

Randy "Exactly what step required for evolution is prevented by the second law of thermodynamics?"

​

The first step is abiogenesis.

​

The 2nd step is the origin of the many types of proteins.

​

Randy "I don't mean vague generalizations about entropy and order or the supposed requirement for "energy converting mechanisms". If you cannot provide a specific answer to this question your argument falls flat."

​

I gave you two specific steps. I wait for your response.

---

And you claim to have read the posts on this thread! Gene and I just spent quite a bit of time explaining this to Blitz77. I don’t want to repeat it. Look back.

quote:

---

Randy "BTW, If you copied the stuff in either of your posts from one or more creationist websites you should probably acknowledge them."

​

I did not. I have read the sources I have quoted. You better get use to them. I will use science over and over again to demonstrate the failure of Evolution as a viable scientific theory. Scientists will be called to the witness stand and their passionate BELIEF that Evolution is a fact will be discarded as irrelevent, and their testimony to the real scientific data from their fields of expertise will be used to pass judgement on the Theory of Evolution.

---

Sorry but I have seen all those quotes and very similar wording used to introduce them in debates with at several other creationists on several different boards over the years so I think the assumption was natural. IIRC the infamous Jeptha used all of them as well as many more. As to BELIEF how do you explain creationist who disagree with your BELIEF that the second law prevents evolution.

quote:

---

I advise that you avoid the pitfalls of ridicule, insults, declarations, and substanceless or unsubstantiated comments (and I have come across many by evolutionists who have posted in this thread including the one I'm responding).

---

Well you set yourself up for this when you presumed to teach us thermo and then repeated creationist claims and quotes that I have seen and either refuted or seen refuted several times before. I suspect that is true of some others here.Since you may have missed my earlier posts I will point out again 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 and Craigen explain why entropy does not correspond to human conceptions of order and disorder.Have a nice vacation.Randy

Blitz,
Please note this sentence from the quote you give.

quote:

---

However, at this level the arguments are primarily about plausibility of chemical mechanisms rather than thermodynamics (and those who use them should not say their position is based on thermodynamics), so they are outside the scope of this essay.

---

It is certainly legitimate to argue about the plausibility of proposed mechanisms of abiogenesis but I agree with Harvey when he says that those who use such arguments should not say their position is based on thermodynamics. I think the reasons for this have been given in sufficient detail in previous posts.Randy