Thermodynamics

Gday Jacen, sorry this if my first day on the site so im not surprised that nothing im asking is new. But im not 100% familiar with all that creationists claim and all that evolutionists claim. Thats why im mainly asking questions to see what everyone thinks

Are you sure you linked to the correct page? Mr. Sarfati does not seem averse to the argument from thermodynamics.--Percy

Sorry about that. Now, you know.This message has been edited by Jacen, 02-13-2005 10:44 AM

---

People, please look at the Style Guide for EvC thread by Sylas. Pay particular attention to step 3.SURGEON GENERAL'S WARNING: Refusal to use the search engine may cause brain cancer.

So what are your views on the 2nd law in regards to biological evolution Jacen?

Here is the right link. It is a link to a list of arguments creationists shouldn't use. The link is to the website of one of the leading YEC organizations.

---

People, please look at the Style Guide for EvC thread by Sylas. Pay particular attention to step 3.SURGEON GENERAL'S WARNING: Refusal to use the search engine may cause brain cancer.

The only reference i saw to the second law was that creationists shouldnt associate it with the "fall". And nothing to do with what i was saying

That doesn't have anything to do with thermodynamics, but it's a worthwhile question. (Many creationists think that the second law has to do with mechanisms ... it does not. Entropy is a property, which is a technical thermodynamic term meaning that its value depends only on the current state of the system and not at all on how the system got to that state; so the second law of thermodyanmics is not concerned with how things happen.)The sun's energy sustains all life by providing energy that drives chemical reactions in a direction that they would not take if the energy were not available, or to push chemical reactions "over the hump" of activation energy required to get them going. Once you have life that replicates itself but replicates imperfectly, evolution just happens.There's lots of discussion of entropy as it relates to evolution at Thermodynamics, Evolution and Creationism.--------------On another note, it's dangerous to equate entropy with disorder. Formally, the pizza box example given earlier in this thread is not really an example of entropy. Some kinds of disorder are entropy and some kinds are not. As is said at The second law of thermodynamics and evolution (an excellent site without complex math, well worth reading in its entirety):

quote:

---

As part of their attempts to challenge evolution, some religious writers have included comments to the effect that the second law — what they have called "the law of disorder" — strictly prohibits the chance formation of complicated stuctures from simple parts, including complex molecules from simple ones. This site, and especially http://www.secondlaw.com, have shown repeatedly that it is fallacious to view the second law as a predictor of disorder. The second law concerns energy, not patterns of objects.{emphasis added - JonF}

---

Or, from Note on Entropy, Disorder and Disorganization (which is pretty technical):

quote:

---

The error or ambiguity which is involved in the identification of entropy with disorder is well illustrated by an example I have used previously: the spontaneous crystallisation of a super-cooled melt. Under adiabatic {meaning "no heat transfer" - JonF} conditions the entropy of this system increases, but it would involve special pleading to substantiate a claim to the effect that its disorder also increases!

---

Finally, from Shuffled Cards, Messy Desks, and Disorderly Dorm Rooms Examples of Entropy Increase? Nonsense!

quote:

---

There is no more widespread error in chemistry and physics texts than the identification of a thermodynamic entropy increase with a change in the pattern of a group of macro objects. The classic example is that of playing cards. Shuffling a new deck is widely said to result in an increase in entropy in the cards. ... Thermodynamic entropy changes are dependent on changes in the dispersal of energy in the microstates of atoms and molecules. A playing card or a billiard ball or a blue sock is a package, a sealed closed system, of energetic microstates whose numbers and types are not changed when the package is transported to a new site from a starting place. All macro objects are like this. Their relocation to different sites does not create any permanent additional energetic microstates within them. (Any temporary heating effects due to the initiation and cessation of the movement are lost to the environment.) Thus, there is a zero change in their physical entropy as a result of being moved.

---

{edited to change "energy were available" to "energy were not available"}This message has been edited by JonF, 02-13-2005 11:04 AM

Could you substantiate that this is indeed the second law of thermodynamics? The second law I'm familiar with says that, in a closed system, the avaliable energy to do work decreases over time. It says nothing of order and disorder. Evolution has no need to "get around it", in fact, evolution - or any life process - could not occur if the second law was not in effect:1) Life chemistry is entropic. The chemistry of living things uses energy to do work, leaving less energy avaliable for work when its done. That's the second law.2) Evolution requires imperfect replication of genetic material. An overall trend from order to disorder ensures this will be the case. Well, wait, now. Complexity and order are not the same thing. The second law says nothing about complexity. In fact, complexity and order are almost the opposite thing. Ordered systems are very, very simple. Complex systems are very disordered.A fully-constructed house may be complex, but its in a significantly less ordered state than organized piles of lumber on your lawn.

The fantasy of newton's body which einstein divided into a rod and a clock technically depended in the first Kantian category of science on the operation of stop and letting light pass. Einstein continued this LOGIC by making photons in the body but out of the Maxwell-Faraday evolution of physics. Until there are statistical mechanics of the materiality expressed in terms of heritibility it will not be possible to relate gravity to life sensu stricto but this does not prevent one from isolating an organism in Darwin's descent with modification HOWEVER if the entropy increases are more with electrons than photons I would doubt the negative aspects so far contributed in this thread. You need only ponder Kev
Long urlran, a Frechman, who thought by growing lobsters and and baking bread and looking at human body salt content on the Sahara, that the weak force was operative as well. There is not any way to discount evolutionary theory for man-made systems on my view but that may not be the creationist standard.
The dermal cell boundary can easily be thought of as a natural system that lets light pass and stops it depending on skin color.
So with the skin as the system there might not be a "violation" but only an ability to turn reflection into refraction. This is part of the determintive not the reflective judgement however. Physicsts might make that mistake.
another cite
colored bibliography
same as above but in Italian
Feynman for instance seemed a bit TOO enamoured with the techincal advancements in biotechnology that he might have misposke about the form of his drum motion and that still being but oil, not the whole tissie OR organ he meant to speak of biologically. edited by AdminJar to shorten url. Brad, use the peek function to see how I did it for future reference pleaseThis message has been edited by AdminJar, 02-13-2005 10:44 AMThis message has been edited by Brad McFall, 02-13-2005 12:39 AM

Let's just say that using the second law of thermodynamics to support an argument against biological evolution requires using more layman's terms than the acceptable level.When I explain a scientific concept to someone, I often find myself having to use a lot of layman's terms. It is my experience that people often think they understood everything there is to know about a scientific concept after only 15 minutes of hearing it in layman's terms. I personally think that using the 2nd law of Thermodynamics is an example of such a case. Instead of using "entropy", we have to resort to using "measurement of disorder".Here are some things the user should know.1) In order for something to follow the law, it must be a closed system.--A life form is not a closed system.2) Even if we put a cell inside a closed container that contains only the basic "stuff" to keep the cell alive, we will very quickly observe that the disorder inside the cell is less than the disorder of the environment outside the cell. In other words, the cell wall actively pumps out certain particles and pumps in certain particles to create less entropy INSIDE the cell. However, this process causes an increase in entropy in the cell's surroundings. No law has been violated.3) Complexity does not equal entropy. See what happens when you try to use too much layman's terms and not enough understanding of the technicalities behind them?Coincidently, we have a way to measure entropy. How do you measure complexity?

---

People, please look at the Style Guide for EvC thread by Sylas. Pay particular attention to step 3.SURGEON GENERAL'S WARNING: Refusal to use the search engine may cause brain cancer.

No, no, a thousand times no!!! All systems operate in accordance with the second law. Open systems are just a bit more complex.

Hahaha.Yes, all systems tend to operate with a trend in accordance with the second law. But the relationship between a closed system and an open system is like that of a real gas and an ideal gas. They tend to act like that... but not really.But yes, it was a mistake for me to say that.

---

People, please look at the Style Guide for EvC thread by Sylas. Pay particular attention to step 3.SURGEON GENERAL'S WARNING: Refusal to use the search engine may cause brain cancer.

Kolmogorov complexity is one method whereby the measure is the minimum number of bits into which a binary representation of the object can be compressed without losing information.

My memory is fuzzy here but how is that different from Shannon's definition?It sounds like it should be at least related to Shannon information so I'm not sure if it adds anything useful? Can you cover that?This message has been edited by NosyNed, 02-13-2005 12:28 AM

That's interesting. Care to explain more?