Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 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:   Entropy and the immutable law of death
ChemEbeaver
Junior Member (Idle past 5975 days)
Posts: 18
From: Aloha, OR, USA
Joined: 11-09-2007


Message 46 of 83 (433448)
11-12-2007 1:20 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by crashfrog
11-10-2007 12:51 PM


Re: misconception of entropy
Combustion and decomposition are thermodynamic systems
They're not a system, they're processes...
combustion, a chemical process
Combustion
Processes do not have measurable quantities, systems do.
thermodynamic system are characterized by...pressure and volume, magnetic field and magnetic dipole moment, etc.
http://www.jgsee.kmutt.ac.th/exell/Thermo/Systems.html
Evolution comes from mutation, which can be explained by entropy and the laws of thermodynamics (and other laws such as conservation of mass, etc.) just as much as the rest of biology can be explained by chemistry.
A system can be anything, for example a piston, a solution in a test tube, a living organism, a planet, etc.
Thermodynamic system - Wikipedia
Since living organisms are systems, they can change in entropy.
Evolution is not a thermodynamic system
Yes, like I explained I was just keeping it simple:
It's true, evolution is not technically a system, it's a process like combustion or decomposition. I was trying to keep it simple.
Let me rephrase, the process of evolution takes place in an open system that can be decreased in entropy.
Evolution is a process in which they organism (system) can undergo change in entropy. Contrary to Creationist believes, it can decrease in entropy. This is possible because the surrounding balances the loss in entropy by the system, by increasing in entropy. The second law of thermodynamics states that only the universe (system + surrounding) must always increasing in entropy or remains the same and not the system.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by crashfrog, posted 11-10-2007 12:51 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by crashfrog, posted 11-12-2007 1:30 AM ChemEbeaver has replied

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


Message 47 of 83 (433449)
11-12-2007 1:30 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by ChemEbeaver
11-12-2007 1:20 AM


Re: misconception of entropy
They're not a system, they're processes...
Systems. That's why burning produces heat; it's a thermodynamic system.
If combustion isn't thermodynamic, how do you explain the heat of the flame?
Evolution comes from mutation, which can be explained by entropy and the laws of thermodynamics (and other laws such as conservation of mass, etc.) just as much as the rest of biology can be explained by chemistry.
Evolution is a description of what happens to populations of organisms. Evolution is not a mutation. Mutation of individuals is partly why it happens to populations, but the mere fact that mutations are occurring - which does represent something thermodynamic, incidentally - doesn't make evolution into a thermodynamic process, because you can't describe evolution as a function of moving heat.
It's simply not possible.
Since living organisms are systems, they can change in entropy.
Yes. And evolution is a description of what happens to populations of these systems.
It is not, itself, a system, not any more than the laws of thermodynamics themselves represent a system. They're a description of traits of systems.
Evolution is a process in which they organism (system) can undergo change in entropy.
Evolution doesn't cause any changes in entropy. The changes in entropy that organisms experience are functions of metabolism. Populations of organisms experience a certain kind of change over time that is not entropic in nature, it isn't related to the movement of heat, and therefore is not a thermodynamic system.
The description of that change is evolution. Evolution is not a thermodynamic system, open or closed. The evolution of organisms causes no change in entropy to any system, no movement of heat, does no work. Evolution is not a system; it's a description of a trend in populations of organisms.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by ChemEbeaver, posted 11-12-2007 1:20 AM ChemEbeaver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by ChemEbeaver, posted 11-12-2007 1:57 AM crashfrog has replied

  
ChemEbeaver
Junior Member (Idle past 5975 days)
Posts: 18
From: Aloha, OR, USA
Joined: 11-09-2007


Message 48 of 83 (433450)
11-12-2007 1:43 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by crashfrog
11-10-2007 12:51 PM


Re: misconception of entropy
Quote from crashfrog:
Evolution [is]...not a process
A Process is a naturally occurring or designed sequence of changes of properties or attributes of an object or system
Process - Wikipedia
Evolution as a process
Page not found - OneLife
Evolution is a process
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-definition.html
Quote from crashfrog:
molecules break and form chemical bonds causing a net change in the total heat of the system
I assure you living organism (systems) always does this.
Evolution is the process, or change, living organisms undergo in genotype and (leading to change in) phenotype.
Edited by ChemEbeaver, : clarify quote origin

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by crashfrog, posted 11-10-2007 12:51 PM crashfrog has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by Modulous, posted 11-12-2007 11:20 AM ChemEbeaver has replied

  
ChemEbeaver
Junior Member (Idle past 5975 days)
Posts: 18
From: Aloha, OR, USA
Joined: 11-09-2007


Message 49 of 83 (433451)
11-12-2007 1:57 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by crashfrog
11-12-2007 1:30 AM


Re: misconception of entropy
If combustion isn't thermodynamic, how do you explain the heat of the flame?
Energy (ie a match) is imputed into a system of fuel (ie gasoline) that increases the energy of the fuel past the activation energy of the fuel causing the process of combustion and generating energy (light, heat) as its product (and byproducts water CO2, CO, gasoline vapor etc).
simplified: gasoline = system. combustion = process the system undergoes

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by crashfrog, posted 11-12-2007 1:30 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by crashfrog, posted 11-12-2007 10:12 AM ChemEbeaver has replied

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


Message 50 of 83 (433504)
11-12-2007 10:12 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by ChemEbeaver
11-12-2007 1:57 AM


Re: misconception of entropy
Energy (ie a match) is imputed into a system of fuel (ie gasoline) that increases the energy of the fuel past the activation energy of the fuel causing the process of combustion and generating energy (light, heat) as its product (and byproducts water CO2, CO, gasoline vapor etc).
Right. Why don't you think that process is thermodynamic?
Why do you think evolution is thermodynamic if combustion is not?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by ChemEbeaver, posted 11-12-2007 1:57 AM ChemEbeaver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by ChemEbeaver, posted 11-12-2007 4:40 PM crashfrog has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 51 of 83 (433510)
11-12-2007 11:20 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by ChemEbeaver
11-12-2007 1:43 AM


Re: misconception of entropy
I assure you living organism (systems) always does this. Evolution is the process, or change, living organisms undergo in genotype and (leading to change in) phenotype.
A living organism doesn't evolve, in the sense used in the science of biological evolution.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by ChemEbeaver, posted 11-12-2007 1:43 AM ChemEbeaver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by ChemEbeaver, posted 11-12-2007 4:55 PM Modulous has replied

  
aviator79
Junior Member (Idle past 5981 days)
Posts: 17
From: Chandler, AZ
Joined: 05-15-2007


Message 52 of 83 (433562)
11-12-2007 2:57 PM


You are both right.
Evolutionary processes are thermodynamic in a roughly similar sense as I am a quantum dynamic system. That is, There are quantum interations going on inside me and I cannot do anything that violates quantum mechanics. Nonetheless, quantum mechanics is totally useless when trying to analyze me as I sit here and type.
Similarly, everthing which takes place during the evolution of a species must obey thermodynamic principles, but it is impossible to analyze the process from a thermodynamic perspective. It is a waste of time to even talk about entropy is a discussion about evolution. This was my point earlier in the thread. Creationists read a blurb in Popular Science and try to throw around the word "entropy" because they think it makes their argument "scientific" if they use words they don't understand.

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by Brad McFall, posted 11-12-2007 4:42 PM aviator79 has replied

  
ChemEbeaver
Junior Member (Idle past 5975 days)
Posts: 18
From: Aloha, OR, USA
Joined: 11-09-2007


Message 53 of 83 (433612)
11-12-2007 4:40 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by crashfrog
11-12-2007 10:12 AM


Re: misconception of entropy
Why don't you think that process is thermodynamic?
Where did I say that processes is not thermodynamic?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by crashfrog, posted 11-12-2007 10:12 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by crashfrog, posted 11-12-2007 5:30 PM ChemEbeaver has not replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5033 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 54 of 83 (433613)
11-12-2007 4:42 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by aviator79
11-12-2007 2:57 PM


Re:Evolution and Thermo-different than Crashs'
quote:
it is impossible to analyze the process from a thermodynamic perspective. It is a waste of time to even talk about entropy is a discussion about evolution.
Then I have wasted ALL my time.
That is not the case see .
I have been able to sustain some level of readership above the zero baseline (only me)
since the site went up and was properly advertised. You might suggest this is only entropy setting in but I cannot as I have not made any really significant changes since and even so, it is certainly not as much entropy as associated with your typo of "is" for "in". I trust that typo was not your point.
I am working upto demoting the replicator asto a simple relation to metabolism and the "interactor" into something other than that used against gene selectionism. The weakest part of my argument is not the link to Darwin’s work itself.
The wasted time was in talking too much about selection and not enough about organization (historically in biology). This was a result of failing to consider homogenal systems (particular when asking if viruses in rabbits released in Australia being demes were structured or not).
What makes it so difficult is that one must start from the small and work to a large (size) whereas human intuition (especially in evolutionary theory so far) tends to favor the organism level itself.
So if I had said that motion is independent of the frame for Newton rather than that rest might be thought chemically I would have been better understood (in another thread on EvC) but keeping the order of thought intact is, as much the problem as the solution, when it comes to a right understanding of the application of thermo into living reality of taught evolutionary thought, no matter the road less traveled.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by aviator79, posted 11-12-2007 2:57 PM aviator79 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by aviator79, posted 11-12-2007 4:50 PM Brad McFall has replied

  
aviator79
Junior Member (Idle past 5981 days)
Posts: 17
From: Chandler, AZ
Joined: 05-15-2007


Message 55 of 83 (433618)
11-12-2007 4:50 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by Brad McFall
11-12-2007 4:42 PM


Re: Re:Evolution and Thermo-different than Crashs'
Your line of reasoning is a bit difficult to follow. It seems perhaps you are doing research of a specific reaction or interaction which is involved in evolution?
In an appropriately narrowed problem, thermodynamic analysis could certainly be used to analyze a specific metabolic process which I know nothing about. However, in the broad stroke that the typical creationist tries to apply the concept of entropy, it is totally meaningless.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by Brad McFall, posted 11-12-2007 4:42 PM Brad McFall has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by Brad McFall, posted 11-12-2007 5:02 PM aviator79 has not replied

  
ChemEbeaver
Junior Member (Idle past 5975 days)
Posts: 18
From: Aloha, OR, USA
Joined: 11-09-2007


Message 56 of 83 (433622)
11-12-2007 4:55 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by Modulous
11-12-2007 11:20 AM


Re: misconception of entropy
A living organism doesn't evolve
Right A living organism doesn't evolve; the change comes from between parents and offspring over a long period of time. That's why I said living organismS instead of A living organism. I suppose it would be more correct using species instead, but we were using living organisms as the subject.
I assure you living organism (systems) always does this.
I was referring to cashfrog's comment:
molecules break and form chemical bonds causing a net change in the total heat of the system
I was saying that living organisms ARE systems, and therefore CAN undergo change in entropy.
Edited by ChemEbeaver, : typo
Edited by ChemEbeaver, : typo

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Modulous, posted 11-12-2007 11:20 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by crashfrog, posted 11-12-2007 5:34 PM ChemEbeaver has replied
 Message 65 by Modulous, posted 11-13-2007 2:23 AM ChemEbeaver has replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5033 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 57 of 83 (433630)
11-12-2007 5:02 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by aviator79
11-12-2007 4:50 PM


Re:energy conversion
If you find me hard to follow perhaps you can try to read
ICR speakers, and it is in their books as well, consistantly call on evolutionists to supply an "energy converter mechanism" that is concurrent with any form changes during (time).
With a discrete QM mentality and a certain geneic reductionism one can think that evolution should be thought about without having to address this complaint of creationists but for me I have both no interest in that particular biological thought process and I HAVE been interested to figure out how to extract energy from biological form that despite time still sustains.
Gladyshev's formalism provides the only means to this goal that I am aware of. Dr. Gladyshev thinks that the decision in favor of science over creationism is clear (against the latter) EXCEPT insofar as his own idea might be able to express the creation itself accurately. I do not see how the creationist call for an "energy converter mechanism" is out of line with the application of Gibbs phenomenological thermo to biology. All is not said and done so however....
Edited by Brad McFall, : serious logical typo

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by aviator79, posted 11-12-2007 4:50 PM aviator79 has not replied

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


Message 58 of 83 (433638)
11-12-2007 5:30 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by ChemEbeaver
11-12-2007 4:40 PM


Re: misconception of entropy
Where did I say that processes is not thermodynamic?
Messages 42 and 48. From my reading you've been consistently denying that combusting fuel is a thermodynamic system. You've been insisting that it's a "process", like evolution.
But it's obvious that combustion is nothing like evolution. Combustion can be modeled as the movement of heat and the use of energy to do work, and as a result, its a thermodynamic system to which the LoT all apply.
Evolution is not thermodynamic, it's not a system, it can't be modeled as the movement of heat or as the use of energy to do work. Evolution doesn't do work. It's just a description of a trend in populations to change in certain ways over time.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics doesn't apply to evolution. It doesn't not apply because "evolution is an open system", it doesn't apply because evolution is not a system at all.
I don't understand what about that remains unclear to you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by ChemEbeaver, posted 11-12-2007 4:40 PM ChemEbeaver has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by Brad McFall, posted 11-12-2007 5:36 PM crashfrog has not replied

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


Message 59 of 83 (433639)
11-12-2007 5:34 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by ChemEbeaver
11-12-2007 4:55 PM


Re: misconception of entropy
I was saying that living organisms ARE systems, and therefore CAN undergo change in entropy.
I don't disagree; in fact that's what I told you back in messages 41, 44, and 45.
Living organisms are systems. Evolution is not a system. It's a description of what happens to populations of organisms over time, in the way that the Second Law is a description of what happens to systems over time. Do you get it? Evolution is no more a system than the Second Law is a system. They're both descriptions of things, not systems themselves.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by ChemEbeaver, posted 11-12-2007 4:55 PM ChemEbeaver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by ChemEbeaver, posted 11-12-2007 11:34 PM crashfrog has replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5033 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 60 of 83 (433640)
11-12-2007 5:36 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by crashfrog
11-12-2007 5:30 PM


Re: misconception of entropy
Just for the record Crash (and really this is probably for lurkers other than you posters etc...)
The question I always pose is, "Can evolution work?", can it be made to DO work. If we showed how to use evolution theory to reduce human labor, directly via the supposed process of evoution itself, and it works (then) THEN all the silly arguing over creation and evolution would be over, for me, it seems to me.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by crashfrog, posted 11-12-2007 5:30 PM crashfrog 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