Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Negentropy?????
Mr. Bound
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 27 (90379)
03-04-2004 7:35 PM


I'm new here, so I hope this is the right place to post this. A couple of years ago, when I was at work, I got talking to this dude who was about to go give a lecture about Negentropy at Cambridge University. I wasn't really too interested in what he was blathering on about at the time. However, I since have become interested in the Evolution vs. Creation debate, and when the Second Law of Thermodynamics came up, I noticed the word entropy and thought 'Hey what was that 'Negentropy' thing?' and looked it up. It seems way over may head however. For example I found this
No webpage found at provided URL: http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/ASC/NEGENTROPY.html
Can anyone shed some light here? Would it affect the debate at all?? I noticed some cults seem to be springing up around it, but hey what don't they spring up around (Jesus *cough**cough*)?!

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by NosyNed, posted 03-04-2004 9:12 PM Mr. Bound has replied
 Message 4 by Loudmouth, posted 03-05-2004 1:42 PM Mr. Bound has replied
 Message 20 by Brad McFall, posted 03-09-2004 3:40 PM Mr. Bound has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 2 of 27 (90395)
03-04-2004 9:12 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Mr. Bound
03-04-2004 7:35 PM


It is going to take awhile before someone who really understands this is going to show up.
You could try some googles and/or TalkOrigins Archive: Exploring the Creation/Evolution Controversy
You could also ask some very specific questions. The link you supplied does explain the situation but it may need a little more detail for you. I will try if you ask and promise to take anything I say with a big grain of salt.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Mr. Bound, posted 03-04-2004 7:35 PM Mr. Bound has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Mr. Bound, posted 03-05-2004 1:20 PM NosyNed has not replied

  
Mr. Bound
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 27 (90532)
03-05-2004 1:20 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by NosyNed
03-04-2004 9:12 PM


I tried Google, but I couldn't really find any laymen explanations. I'll give talkorigins a try though. Go ahead and bounce a few ideas around though that would be great!! And dont worry, I take everything everyone says with a grain of salt!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by NosyNed, posted 03-04-2004 9:12 PM NosyNed has not replied

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 27 (90542)
03-05-2004 1:42 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Mr. Bound
03-04-2004 7:35 PM


Mr. Bound,
If you breakdown the word "thermodynamics" into the latin roots, you get "movement of heat", thermo=heat; dynamic=movement. The second law, in a round about way, says that a cool object can not cause an increase in temperature of another object. Heat only flows one way, down hill; from a hotter object to a cooler object. However, within that transfer of energy, there is available work that can drive reactions from a lower energy state to a higher energy state. This can be seen in plants where photons from the sun are used to create more energetic carbohydrates from less energetic carbon dioxide and water. The process of carbon dioxide + water ----> carbohydrates is considered negative entropy, or going against the down hill flow of energy. However, negative entropy is possible if work (in this case, photons) is put into the system.
The 2nd law states that all entropy in the universe is going down hill, or positive entropy, and will eventually come to a zero state, where energy is no longer available. Negative entropy events/reactions take advantage of this downhill movement, since work/heat is being transfered. It is kind of like a waterwheel capturing the downhill rush of water in order to do work.
My physics is a little weak, but this is how I remember it so don't take these explanations as definitive. Perhaps we will get lucky and have a physics doc stop by.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Mr. Bound, posted 03-04-2004 7:35 PM Mr. Bound has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Mr. Bound, posted 03-05-2004 2:17 PM Loudmouth has replied

  
Mr. Bound
Inactive Member


Message 5 of 27 (90555)
03-05-2004 2:17 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Loudmouth
03-05-2004 1:42 PM


I think I'm getting the jist of it. Does it basically mean that things can move from disorder to order without breaking the Second Law? If so, how the hell do Creationists argue their way around it in regards to their 'Thermodynamics disproves Evolution' nonsense argument?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Loudmouth, posted 03-05-2004 1:42 PM Loudmouth has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by NosyNed, posted 03-05-2004 2:39 PM Mr. Bound has not replied
 Message 7 by Loudmouth, posted 03-05-2004 4:08 PM Mr. Bound has replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 6 of 27 (90562)
03-05-2004 2:39 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Mr. Bound
03-05-2004 2:17 PM


How in the h... do they?
I think I'm getting the jist of it. Does it basically mean that things can move from disorder to order without breaking the Second Law? If so, how the hell do Creationists argue their way around it in regards to their 'Thermodynamics disproves Evolution' nonsense argument?
It seems there are two major approachs taken to using the 2nd law by creationists:
1) They don't seem to get (either through ignornace or deliberately) the difference between a closed and open system. Since the earth is not closed the second law, while still applying, allows local decreases in entropy by using the input of energy from the sun.
2) The "negentropy" site linked to above is discussing another, more complex, argument. They try to make up their own defintion of a 2nd law. It is dishonest to call this the 2nd law of thermodynamics but they do. They can make this sound so darn technical that it takes a real physicist to point out the errors. However, even when these are pointed out they ignore that which to me is dishonest.
and perhaps a third way:
After moving from thermodynamics to discussing information they move from evolution, where we can show increases in information (however that is defined) to abiogenesis where there are both thermodynamic and complexity and information issues. This move is in to a 'gap' where they wish to put their god for safekeeping (until someone shines light into it too). The constant jumping around between the big bang, abiogenesis and evolution is a trick used to be pretending to argue against evolution when not actually dealing with it but just dealing with other areas. Abiogenesis they like because we certainly don't know everything about that at all. The big bang they like because no one of their audience (nor they) understand it at all. And it is, of course, dammed hard to understand. Therefore it is easy to convince someone that it is just bafflegab. Especially someone completely unversed in the basic concepts of science to say nothing of the weirdness of quantum physics.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Mr. Bound, posted 03-05-2004 2:17 PM Mr. Bound has not replied

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 7 of 27 (90616)
03-05-2004 4:08 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Mr. Bound
03-05-2004 2:17 PM


quote:
Does it basically mean that things can move from disorder to order without breaking the Second Law?
Yes, as long as there is an input of energy/work. Just like it takes energy for you to stack randomly scattered pieces of paper. By ordering the pieces of paper, are you violating the 2nd law? Of course not.
quote:
If so, how the hell do Creationists argue their way around it in regards to their 'Thermodynamics disproves Evolution' nonsense argument?
By relying on the ignorance of its followers. Some people will believe any conclusion as long as it agrees with their presuppositions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Mr. Bound, posted 03-05-2004 2:17 PM Mr. Bound has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Mr. Bound, posted 03-05-2004 9:09 PM Loudmouth has not replied

  
Mr. Bound
Inactive Member


Message 8 of 27 (90692)
03-05-2004 9:09 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Loudmouth
03-05-2004 4:08 PM


Okay I'm pretty sure I understand it now. Cheers Loudmouth. But what do creationists make of this? Surely if despite entropy occurring there is still work available then this could account for evolution?? Even though I know that Evolution doesn't require extra work and doesn't necessarily tend towards complexity, it nicely questions there claims, doesn't it?? Whaddya reckon (you too nosyned).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Loudmouth, posted 03-05-2004 4:08 PM Loudmouth has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by NosyNed, posted 03-06-2004 11:16 AM Mr. Bound has replied

  
Eta_Carinae
Member (Idle past 4375 days)
Posts: 547
From: US
Joined: 11-15-2003


Message 9 of 27 (90696)
03-05-2004 10:10 PM


Just a comment
As far as I understood the term 'negentropy' has nothing to do with entropy.
The original Shannon 'entropy' of information has NOTHING to do with thermodynamic entropy.
The story is John Von Neumann suggested Shannon use the term entropy because then no-one could challenge him on the definition since no-one understood entropy anyway.

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 10 of 27 (90803)
03-06-2004 11:16 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by Mr. Bound
03-05-2004 9:09 PM


AIG on 2nd law
Answers in Genesis (a creationist site) is one which has recognized that the 2nd law arguments are wrong.
Missing Link | Answers in Genesis

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Mr. Bound, posted 03-05-2004 9:09 PM Mr. Bound has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Mr. Bound, posted 03-07-2004 10:19 AM NosyNed has replied

  
Mr. Bound
Inactive Member


Message 11 of 27 (90924)
03-07-2004 10:19 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by NosyNed
03-06-2004 11:16 AM


Re: AIG on 2nd law
NosyNed I think that link jst refers to the claim that the Second Law was a result of the Fall. I found this on the same site: Can Water Flow Uphill? | Answers in Genesis they use the analogy that water can't flow uphill. On the site No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2437/thermo.htmis this analogy
'An analogy may be useful here: all streams and rivers run downhill, but near rocks and other obstructions small portions of the stream can use kinetic energy to temporarily and locally reverse this flow and actually swirl uphill for a time. The water molecules use free energy from the outside to do work and thus temporarily circumvent the flow of gravity. The fact that parts of a vortex flow uphill does not invalidate the affects of gravity on water, any more than the fact that life locally decreases its entropy invalidates the Second Law. Both processes are temporary and completely dependent on an outside source of energy.'
Is the kinetic energy in the stream making the water flow uphill analogous to negentropy in a closed system? If so therefore are creationists trying to deny that negentropy occurs?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by NosyNed, posted 03-06-2004 11:16 AM NosyNed has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by NosyNed, posted 03-07-2004 10:40 AM Mr. Bound has replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 12 of 27 (90930)
03-07-2004 10:40 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by Mr. Bound
03-07-2004 10:19 AM


Re: AIG on 2nd law
Is the kinetic energy in the stream making the water flow uphill analogous to negentropy in a closed system? If so therefore are creationists trying to deny that negentropy occurs?
As noted in the very first link of the topic the term negentropy isn't necessary. Thermodynamics always as talked about entropy both increasing and decreasing. We don't need the new term.
Yes, the water flowing up hill strikes me as a good analogy. It is also pointing out that even in a closed system there can be local decreases in entropy even if the total entropy must increase.
If so therefore are creationists trying to deny that negentropy occurs?
Who knows what creationists are claiming? They change a lot. However, if creationists try to say that the 2nd law forbids evolution then they are, in fact, saying that local decreases in entropy are not possible or that entropy can't decrease in an open system.
They are, in affect, saying that the water can not swirl uphill in the steam analogy.
What you link to aig does is manage to confuse some things. For one thing they correctly point out that even if evolution is shown to be correct and to not violate any thermodynamic considerations that doesn't tell us about the origin of life. I agree with that. However, since they don't agree with evolution why would they muddle up the two here?
Then they get onto the "information" issue. That has been thrashed out here a few times. They are focussing on mutations and forgetting about selection yet again. One thing that never seems to be "gotten" is that to argue with an idea, especially one as broadly supported and as detailed as the ToE, you have to understand it very well indeed. They don't.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Mr. Bound, posted 03-07-2004 10:19 AM Mr. Bound has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Dr_Tazimus_maximus, posted 03-07-2004 12:48 PM NosyNed has not replied
 Message 14 by Mr. Bound, posted 03-07-2004 2:29 PM NosyNed has replied

  
Dr_Tazimus_maximus
Member (Idle past 3217 days)
Posts: 402
From: Gaithersburg, MD, USA
Joined: 03-19-2002


Message 13 of 27 (90942)
03-07-2004 12:48 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by NosyNed
03-07-2004 10:40 AM


Re: AIG on 2nd law
Ned, one of my favorite reactions to trot out to the creationists making the 2LOT arguement is the formation of cystine bonds from two cysteines during protein folding. The reaction is entropy negative and yet goes forward under the appropriate conditions due to the total negative Gibbs free energy. My general comment is that if the creationists were right than many of the proteins in their bodies would not be folded properly and they would die.
To paraphrase: "if your proteins offend thee, cast them from thee".
Start casting 2LOT creationists.
Anyway, as you and others have pointed out, negative entropy does not entail thermodynamically impossible. I have some wonderful papers by Wicken (sp?) et al. that go through the thermo of information that I will try to dig out and post on this thread later this afternoon.

"Chance favors the prepared mind." L. Pasteur
and my family motto
Transfixus sed non mortis
Taz

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by NosyNed, posted 03-07-2004 10:40 AM NosyNed has not replied

  
Mr. Bound
Inactive Member


Message 14 of 27 (90957)
03-07-2004 2:29 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by NosyNed
03-07-2004 10:40 AM


Re: AIG on 2nd law
In conclusion then, the occurence of negentropy or the decrease of entropy, whichever you label it, shows the creationist claim 'The Second law of Thermodynamics shows Evolution to be impossible' to be false. Am I right?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by NosyNed, posted 03-07-2004 10:40 AM NosyNed has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by NosyNed, posted 03-07-2004 2:42 PM Mr. Bound has replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 15 of 27 (90958)
03-07-2004 2:42 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Mr. Bound
03-07-2004 2:29 PM


Re: AIG on 2nd law
Yes. You are.
In Ken's recent link to AIG on this topic they manage to conflat evolutionary issues of the 2nd law with abiogensis and energy and information.
By the time they have it all tangled up like that they have succeeded in what they are trying to do. That is, pull the wool over the eyes of someone like Ken.
Putting aside, for a moment, the abiogenesis issue. The are claiming that you can't have decreases in entropy without a "machine" of some sort.
For example their conclusion starts with:
quote:
Let us state clearly that the origin and/or development of life was definitely an 'uphill' process. However, many people are confused on the issue. We talk about thermodynamics which is to do with energy; we did an energy balance in the case of the hydraulic ram, and looked at the energy situation with respect to forcing a chemical reaction to proceed 'uphill'. And the trap people fall into is thinking that all that is required for evolution to occur is the input of energy into the system. Nothing could be further from the truth. The vital component is for INFORMATION (i.e. organization) to be added to the system.
Notice how they jump from the origin of life to evolution without noting that evolutionary processes can and do produce new "information" (however you want to define that word). That is,it is clear that once replication with error and a selection process is in place we have the "machine" needed to take advantage of free energy.
In fact, we might note that when scientists separate abiogenesis and the ToE, they are deliberately pointing out that they understand that there is a separate challenge to explain abiogenesis. We know how evolution can work but that doesn't explain life arising when there is no evolutionary process in place.
AIG is trying to pretend that the challenge of abiogenesis somehow makes evolution stop. Unlike those who drop in here who haven't had any chance to educate themselves on the topic the folks are AIG have had plenty of time to understand their errors. To continue as they are is a clear sign of dishonesty in my mind.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Mr. Bound, posted 03-07-2004 2:29 PM Mr. Bound has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Mr. Bound, posted 03-07-2004 3:29 PM NosyNed has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024