Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evolution vs. Thermodynamics
EvO-DuDe
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 103 (13860)
07-20-2002 3:48 PM


A few days ago I was glancing around at True.Origin.org and Answersingenesis.org and I was shocked to find that they are still using the 2nd law of thermodynamics as evidence against evolution. One would think that all of the intelligent creationists had given up on this argument years ago, but astoundingly that is not the case. I can only think of three reasons why this might be.
1: The 2nd law does indeed prevent evolution, and they are entirely right. (I don't think so. Both of these sites admit that evolution can happen in an open system, just as long as an organism has a mechanism for storing and converting the energy)
2: The dudes at True.Origin and AiG do not understand evolution and thermodynamics. (Maybe, especially in the case of True.Origin. The dude who wrote the article about the subject on True.Origin confused complexity with order.)
3: True.Origin and AiG are trying to decieve whoever reads their articles. (In the case of AiG, probably. AiG still uses the magnetic field argument as evidence for a young-earth.)

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by John, posted 07-20-2002 4:18 PM EvO-DuDe has not replied
 Message 3 by Percy, posted 07-20-2002 4:53 PM EvO-DuDe has not replied
 Message 4 by TrueCreation, posted 07-20-2002 5:03 PM EvO-DuDe has not replied
 Message 5 by Tranquility Base, posted 07-21-2002 10:42 PM EvO-DuDe has not replied
 Message 8 by Brad McFall, posted 07-23-2002 8:08 PM EvO-DuDe has not replied
 Message 10 by blitz77, posted 07-24-2002 9:04 AM EvO-DuDe has not replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 103 (13865)
07-20-2002 4:18 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by EvO-DuDe
07-20-2002 3:48 PM


Maybe its just me, but the second law argument seems like one of the worst in the anti-evolution arsenal. As long as you have an open system with power pouring into it, there is no conflict with the second law. And our sun is pumping in plenty energy.
The complexity confusion you noticed I've seen in other arguments as well. There is no problem with increases of complexity, if you've got the power. I think the confusion arises from the idea of entropy. Entropy == disorder (colloquially). The opposite of disorder is order, which colloquially means organization and implies complexity. Problem is that science doesn't use the term 'order' like that and 'entropy' doesn't exactly means disorder. It just means 'lowest energy state'
------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by EvO-DuDe, posted 07-20-2002 3:48 PM EvO-DuDe has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 3 of 103 (13869)
07-20-2002 4:53 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by EvO-DuDe
07-20-2002 3:48 PM


EvO-DuDe writes:

Both of these sites admit that evolution can happen in an open system, just as long as an organism has a mechanism for storing and converting the energy.
These may be the same articles I read last year. I remember being surprised at how openly they acknowledged the consequences of 2LOT in an open system. After that point their specific objections were extremely vague, at least to me. They seemed to be saying that while 2LOT in an open system doesn't exclude the possibility of evolution that nonetheless it raises sufficient concerns to be worth citing as a fairly solid objection. I was left going, "Huh?"
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by EvO-DuDe, posted 07-20-2002 3:48 PM EvO-DuDe has not replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 103 (13870)
07-20-2002 5:03 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by EvO-DuDe
07-20-2002 3:48 PM


--I agree, I don't know why they just don't reconsile this argument with the trash can. I'm quite sure that current Stellar Evolution theory is more than sufficient at supplying the energy for the Evolution of Life over a 3.5-4.0Ga time span.
--Creationionists need to quite spending their time and putting all their effort into being anti-evolutionary rather than being pro-creationary (as it pertains to YECists).
------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by EvO-DuDe, posted 07-20-2002 3:48 PM EvO-DuDe has not replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 5 of 103 (13916)
07-21-2002 10:42 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by EvO-DuDe
07-20-2002 3:48 PM


I agree with TC. The thermodynamics stuff is one of the only bug-bears (PS - where did 'bug-bear' come from?) I have with these creationist organisations. It stems from one of the founders of creationism and they seem to have a sentimental atttachment to it. In the long term I can see the reason fro it (decay) but it does not stop stressed bacteria improving their fittness via optimization of existing genes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by EvO-DuDe, posted 07-20-2002 3:48 PM EvO-DuDe has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by frank, posted 07-22-2002 5:48 PM Tranquility Base has not replied

  
frank
Inactive Member


Message 6 of 103 (13941)
07-22-2002 5:48 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Tranquility Base
07-21-2002 10:42 PM


TB,
Bugbear was an imaginary English hobgoblin that had the shape of a bear. I think it dates from the 1500s.
Clear Skies !
Frank

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Tranquility Base, posted 07-21-2002 10:42 PM Tranquility Base has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by John, posted 07-22-2002 7:14 PM frank has not replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 7 of 103 (13943)
07-22-2002 7:14 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by frank
07-22-2002 5:48 PM


quote:
Originally posted by frank:

Bugbear was an imaginary English hobgoblin that had the shape of a bear.

.... sounds cute and cuddly
------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by frank, posted 07-22-2002 5:48 PM frank has not replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5032 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 8 of 103 (14023)
07-23-2002 8:08 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by EvO-DuDe
07-20-2002 3:48 PM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by EvO-DuDe:
[b]A few days ago I was glancing around at True.Origin.org and Answersingenesis.org and I was shocked to find that they are still using the 2nd law of thermodynamics as evidence against evolution. One would think that all of the intelligent creationists had given up on this argument years ago, but astoundingly that is not the case. I can only think of three reasons why this might be.
1: The 2nd law does indeed prevent evolution,[/QUOTE]
[/b]
It was/has been obvious to me that when evolutionists perhaps in the 70s failed to heed, the probalistic arguements of ICR as then there was little kinetic or kinematic room for the linguistics of failed public appreciation (of the state of the debate) to devolve anywhere is but on, the destructive reality of the 2nd law -if-no matter the probablility for either side, it went to go without saying as silent as I am today I type. It was as if Pascal was being short-changed. Gould's death as well as, showed me that the equilibrium still is in water and we have not gotten beyond the first water argument of Croizat even speaking for millions of years or billions of Sagan's knowledge. Shrodinger's Negative entropy would be the pedagogy from which this is or is not being kept out of schools and if that is indeed true as I claim it is, then, the teaching of Maxwell's entropy is paramount to the furtherance of biological education without prejudicing the student either way. And since the 2nd law is not established to the same confidence as the first, provided an a priori insight exists here, there-where, it is even possible IN MAxwell's notion (not Darwin's) that evolution in so far as it exists in plant and animal breeding {for instance} that (is that) a deduction of the 2nd law on the same rigor as people pass on the idea of the 1st could PREVENT evolution beyond Dobshanksy's idea of Meso evolution provided the formulas are constrained in time.
If we continue to work in the current theory and expt cycle this demonstration may be far from being realized however for social "forces" this that institute thought before action are while here it IS the action or activity that must be allowed to pass or let pass and stop and never stopped as the 70s+GOuld who tried to demonstrate some evolution other, showed to all who can read this sentence now I say with less silence of the lamb.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by EvO-DuDe, posted 07-20-2002 3:48 PM EvO-DuDe has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Philip, posted 07-24-2002 1:13 AM Brad McFall has replied

  
Philip
Member (Idle past 4722 days)
Posts: 656
From: Albertville, AL, USA
Joined: 03-10-2002


Message 9 of 103 (14047)
07-24-2002 1:13 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by Brad McFall
07-23-2002 8:08 PM


Brad,
Your provocative invocation is somehow beginning to assume a coherent form. Its always refreshing to regard the way you deal with our beloved forum’s insanity for what it is. Hope you keep up the posts.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Brad McFall, posted 07-23-2002 8:08 PM Brad McFall has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by Brad McFall, posted 01-14-2003 1:54 PM Philip has not replied

  
blitz77
Inactive Member


Message 10 of 103 (14055)
07-24-2002 9:04 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by EvO-DuDe
07-20-2002 3:48 PM


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. However, I'll just quote the site:
"But simply adding energy to a system doesn’t automatically cause reduced entropy (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)."
and
"The apparent increase in organized complexity (i.e., decrease in entropy) found in biological systems requires two additional factors besides an open system and an available energy supply. These are:
1. a program (information) to direct the growth in organized complexity
2. a mechanism for storing and converting the incoming energy."
Now, before organisms arose (before abiogenesis), there wouldn't have been such a program of mechanism in place.
This is contrary to your claim that they admit that a reduction of entropy can occur in an open system. So instead of knocking the sites off that they are contradicting themselves, please take a look at what they are actually writing.
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).
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.
[This message has been edited by blitz77, 07-24-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by EvO-DuDe, posted 07-20-2002 3:48 PM EvO-DuDe has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by mark24, posted 07-24-2002 10:16 AM blitz77 has not replied
 Message 12 by John, posted 07-24-2002 10:22 AM blitz77 has replied
 Message 13 by Randy, posted 07-24-2002 12:34 PM blitz77 has not replied
 Message 14 by Zhimbo, posted 07-24-2002 3:07 PM blitz77 has not replied
 Message 25 by TrueCreation, posted 07-30-2002 2:11 PM blitz77 has not replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 11 of 103 (14056)
07-24-2002 10:16 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by blitz77
07-24-2002 9:04 AM


Blitz,
In a closed system entropy increases over time, in an open system it doesn't have to. As simple as that.
This is why 2LOT doesn't prevent evolution. Anything else is fluff.
Entropy CAN decrease in an open system, we see it all the time in chemical reactions.
Are you suggesting that entropy CAN'T decrease in an open system?
Mark
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.
[This message has been edited by mark24, 07-24-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by blitz77, posted 07-24-2002 9:04 AM blitz77 has not replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 12 of 103 (14057)
07-24-2002 10:22 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by blitz77
07-24-2002 9:04 AM


quote:
Originally posted by blitz77:
"But simply adding energy to a system doesn’t automatically cause reduced entropy (i.e., increased organized complexity, or build-up rather than break-down).
Actually it does, pretty much by definition.
Assume a volume of gas at 100% entropy, and then magically make a heat source appear. In very short order, you get convection currents.
The portions of the article you quoted suffer from some severe equivocation. It mixes scientific and colloquial terms and uses the slighly different meanings to make a point. Logically fallacious, plain and sinple. Entropy does not mean disorder in the colloquial sense of the word. It just means a tendency toward a low energy state. Ice, for example, is lower energy state than liquid water; it is also a MORE structured state.
quote:
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).
More eqivocation. What we consider disordered colloquially isn't necessarily disordered in a thermodynamic sense. Rust is a chemical reaction creating more complicated molecules out of less complicated. Correct me if I'm wrong. That we have a use for the less complicated molecules does not mean rust is entropic.
quote:
1. a program (information) to direct the growth in organized complexity
Nope. See convection currents above.
Gotta go. I'll hit the rest of this later.
------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by blitz77, posted 07-24-2002 9:04 AM blitz77 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by blitz77, posted 07-24-2002 7:47 PM John has replied
 Message 17 by Percy, posted 07-24-2002 9:08 PM John has not replied

  
Randy
Member (Idle past 6247 days)
Posts: 420
From: Cincinnati OH USA
Joined: 07-19-2002


Message 13 of 103 (14062)
07-24-2002 12:34 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by blitz77
07-24-2002 9:04 AM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by blitz77, posted 07-24-2002 9:04 AM blitz77 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Brad McFall, posted 07-30-2002 1:52 PM Randy has not replied

  
Zhimbo
Member (Idle past 6011 days)
Posts: 571
From: New Hampshire, USA
Joined: 07-28-2001


Message 14 of 103 (14066)
07-24-2002 3:07 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by blitz77
07-24-2002 9:04 AM


The problem is, once you allow an open system, you've COMPLETELY LEFT THE SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS BEHIND! So why mention it at all?
Because it sounds impressive.
The rest of the "requirements" are NOT a part of the laws of Thermodynamics, at all. They are not derived from the scientific literature, but are extra requirements dreamt up by creationists. However, by putting them in the context of the 2ndLOT, creationists hope to give an aura of credibility to their off-the-tops-of-their-heads nonsense.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by blitz77, posted 07-24-2002 9:04 AM blitz77 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Brad McFall, posted 07-25-2002 12:27 PM Zhimbo has not replied

  
blitz77
Inactive Member


Message 15 of 103 (14072)
07-24-2002 7:47 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by John
07-24-2002 10:22 AM


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.
Your example with rust is very poor. Rust is much more thermodynamically stable than pure iron. It is a spontaneous reaction, resulting in higher stability and it is exothermic. Just like degrading protein is exothermic and results in more stable products. To show that rust is thermodynamically favorable, have you ever heard of heat packs for skiiers? It consists of a packet divided in two with powdered iron on one side, and oxygen on the other. When the seal between is broken, heat is produced, warming your hands, body and feet as warm as toast for around 6 hours (if you want to find this example, just take a university chemistry textbook by Zamdahl). And anyway, it is a very poor example on your part because it occurs in a reducing atmosphere. That is why the Urey-Miller experiment had to occur in an anoxic environment.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by John, posted 07-24-2002 10:22 AM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by John, posted 07-24-2002 8:33 PM blitz77 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