second law of thermodynamics (its an easy one)

[gf]

Hello.

I spoke to a Creationist, whom stated that the second law of thermodynamics, goes against Evolution. As the Universe decays.


Now, it dawned on me, that this is not a rare event, as most Creationist proclaim this, not at least, a certain Mr Kent Hovind. So i thought we could have a discussion about this.


The second law of thermodynamics does not claim that everything is "winding down" / decays / crumbles / or similar. What it does state is that you get entropy, and it seems that this is where we get a problem. Either most people do not know what this means, or they dont want to know what it means.

To claim that entropy equals decay, is to go from Physics to Opinion.


And this is the important part of it.
The second law of thermodynamics only states, that entropy occurs in different stages.


And this is it. If you claim, state or otherwise say in any way that it "decays", or "improves", you go from Physics, to your own opinion.



So it does not go against Evolution, it rather enhances evolution, as Evolution also, does not mean improve, but means change.



Opinion anyone ?

Perhaps you need some background information about this, but this is more or less the main thing that most Creationist seems to be confused about.

[G-dspeed]

Shadow you have said;

"Because one law applies to one part of the universe, another law applies to another part of the universe."

But in another post you stated;

"The thermodynamic laws are universal (As far as we know)"

I understand your second statement, but I don't think I understand the first =/


You have said as well;

"All systems, if left to themselves, break down because of the entropy. (Their heat energy converts to heat to work, more heat to work, until the only thing left is unusable heat energy. That's why a system decays as far as it's thermal-work energy goes."

Which I agree with no argument, as well as I agree with this statement of yours;

"If I have a system, on it's own, and I leave it on its own, eventually you won't be able to get any work from it. In that sense, it 'decays.'"

However you go on to say this;

"The things in the system, however, do not decay. My bonds to not magically break, the compounds do not turn back into atoms..."

It sounds like you have said they do decay and then they don't decay?

I am unsure how you can say also about compounds breaking down (unless you mean something else,) because when we die we are dismantled into dust are compounds break down, though not into atoms.

You further have stated;

"The Earth is not left alone; the sun beats down rays of radioactive energy constantly"

And

"Earth == materials
Sun == power/energy source"

Which is true but allow me to create a little analogy =)

Lets pretend I have robot toy which requires 1 9v battery but the only battery I have is a 12v car battery. In terms of power I can not power my toy with the car battery because (well I don't know it might explode lol) it needs a certain power source OR a pre designed and built in power convertor that can step down voltage and current and CONVERT it into useable energy for my toy.

Thats the analogy between the earth and all systems on it(robot toy), and the suns power(car battery) unless there is some created way to convert the power from the sun, nothing will live on the earth because the sun/car battery just doesn't have anything inside of it to help my toy/earth.

Now use the same analogy WITH the power convertor inside the toy, and you can see how things are set up on earth. On earth there are toys/plants that have built in designed mechanisms/converters to step down the suns electromagnetic wave spectrum of light on all frequencies. And to take from that source what it needs to continue on.

Now this is how it relates to evolution. (and im not saying it totally debunks evolution, but what i am saying is it debunks popular consensus on how life spontaneously came about)

BECAUSE popular theory regarding evolution tells us something about raw energy i.e the sun or a lightning bolt or whatever. Striking the primordial ooze/ocean/take your pick. And then generating life from non life materials.
AND the simple truth we can see is that like the car battery, the sun/lightning bolt does not have with in itself a means of giving the non living materials a way to use their energy. A car battery can not redesign my toy to accept its power output. nor can the sun teach a rock or a patch of dirt or a glass of water how to use the energy it shines on them.

And what I just stated above is what we mean when we say "Raw energy in any system does not tend towards order and complexity but rather in observed instance, tends to lead to disorder and a loss in complexity/information"

So why then continue the thermodynamics/entropy argument?
Well because the argument is valid IN LIGHT OF no mechanism inside the earth to convert the suns car battery output.
Its not exactly the same argument as entropy/thermodynamics. But we couple it. The coupling of no converter mechanism inside the earth/plants, along with increase entropy useable energy -> less useable. means that life does not randomly come about because of the sun.

One thing I noticed you may have over looked in one of my previous posts is that ALL forms of energy in motion or in work changes its state eventually into HEAT. ALL energy does this. not just heat. And in the case of sound waves its a similar process with the way heat dissipates. the vibrating molecules slow down.
ENERGY -> WORK -> HEAT -> ENTROPY ->NADDA

[Goat]

The Second Law of Thermodynamics ONLY applies to thermal energy
It does not apply to .. organisms....It applies to thermal energy, and ONLY thermal energy.

Now we are getting somewhere! Lets talk about the thermal energy organisms use. What do organisms have that allows them to utilize this energy in order to perform work? What do organisms have that gives them the ability to store and convert raw energy into something useful for itself?

Have you ever heard of 'chemistry'. It happens all around us.

[G-dspeed]

"Now we are getting somewhere! Lets talk about the thermal energy organisms use. What do organisms have that allows them to utilize this energy in order to perform work? What do organisms have that gives them the ability to store and convert raw energy into something useful for itself?"

I know I know! *Raises hand*

Is it a design? Or a program? A structure? A purpose? A meaning? An order?

I understand what your trying to do fish, but I think either some people arnt catching on or maybe they dont care enough to give a straight answer

In reality what organisms do to utilize energy is they have an ac to dc power convertor and step down transformer

[ShadowRishi]

Shadow you have said;

"Because one law applies to one part of the universe, another law applies to another part of the universe."

But in another post you stated;

"The thermodynamic laws are universal (As far as we know)"

I understand your second statement, but I don't think I understand the first =/

The "one part of the universe" I was alluding to was thermal energy. The laws on mass (Say, conservation of mass) do not hold for say, forces (Newton's second law. That is all I meant by that statement.

You have said as well;

"All systems, if left to themselves, break down because of the entropy. (Their heat energy converts to heat to work, more heat to work, until the only thing left is unusable heat energy. That's why a system decays as far as it's thermal-work energy goes."

Which I agree with no argument, as well as I agree with this statement of yours;

"If I have a system, on it's own, and I leave it on its own, eventually you won't be able to get any work from it. In that sense, it 'decays.'"

However you go on to say this;

"The things in the system, however, do not decay. My bonds to not magically break, the compounds do not turn back into atoms..."

The thermal energy in the system decays, not the system itself.

It sounds like you have said they do decay and then they don't decay?

Not at all, I'm just finding it difficult to explain to people who aren't as versed in physics, chem, and bio.

I am unsure how you can say also about compounds breaking down (unless you mean something else,) because when we die we are dismantled into dust are compounds break down, though not into atoms.

Not because of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, however. They break down because organisms eat you. Not at all the same thing.

You further have stated;

"The Earth is not left alone; the sun beats down rays of radioactive energy constantly"

And

"Earth == materials
Sun == power/energy source"

Which is true but allow me to create a little analogy =)

Okay.

Lets pretend I have robot toy which requires 1 9v battery but the only battery I have is a 12v car battery. In terms of power I can not power my toy with the car battery because (well I don't know it might explode lol) it needs a certain power source OR a pre designed and built in power convertor that can step down voltage and current and CONVERT it into useable energy for my toy.

Thats the analogy between the earth and all systems on it(robot toy), and the suns power(car battery) unless there is some created way to convert the power from the sun, nothing will live on the earth because the sun/car battery just doesn't have anything inside of it to help my toy/earth.

Now use the same analogy WITH the power convertor inside the toy, and you can see how things are set up on earth. On earth there are toys/plants that have built in designed mechanisms/converters to step down the suns electromagnetic wave spectrum of light on all frequencies. And to take from that source what it needs to continue on.

Now this is how it relates to evolution. (and im not saying it totally debunks evolution, but what i am saying is it debunks popular consensus on how life spontaneously came about)

BECAUSE popular theory regarding evolution tells us something about raw energy i.e the sun or a lightning bolt or whatever. Striking the primordial ooze/ocean/take your pick. And then generating life from non life materials.
AND the simple truth we can see is that like the car battery, the sun/lightning bolt does not have with in itself a means of giving the non living materials a way to use their energy. A car battery can not redesign my toy to accept its power output. nor can the sun teach a rock or a patch of dirt or a glass of water how to use the energy it shines on them.

And what I just stated above is what we mean when we say "Raw energy in any system does not tend towards order and complexity but rather in observed instance, tends to lead to disorder and a loss in complexity/information"

I think your argument was this:

A. "The ability to store energy (from power into the system) only works for specific devices"
B. "Chemicals don't have the ability to store that energy, therefore there's no way that life began without help."

Premise B is false, however. All chemicals have the ability to store energy through bonds; if you recall your chemistry, if you heat up chemicals you can create special bonds (Carbon + Oxygen -> Methane). Then you can react those new materials with other materials (Methane + O2 -> H20 + CO2). Energy remains constant, if you have a bond that absorbs energy, it will react and lose energy.

This process of chemical reactions is where the energy is stored.

So why then continue the thermodynamics/entropy argument?
Well because the argument is valid IN LIGHT OF no mechanism inside the earth to convert the suns car battery output.
Its not exactly the same argument as entropy/thermodynamics. But we couple it. The coupling of no converter mechanism inside the earth/plants, along with increase entropy useable energy -> less useable. means that life does not randomly come about because of the sun.

False, I've been telling you the mechanism is chemical bonds and reactions.

One thing I noticed you may have over looked in one of my previous posts is that ALL forms of energy in motion or in work changes its state eventually into HEAT. ALL energy does this. not just heat. And in the case of sound waves its a similar process with the way heat dissipates. the vibrating molecules slow down.
ENERGY -> WORK -> HEAT -> ENTROPY ->NADDA

Partially true; you're reading the Second Law backwards.

I take some form of energy and convert it into another (thermal to electric, for example), and it will create a little heat. Some of the energy cannot be converted to electric. That's all the law says.


Mass energy, for example, does not turn into work; least ways, there is nothing forcing it to turn into work. We can turn mass energy into work via nuclear reactions, but there's nothing demanding that it turns into energy.

[Fisherking]

you notice anything different going on in plants compared to ice or a rock?

Yeah, it's growing, reproducing, and absorbing materials/photons. Point?

That is the point.

Living systems are composed of complex molecular configurations whose total bonding energy is less negative than that of their chemical precursors (e.g., Morowitz's estimate of E = 0.27 ev/atom) and whose thermal and configurational entropies are also less than that of their chemical precursors. Thus, the Gibbs free energy of living systems (see equation 7-6) is quite high relative to the simple compounds from which they are formed. The formation and maintenance of living systems at energy levels well removed from equilibrium requires continuous work to be done on the system, even as maintenance of hot water in a water heater requires that continuous work be done on the system. Securing this continuous work requires energy and/or mass flow through the system, apart from which the system will return to an equilibrium condition (lowest Gibbs free energy, see equations 7-7 and 7-8) with the decomposition of complex molecules into simple ones, just as the hot water in our water heater returns to room temperature once the gas is shut off.

In living plants, the energy flow through the system is supplied principally by solar radiation. In fact, leaves provide relatively large surface areas per unit volume for most plants, allowing them to "capture" the necessary solar energy to maintain themselves far from equilibrium. This solar energy is converted into the necessary useful work (negative Se in equation 7-11) to maintain the plant in its complex, high-energy configuration by a complicated process called photosynthesis. Mass, such as water and carbon dioxide, also flows through plants, providing necessary raw materials, but not energy. In collecting and storing useful energy, plants serve the entire biological world.

For animals, energy flow through the system is provided by eating high energy biomass, either plant or animal. The breaking down of this energy-rich biomass, and the subsequent oxidation of part of it (e.g., carbohydrates), provides a continuous source of energy as well as raw materials. If plants are deprived of sunlight or animals of food, dissipation within the system will surely bring death. Maintenance of the complex, high-energy condition associated with life is not possible apart from a continuous source of energy. A source of energy alone is not sufficient, however, to explain the origin or maintenance of living systems. The additional crucial factor is a means of converting this energy into the necessary useful work to build and maintain complex living systems from the simple biomonomers that constitute their molecular building blocks.

An automobile with an internal combustion engine, transmission, and drive chain provides the necessary mechanism for converting the energy in gasoline into comfortable transportation. Without such an "energy converter," however, obtaining transportation from gasoline would be impossible. In a similar way, food would do little for a man whose stomach, intestines, liver, or pancreas were removed. Without these, he would surely die even though he continued to eat. Apart from a mechanism to couple the available energy to the necessary work, high-energy biomass is insufficient to sustain a living system far from equilibrium. In the case of living systems such a coupling mechanism channels the energy along specific chemical pathways to accomplish a very specific type of work. We therefore conclude that, given the availability of energy and an appropriate coupling mechanism, the maintenance of a living system far from equilibrium presents no thermodynamic problems.

In mathematical formalism, these concepts may be summarized as follows:

(1) The second law of thermodynamics requires only that the entropy production due to irreversible processes within the system be greater than zero; i.e.,


Si > 0 (7-15)
(2) The maintenance of living systems requires that the energy flow through the system be of sufficient magnitude that the negative entropy production rate (i.e., useful work rate) that results be greater than the rate of dissipation that results from irreversible processes going on within the systems; i.e.,



| Se | > Si (7-16)
(3) The negative entropy generation must be coupled into the system in such a way that the resultant work done is directed toward restoration of the system from the disintegration that occurs naturally and is described by the second law of thermodynamics; i.e.,



- Se = Si (7-17)
where Se and Si refer not only to the magnitude of entropy change but also to the specific changes that occur in the system associated with this change in entropy. The coupling must produce not just any kind of ordering but the specific kind required by the system.

While the maintenance of living systems is easily rationalized in terms of thermodynamics, the origin of such living systems is quite another matter. Though the earth is open to energy flow from the sun, the means of converting this energy into the necessary work to build up living systems from simple precursors remains at present unspecified (see equation 7-17). The "evolution" from biomonomers of to fully functioning cells is the issue. Can one make the incredible jump in energy and organization from raw material and raw energy, apart from some means of directing the energy flow through the system? In Chapters 8 and 9 we will consider this question, limiting our discussion to two small but crucial steps in the proposed evolutionary scheme namely, the formation of protein and DNA from their precursors.

It is widely agreed that both protein and DNA are essential for living systems and indispensable components of every living cell today.11 Yet they are only produced by living cells. Thermodynamics of Living Systems

Can you explain how the complex molecular configurations of living systems arose from their chemical precursors when their bonding energy is less negative than that of their chemical precursors and whose thermal and configurational entropies are also less than that of their chemical precursors?

[ShadowRishi]

Can you explain how the complex molecular configurations of living systems arose from their chemical precursors when their bonding energy is less negative than that of their chemical precursors and whose thermal and configurational entropies are also less than that of their chemical precursors?

Original systems didn't have that; it wasn't until they became more complex and organized that they were able to do that.

[G-dspeed]

Thanks shadow for explaining some of that stuff you said, I get it now and agree. =D

But the problem comes still, not from thermodynamics applying to heat and not for example light, but from the "all roads lead to rome" syndrome in which energy in motion inevitably does turn into heat OR does lose its power in some way.

Shadow you said;

Premise B is false, however. All chemicals have the ability to store energy through bonds; if you recall your chemistry, if you heat up chemicals you can create special bonds (Carbon + Oxygen -> Methane). Then you can react those new materials with other materials (Methane + O2 -> H20 + CO2). Energy remains constant, if you have a bond that absorbs energy, it will react and lose energy.

Yes if you apply heat energy to certain checmicals you can get bonding because they have a pre built in mechanism or blueprint or program to do such a thing.
You said through the reacting of chemicals one to another the amount of energy in them remains constant. But isnt it true that in bonding some checmicals together you end up with a varitaion in molecular structure of the preexsisting energy and matter that make up the chemical in the first place? Because
You also said that a bond which absorbs energy will react and lose energy. isnt that kind of my point?
Can you expound on how a chemical bound can store energy?

False, I've been telling you the mechanism is chemical bonds and reactions.

And still where is the chemical bonding that yields life from heat? I do understand that photosynthesis is a mechanism by which a plant converts solar energy into useable energy via prebuilt in chemical reactions. But that doesnt tell me the origin of the plant.

Not because of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, however. They break down because organisms eat you. Not at all the same thing.

Oh I dont know about that, since it takes a certain energy to be alive i.e stave off those nasty buggies which seek to eat us. And when you die you cant fight off the buggies because you dont have any more usable energy =) Therefore in a roundabout way we turn to dust because the level of entropy has exceeded our level for maintaining life.

I take some form of energy and convert it into another (thermal to electric, for example), and it will create a little heat. Some of the energy cannot be converted to electric. That's all the law says.

Thats the same thing as having two glases half way full of water, and you pour one glass into the other over and over again making one at a time full of water. But in the process "entropy" occurs and you spill some water every time you pour it into the other glass till eventually you have no water to pour. i have done the equivilant in an experiment with a leyden jar, it was awsome! But any way the point is you can indeed convert heat energy into electrical energy but you lose some potential for work through entropy yes i agree with you. But if the system if looped like pouring water back and forth into the cups, will lose all potential for work. Unless filled back up by the sun because the earth is an open system? well yes but even the sun is limited in what it can give. and Entropy is not at a set level for the whole universe its more in some areas and less in others, and it is sped up in some areas and slowed down in others. But you might argue that regardless of the sun winding down, it still has the capability of outputting enough energy for the system to maintain a balance long enough for life to develop. But im afraid that falls into the realm of probability per alleged chemical bond capable of producing life(never observed in nature)

You have a certain amount of energy to start with, and with time you lose it period.

Mass energy, for example, does not turn into work; least ways, there is nothing forcing it to turn into work. We can turn mass energy into work via nuclear reactions, but there's nothing demanding that it turns into energy.

I partialy agree with this regarding nuclear reactions n stuff. But I disgaree with the last part about nothing demanding that turns it into energy. While I agree nothing TURNS it into energy, I do accept that energy is lost through bombardment and forcing of naturally occuring "wear and tear" if you will.

Can you explain how the complex molecular configurations of living systems arose from their chemical precursors when their bonding energy is less negative than that of their chemical precursors and whose thermal and configurational entropies are also less than that of their chemical precursors?

fisher makes a fantastic point. to which you shadow respond with

Original systems didn't have that; it wasn't until they became more complex and organized that they were able to do that.

But I would like to see an example of that in nature. The only way I have seen such a thing is through a purposeful design on my own part in creating more complex devices with which to beat back entropy a bit and maximize energy outputs in experiments.
In truth what fisher stated says that the precursor chemicals were struggling with thier own entropy issues on a level far below that of a living system, and did not have what it takes to overcome its entropy to the extent of becomming more complex and organized. Like fighting a losing battle to become more complex.[/quote]

[ShadowRishi]

Thanks shadow for explaining some of that stuff you said, I get it now and agree. =D

But the problem comes still, not from thermodynamics applying to heat and not for example light, but from the "all roads lead to rome" syndrome in which energy in motion inevitably does turn into heat OR does lose its power in some way.

Sort of; keep in mind, the Earth is a special case because it constantly has energy going into it. All roads lead to Rome, but this road took a detour because the sun is giving is tons of energy for well over the period in which evolution has occurred.

Shadow you said;

Premise B is false, however. All chemicals have the ability to store energy through bonds; if you recall your chemistry, if you heat up chemicals you can create special bonds (Carbon + Oxygen -> Methane). Then you can react those new materials with other materials (Methane + O2 -> H20 + CO2). Energy remains constant, if you have a bond that absorbs energy, it will react and lose energy.

Yes if you apply heat energy to certain checmicals you can get bonding because they have a pre built in mechanism or blueprint or program to do such a thing.
You said through the reacting of chemicals one to another the amount of energy in them remains constant. But isnt it true that in bonding some checmicals together you end up with a varitaion in molecular structure of the preexsisting energy and matter that make up the chemical in the first place? Because
You also said that a bond which absorbs energy will react and lose energy. isnt that kind of my point?
Can you expound on how a chemical bound can store energy?

It's do to electron orbitals and quantum mechanics that's well beyond us both. However, from basic chemistry, we do know that such bonds hold a specific amount of energy.

And still where is the chemical bonding that yields life from heat? I do understand that photosynthesis is a mechanism by which a plant converts solar energy into useable energy via prebuilt in chemical reactions. But that doesnt tell me the origin of the plant.

Photosynthesis is nothing more than a chemical reaction involving help from the Sun.

You must keep in mind, the earliest organisms were completely uncomplicated relative to today's standards. Today, the organisms have evolved quite a bit, and they have complex standards.


Complex energy generators like photosynthesis were not the first ways for organisms to get energy. The earliest form was something known as chemosynthesis --which is simple reacting chemicals to generate energy.

Oh I dont know about that, since it takes a certain energy to be alive i.e stave off those nasty buggies which seek to eat us. And when you die you cant fight off the buggies because you dont have any more usable energy =) Therefore in a roundabout way we turn to dust because the level of entropy has exceeded our level for maintaining life.

I do know that it isn't. Once your brain waves quite working, your system can no longer work and function, so it's internal defenses die out, and the bacteria come in and eat you. The issue here is not energy, but what systems needed for an organism to be working with.

Once those systems no longer function, the whole organism fails to work.

It's not that your body no longer has the ability to convert heat to energy (Which isn't even a process of your body) anymore.

Thats the same thing as having two glases half way full of water, and you pour one glass into the other over and over again making one at a time full of water. But in the process "entropy" occurs and you spill some water every time you pour it into the other glass till eventually you have no water to pour. i have done the equivilant in an experiment with a leyden jar, it was awsome! But any way the point is you can indeed convert heat energy into electrical energy but you lose some potential for work through entropy yes i agree with you. But if the system if looped like pouring water back and forth into the cups, will lose all potential for work. Unless filled back up by the sun because the earth is an open system? well yes but even the sun is limited in what it can give. and Entropy is not at a set level for the whole universe its more in some areas and less in others, and it is sped up in some areas and slowed down in others. But you might argue that regardless of the sun winding down, it still has the capability of outputting enough energy for the system to maintain a balance long enough for life to develop. But im afraid that falls into the realm of probability per alleged chemical bond capable of producing life(never observed in nature)

Agreed, the Sun will run out of energy eventually.

However, that's irrelevant. For the entire duration of evolution, the Sun was pouring energy into the Earth, which is the only time interval we're concerned with.

You have a certain amount of energy to start with, and with time you lose it period.

You never lose energy, it all just gets converted to other forms.

But I would like to see an example of that in nature. The only way I have seen such a thing is through a purposeful design on my own part in creating more complex devices with which to beat back entropy a bit and maximize energy outputs in experiments.
In truth what fisher stated says that the precursor chemicals were struggling with thier own entropy issues on a level far below that of a living system, and did not have what it takes to overcome its entropy to the extent of becomming more complex and organized. Like fighting a losing battle to become more complex.

[/quote]

Again, Fisher is no scientist, and he's just quoting people who're talking about things much more complex than you or I can comprehend at the moment.


We know of chemosynthesis-using bacteria. Very basic bacteria have existed, and we've seen them. They were very uncomplicated.

We cannot actually look at any bacteria like that, and the chances of recreating them are slim to none, however, it's not impossible.

[Fisherking]

Can you explain how the complex molecular configurations of living systems arose from their chemical precursors when their bonding energy is less negative than that of their chemical precursors and whose thermal and configurational entropies are also less than that of their chemical precursors?

Original systems didn't have that; it wasn't until they became more complex and organized that they were able to do that.

What orginal systems?
What didn't they have?
What weren't they able to do before they "became more complex and organized"?

[ShadowRishi]

Can you explain how the complex molecular configurations of living systems arose from their chemical precursors when their bonding energy is less negative than that of their chemical precursors and whose thermal and configurational entropies are also less than that of their chemical precursors?

Original systems didn't have that; it wasn't until they became more complex and organized that they were able to do that.

What orginal systems?
What didn't they have?
What weren't they able to do before they "became more complex and organized"?

Original systems == the original 'life' that was prokaryote, chemosynthesis cells.
They didn't have complex systems, those came along slowly
They couldn't become more complex until latert, kinda like how a two year old doesn't start out in calculus III.