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.

[Beastt]

How about showing me a case where the second law doesn't doesn't apply equally well to open systems?

We already did: snowflakes.

How does a snowflake violate the second law of thermodynamics?

If anything violated the second law of thermodynamics, then it wouldn't be a law.

A snowflake demonstrates a reduction of entropy within an open system (not closed). The interesting thing about the snowflake example is that the reduction in entropy results from a reduction of energy. But either way, you have energy transfer resulting in reduced entropy.

How do evolution or abiogenesis act as examples of reduced entropy within a closed system when both occur in an open system?

[Thought Criminal]

A snowflake demonstrates a reduction of entropy within an open system (not closed). The interesting thing about the snowflake example is that the reduction in entropy results from a reduction of energy. But either way, you have energy transfer resulting in reduced entropy.

The example I particularly like is the funnel that forms when water empties out into a drain hole. It demonstrates how its structure is "paid for" by increasing the rate at which the water flows out. This is a good parallel to how organisms create structure by breaking food down.

TC

[Beastt]

A snowflake demonstrates a reduction of entropy within an open system (not closed). The interesting thing about the snowflake example is that the reduction in entropy results from a reduction of energy. But either way, you have energy transfer resulting in reduced entropy.

The example I particularly like is the funnel that forms when water empties out into a drain hole. It demonstrates how its structure is "paid for" by increasing the rate at which the water flows out. This is a good parallel to how organisms create structure by breaking food down.

TC

Interesting. Isn't that also an example of higher order (reduced entropy), resulting from a loss of energy (transfer out of the system), rather than a transfer of energy into the system?

Organisms produce higher structure by absorbing energy from outside of their immediate system (i.e. calories from the sun). Snowflakes obtain higher order (reduced entropy), through a transfer of energy out of the system (loss of heat energy). Like snowflakes, it would seem that the funnel structure is a higher order resulting from energy transfer out of the system (potential energy in the form of the elevated water, expended through gravitational attraction). Either way, energy transfer is resulting in reduce entropy, but the water-funnel and the snowflake structure demonstrate that energy needn't be absorbed to reduce entropy. All that is required is the transfer of energy, either into, or out of, the immediate system.

Edit: I realize that I've made poor use of terminology here, by allowing it to sound as though energy is transferring into and out of a closed system, rather than from one portion of a system, to another. The accuracy of my statements has suffered due to a poor choice of wording. Obviously, none of the systems are closed. "Immediate system" and "external system" are both meant to represent various levels within a system, presenting an open system (energy exchange from one division to another).

[Beastt]

Double-post

[micatala]

Let me address Fisherking's quote of John Ross and the related material quoted from http://www.trueorigin.org/steiger.asp#second

The author T. Wallace. (not Ross) of the above link notes, as quoted by Fisherking, that

So, what is it that makes life possible within the earth�s biosphere, appearing to �violate� the second law of thermodynamics?

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."

I added the bolding, to emphasize that there is only the 'appearance' of a violation of the second law. Many creationists mistake their subjective judgment of the 'appearance of disorder' with the more well-defined and less subjective scientific definition of entropy. They seem to think "it looks more disordered (or less disordered) so their must have been an increase (decrease) in entropy." This is essentially an argument from personal incredulity.

Second, let's consider the two factors alluded to above. Are not these two factors present in the formation of snowflakes? Does not the laws of chemical interaction and crystal formation determine a 'program' to direct the growth in organized complexity in a snowflake?

And in fact, would not the laws of chemstry and physics also allow for organized complexity on the early earth, and possibly the formation of self-replicating molecules? Can Fisherking prove that this is not possible?

With regards to item 2, I would certainly accept that at least most biological organisms have such energy storage and conversion mechanisms.

With regards to 'nonliving' matter, certainly molecules are capable of 'converting' energy (e.g. from the sun) into chemical reactions.

As far as storage, I would need to understand more details regarding how T. Wallace defines this. I am not sure that a storage mechanism, for example, is required for life, although most of what we think of as life probably does have such mechanisms. However, life could exist, reproduce, etc., without such a storage mechanism as long as it had a source of energy which was adequate in amount and 'continuity' to fuel its ongoing living processes. Such life might die the minute or second the energy source was absent, but could thrive as long as the energy source is present.

The sun would certainly represent a very powerful and continual source of energy. Energy stored in the earth's oceans in the form of heat could as well.

While this explains how living organisms may grow and thrive, thanks in part to the earth’s “open-system� biosphere, it does not offer any solution to the question of how life could spontaneously begin this process in the absence of the program directions and energy conversion mechanisms described above—nor how a simple living organism might produce the additional new program directions and alternative energy conversion mechanisms required in order for biological evolution to occur, producing the vast spectrum of biological variety and complexity observed by man.

In short, the “open system� argument fails to adequately justify evolutionist speculation in the face of the second law. Most highly respected evolutionist scientists (some of whom have been quoted above with care—and within context) acknowledge this fact, many even acknowledging the problem it causes the theory to which they subscribe.

Again, I added the bolding.

Here, the author makes the same mistake Fisherking does. He confuses the mechanism for the conversion of energy into decreased entropy with the 2LOT. Not knowing HOW the localized decrease in entropy occurred does not mean that it can't occur, nor that the 2LOT is violated.

In fact, like Fisherking, T. Wallace seems to forget that localized decreases in entropy and increases in 'order' are entirely possible without violating the second law. For example, he says:

Evolutionist theory faces a problem in the second law, since the law is plainly understood to indicate (as does empirical observation) that things tend towards disorder, simplicity, randomness, and disorganization, while the theory insists that precisely the opposite has been taking place since the universe began (assuming it had a beginning).

This statement is true, but forgets that the overall entropy can DECREASE in an open system, and furthermore that it can DECREASE locally in a closed system, even if the entropy in the whole closed system is increasing as dictated by the second law.

The organization represented by a galaxy, for example, could represent a local decrease in entropy, even though the universe at large is increasing in entropy. We should remember that only a very tiny fraction of space is occupied by galaxies. Most of the universe is certainly in a 'uniform high entropy state.'



Fisherking's citation, thus, does not make the case that evolution violates the second law. In addition, I would ask Fisherking (or T. Wallace) to provide the larger context for the Ross quote. Ross very well could be referring to the localized decreases in entropy that can occur when he is mentioning that the second law also applies to open systems. Certainly what has been quoted from Ross does NOT necessarily indicate that he is saying entropy must also increase in open systems.

[Beastt]

In short; reduction of entropy can occur through energy transfer without any violation of the second law of thermodynamics occurring because the 2LOT refers only to a closed system (which prohibits energy transfer).

The energy can transfer in (as in the case of organisms converting calories originating from sunlight) or out (as in the loss of thermal energy from a water droplet, resulting in a snowflake), and the second law of thermodynamics remains in tact because neither represent a closed system (calories transferring in, for one example, and thermal energy transferring out for the other).

So the point being made in the evolution/religion thread stands up just as well here as it does there, (no surprise).

[Fisherking]

How about showing me a case where the second law doesn't doesn't apply equally well to open systems?

We already did: snowflakes.

How does a snowflake violate the second law of thermodynamics?

Let me rephrase:
How does the second law not apply to snowflakes in an open system?

[Fisherking]

How about showing me a case where the second law doesn't doesn't apply equally well to open systems?

We already did: snowflakes.

How does a snowflake violate the second law of thermodynamics?

If anything violated the second law of thermodynamics, then it wouldn't be a law.

Exactly:

“...there are no known violations of the second law of thermodynamics. Ordinarily the second law is stated for isolated systems, but the second law applies equally well to open systems ... there is somehow associated with the field of far-from equilibrium phenomena the notion that the second law of thermodynamics fails for such systems. It is important to make sure that this error does not perpetuate itself.� [Dr. John Ross, Harvard scientist (evolutionist), Chemical and Engineering News, vol. 58, July 7, 1980, p. 40]

The interesting thing about the snowflake example is that the reduction in entropy results from a reduction of energy.

The formation of molecules or atoms into geometric patterns such as snowflakes or crystals reflects movement towards equilibrium—a lower energy level, and a more stable arrangement of the molecules or atoms into simple, uniform, repeating structural patterns with minimal complexity, and no function. Living things, on the other hand, do not arrive at and maintain their high levels of order, organization, and complexity in order to achieve thermodynamic equilibrium, but are in fact maintaining far from equilibrium conditions in order to arrive at and maintain those levels. Five Major Evolutionist Misconceptions
about Evolution

[McCulloch]

I saved a file on the hard drive of my computer. Prior to saving this file, the space that the file would occupy was full of random digits. After, it was filled with a complex set of specifically ordered bits. I must have violated the second law of thermodynamics. Right?

This winter, the forces of nature will again take water with its molecules rushing around somewhat randomly and fix them into a pattern known as snowflakes. Another violator of the second law of thermodynamics! Not much of a law is it?

The fact is that the second law only applies to closed systems. My computer, when I am operating it is not a closed system. I apply order, the power company provides energy. Our weather systems are also not closed systems. The sun provides energy.

Earth's biosystem is not an open system either. So why would the second law apply?

[Fisherking]

The fact is that the second law only applies to closed systems. My computer, when I am operating it is not a closed system. I apply order, the power company provides energy. Our weather systems are also not closed systems. The sun provides energy.

Earth's biosystem is not an open system either. So why would the second law apply?

The second law applies equally well to open systems. If there wasn't a "a “program� (information) to direct the growth in organized complexity" or a "mechanism for storing and converting the incoming energy" what would happen to the information stored on your computer? How does the sun shining on something decrease entropy?

The evolutionist rationale is simply that life on earth is an “exception� because we live in an open system: “The sun provides more than enough energy to drive things.� This supply of available energy, we are assured, adequately satisfies any objection to evolution on the basis of the second law.

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 entropy—in 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)Thermodynamics vs. Evolutionism