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.

[Fisherking]

Random changes have the same effect on the genome as random changes in nature, bothing singing to the tune of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. You do get evolution (defined as change), when random mutations are introduced into the genome -- changes in the direction of increased entropy

The 2nd law of thermodynamics applies only to closed systems. No one I know claims that evolution works in closed systems.

The second law of thermodynamics does not stop working in an open system. It applies to open and closed systems.

[Fisherking]

Random changes have the same effect on the genome as random changes in nature, bothing singing to the tune of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. You do get evolution (defined as change), when random mutations are introduced into the genome -- changes in the direction of increased entropy

The 2nd law of thermodynamics applies only to closed systems. No one I know claims that evolution works in closed systems.

The Earth is heated by radiation from the sun. It also experiences the gravitational tug of the sun and the moon. Observations show the Earth cannot then be a closed system. If the Earth is not a closed system we would not expect to see increasing entropy.

Yet we do see entropy increasing-- the fact that energy is coming into the system does not mean entropy is decreasing.

[Undertow]

Random changes have the same effect on the genome as random changes in nature, bothing singing to the tune of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. You do get evolution (defined as change), when random mutations are introduced into the genome -- changes in the direction of increased entropy

The 2nd law of thermodynamics applies only to closed systems. No one I know claims that evolution works in closed systems.

The Earth is heated by radiation from the sun. It also experiences the gravitational tug of the sun and the moon. Observations show the Earth cannot then be a closed system. If the Earth is not a closed system we would not expect to see increasing entropy.

Yet we do see entropy increasing-- the fact that energy is coming into the system does not mean entropy is decreasing.

It dosen't mean it must increase either. As far as I'm aware it's that on average, the 2nd law (i.e. entropy must increase [in a closed system]) does not apply in an open system. There will be fluctuations within any system but the deal with that is you can subdivide a system like earth into many, many more, even down to a lab setting in a practical class.

[Confused]

Evolution has little to do with the 2nd law. It's simply a necessary consequence of organisms reproducing after their kind, but with the inherent sloppiness of DNA replication, DNA damage, and DNA repair, so that mutations happen. If you have mutations, and reproduction, you will get evolution.

Random changes have the same effect on the genome as random changes in nature, bothing singing to the tune of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. You do get evolution (defined as change), when random mutations are introduced into the genome -- changes in the direction of increased entropy

I am curious, how are you applying quantum physics to biological systems at such large particles? The molecules for DNA (amino acids, protein, carbon, whathaveyou) are huge in comparison to the elementary particles we usually associate with cosmology. In a system, such as the human body, how does the 2nd law of thermodynamics apply, biologically speaking?

Either way, you are making a common misconception about the 2nd law of thermodynamics. It is a double headed arrow, the arrow entropy increases both towards the past and the future. It recognizes no such direction per se. The 2nd law of thermodynamics actually says that at any given moment of interest a system doesn't possess the max entropy, it is likely it will have previously had more entropy. '

To apply the 2nd law to evolution of the universe requires symmetry. Evolution is essentially when balance and order suddenly change leading to different cosmic arenas. Schrodingers equation treats forward and backwards equally without temporal evolution. First class proposals maintain the same framework so temporal symmetry is maintained. Second class proposals temporal symmetry may or may not survive. Rotational symmetry essentially says if you are in space, it doesn't matter where you are, spatial direction is the same. There is no forward or backwards, no direction to lead you to or away from evolution. This upholds Newtons, Einsteins, and Maxwells theories. Now while on earth, you can look down or up and see different things, but this reflects details of the environment, not the underlying laws.

[Confused]

Random changes have the same effect on the genome as random changes in nature, bothing singing to the tune of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. You do get evolution (defined as change), when random mutations are introduced into the genome -- changes in the direction of increased entropy

The 2nd law of thermodynamics applies only to closed systems. No one I know claims that evolution works in closed systems.

The Earth is heated by radiation from the sun. It also experiences the gravitational tug of the sun and the moon. Observations show the Earth cannot then be a closed system. If the Earth is not a closed system we would not expect to see increasing entropy.

Yet we do see entropy increasing-- the fact that energy is coming into the system does not mean entropy is decreasing.

Entropy fluctuates based on the system we are applying it to.
I will save some space and just give you the site so you can peruse it at your leisure.
http://www.mdpi.net/entropy/papers/e6010038.pdf

[Fisherking]

I am curious, how are you applying quantum physics to biological systems at such large particles? The molecules for DNA (amino acids, protein, carbon, whathaveyou) are huge in comparison to the elementary particles we usually associate with cosmology. In a system, such as the human body, how does the 2nd law of thermodynamics apply, biologically speaking?

How does it not apply, biologically speaking?

"Speaking of the general applicability of the second law to both closed and open systems in general, Harvard scientist Dr. John Ross (not a creationist) affirms:

“...there are no known violations of the second law of thermodynamics. Ordinarily the second law is stated for isolated [closed] 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]
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."

Each living organism’s DNA contains all the code (the “program” or “information”) needed to direct the process of building (or “organizing”) the organism up from seed or cell to a fully functional, mature specimen, complete with all the necessary instructions for maintaining and repairing each of its complex, organized, and integrated component systems. This process continues throughout the life of the organism, essentially building-up and maintaining the organism’s physical structure faster than natural processes (as governed by the second law) can break it down.

Living systems also have the second essential component—their own built-in mechanisms for effectively converting and storing the incoming energy. Plants use photosynthesis to convert the sun’s energy into usable, storable forms (e.g., proteins), while animals use metabolism to further convert and use the stored, usable, energy from the organisms which compose their diets.

So we see that living things seem to “violate” the second law because they have built-in programs (information) and energy conversion mechanisms that allow them to build up and maintain their physical structures “in spite of” the second law’s effects (which ultimately do prevail, as each organism eventually deteriorates and dies). Thermodynamics vs. Evolutionism

We could take this a step further and ask whether or not entropy can affect the "program" or the "a mechanism for storing and converting the incoming energy". The evidence suggest it does -- to what extent, we may not know as of yet.

[Confused]

I am curious, how are you applying quantum physics to biological systems at such large particles? The molecules for DNA (amino acids, protein, carbon, whathaveyou) are huge in comparison to the elementary particles we usually associate with cosmology. In a system, such as the human body, how does the 2nd law of thermodynamics apply, biologically speaking?

How does it not apply, biologically speaking?

"Speaking of the general applicability of the second law to both closed and open systems in general, Harvard scientist Dr. John Ross (not a creationist) affirms:

“...there are no known violations of the second law of thermodynamics. Ordinarily the second law is stated for isolated [closed] 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]
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."

Each living organism’s DNA contains all the code (the “program” or “information”) needed to direct the process of building (or “organizing”) the organism up from seed or cell to a fully functional, mature specimen, complete with all the necessary instructions for maintaining and repairing each of its complex, organized, and integrated component systems. This process continues throughout the life of the organism, essentially building-up and maintaining the organism’s physical structure faster than natural processes (as governed by the second law) can break it down.

Living systems also have the second essential component—their own built-in mechanisms for effectively converting and storing the incoming energy. Plants use photosynthesis to convert the sun’s energy into usable, storable forms (e.g., proteins), while animals use metabolism to further convert and use the stored, usable, energy from the organisms which compose their diets.

So we see that living things seem to “violate” the second law because they have built-in programs (information) and energy conversion mechanisms that allow them to build up and maintain their physical structures “in spite of” the second law’s effects (which ultimately do prevail, as each organism eventually deteriorates and dies). Thermodynamics vs. Evolutionism

We could take this a step further and ask whether or not entropy can affect the "program" or the "a mechanism for storing and converting the incoming energy". The evidence suggest it does -- to what extent, we may not know as of yet.

http://www.douknow.net/ev_5evolutionmistakes.htm

Isaak next wants to dispel the “ignorance” upon which the claim is made that

Evolution Violates the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics
Back To Top
Isaak begins with the expected declaration, “This shows more a misconception about thermodynamics than about evolution.” But we soon shall see who misunderstands both thermodynamics AND evolution...

Defining the Law
Isaak’s definition of the second law of thermodynamics begins with: “No process is possible in which the sole result is the transfer of energy from a cooler to a hotter body.” He then tells us that “confusion arises” when the 2nd law is phrased as: “The entropy of a closed system cannot decrease.” Anyone familiar with the 2nd law will recognize that both statements are true, and that the second statement is commonly used of the two axioms in defining the 2nd law as it pertains to Classical Thermodynamics—yet for Isaak, it seems to cause some “confusion.”






To define our terms, in Classical Thermodynamics the term “entropy” is the measure of the amount of energy unavailable for work in a physical system. Left to itself over time, any such system will end with less available energy (i.e., a higher measure of, or increase in, entropy) than when it started, according to the 2nd law. In this classic form, the 2nd law applies specifically to probability of distribution in heat and energy relationships of physical systems, and as such, the entropy involved may be described specifically as thermal entropy.
Similarly, the “generalized 2nd law” applies to probability of distribution matters in Information Theory in such a way that, left to itself over time, the information conveyed by an information-communicating system will end more distorted and less complete than when it began (again, a higher measure of, or increase in, entropy—in this case informational entropy), and likewise, applied to matters Statistics, left to itself over time, the order or regularity of a system will be less than when it began (and again, a higher measure of, or increase in, entropy—in this case statistical entropy).



Isaak tells us that creationists “misinterpret the 2nd law to say that things invariably progress from order to disorder.” This writer knows of no creationist who has published this “misinterpretation,” and Isaak neglects to document the “creationists” to whom he would credit this quotation. However, it is commonly understood by not only by creationists, but by all scientists familiar with thermodynamics, that systems or processes left to themselves invariably tend to move from order to disorder. Consider what Isaac Asimov (a highly respected evolutionist, and ardent anti-creationist) has to say:



“Another way of stating the second law then is: ‘The universe is constantly getting more disorderly!’ Viewed that way, we can see the second law all about us. We have to work hard to straighten a room, but left to itself it becomes a mess again very quickly and very easily. Even if we never enter it, it becomes dusty and musty. How difficult to maintain houses, and machinery, and our bodies in perfect working order: how easy to let them deteriorate. In fact, all we have to do is nothing, and everything deteriorates, collapses, breaks down, wears out, all by itself—and that is what the second law is all about.”
[Isaac Asimov, Smithsonian Institute Journal, June 1970, p. 6]
Thus we observe a virulent anti-creationist stating essentially what Isaak claims is a “creationist misinterpretation” of the 2nd law. Lest there be any doubts, a typical college-level chemistry text book (which doesn’t concern itself with matters of origins and therefore may be considered neutral on the subject) says:



“Scientists use the term entropy to describe the amount of randomness in a system. The larger the entropy of a system, the less order or more randomness the system has. We could say that the direction of change in diffusion or evaporation is toward a state of higher entropy.”
[D. Callewaert & J. Genya, Basic Chemistry, New York, Worth Publishers, 1980, p. 157]
It should be clear that the 2nd law of thermodynamics does indeed require that a natural process or system, left to itself, increases in entropy, or randomness, and therefore decreases in order, and—as Asimov put it—“deteriorates, collapses, breaks down, wears out, all by itself.” Please don’t let the fact escape your notice that Asimov applies this law to “the universe” which pretty much assures us that its application is ... universal (applying to all processes and systems).

Open vs. Closed Systems
Next, Isaak arrives at the heart of his argument, invoking what has really become a classic—and very misleading—evolutionist tactic: He tells us that the creationists’ error is that “they neglect the fact that life is not a closed system.”
The basis of his claim is the fact that while the 2nd law is inviolate in an isolated system (i.e., a system in which neither energy nor matter enter nor leave the system—often erroneously called “closed” system), an apparent “violation” of the law can exist in an open system (i.e., a system to which new energy or matter may be added). Isaak tells us “life [is] irrelevant to the 2nd law,” and so is evidently convinced that every living systems is an exception to the 2nd law.

Now, the entire universe is generally considered by evolutionists to be a “closed” (isolated) system, so the 2nd law dictates that within the universe, entropy is increasing. In other words, things are tending to breaking down, becoming less organized, less complex, more random on a universal scale. This trend (as described by Asimov above) is a scientifically observed phenomenon—i.e., fact, not theory.

However, here on earth, the popular evolutionary line of reasoning goes, we have an “exception,” because we live in an open system: “The sun provides more than enough energy to drive things,” Isaak says. And indeed, solar energy is added to the open sub-system of the earth continuously. But simply adding raw energy to a system doesn’t automatically cause reduced entropy (i.e., increased organized complexity, build-up rather than break-down). If this were true, no scientist would object to the elimination of the ozone, since more raw solar energy would only mean a welcome increase in organized complexity (a hastening of the alleged evolutionary process, as it were) in the world as we know it.

No, we know that raw solar energy alone does not decrease entropy. In fact, by itself, 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, first with and then without the addition of solar radiation).

Speaking of the applicability of 2nd law to both “closed” (isolated) and open systems in general, Harvard scientist Dr. John Ross (not a creationist) affirms:

“...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]
So, if the 2nd law is universal (as any scientifically defined “law” must be, and as Ross here confirms), what is it that makes life possible within the earth’s biosphere, appearing to “violate” (or in Isaak’s words, be “irrelevant to”) the 2nd law of thermodynamics?

Raw Energy is Not Enough
The fact is, contrary to the simplistic claim often parroted by evolutionists like Isaak, any increase in organized complexity (i.e., decrease in entropy) invariably requires two additional factors besides an open system and an available energy supply. These are:

a “program” (information) to direct the growth in organized complexity
a mechanism for storing and converting the incoming energy.
The earth’s living systems have both of these essential elements. Each living organism’s DNA contains all the code (the “program” or “information”) needed to direct the process of building (or “organizing”) the organism up from seed or cell to a fully functional, mature specimen, complete with all the necessary instructions for maintaining and repairing each of its complex, organized, and integrated component systems. This process continues throughout the life of the organism, essentially building-up and maintaining the organism’s physical structure faster than natural processes (as governed by the 2nd law) can break it down.

Living systems also have the second essential component—their own built-in mechanisms for effectively converting and storing the incoming energy. Plants use photosynthesis to convert the sun’s energy into usable, storable forms (e.g., proteins), while animals use metabolism to further convert and use the stored, usable, energy from the organisms which compose their diets.

So we can see that living things do not in fact “violate” the 2nd law, nor are they “excepted from” or “irrelevant to” the 2nd law, but they actually have built-in programs (information) and energy conversion mechanisms that allow them to build up and maintain their physical structures “in spite of” the 2nd law’s effects (which ultimately do prevail, as each organism eventually deteriorates and dies). Every living organism itself is a highly complex and organized creation, able to live within the earth’s “open system” biosphere (the only place in the universe known to man that supports life), by means of a unique, inherent program (information, DNA), plus an inherent energy conversion & storage mechanism (photosynthesis, metabolism).

[QED]

Fisherking, seeing as how you've got this thread going again, perhaps you could make it clear exactly what impact you think the 2nd law has on the theory of evolution. Do you think it prohibits the operation of a self-organising system that has a constant input of energy for example?

[Fisherking]

Fisherking, seeing as how you've got this thread going again, perhaps you could make it clear exactly what impact you think the 2nd law has on the theory of evolution. Do you think it prohibits the operation of a self-organising system that has a constant input of energy for example?

If the system does not have:

"1. a “program” (information) to direct the growth in organized complexity

2. a mechanism for storing and converting the incoming energy."

I would argue that the 2nd Law would prohibit self organization.

We could take this a step further and ask whether or not entropy can affect the "program" or the "a mechanism for storing and converting the incoming energy". The evidence suggest it does -- to what extent, we may not know as of yet.

[micatala]

Fisherking, seeing as how you've got this thread going again, perhaps you could make it clear exactly what impact you think the 2nd law has on the theory of evolution. Do you think it prohibits the operation of a self-organising system that has a constant input of energy for example?

If the system does not have:

"1. a “program” (information) to direct the growth in organized complexity

2. a mechanism for storing and converting the incoming energy."

I would argue that the 2nd Law would prohibit self organization.

We could take this a step further and ask whether or not entropy can affect the "program" or the "a mechanism for storing and converting the incoming energy". The evidence suggest it does -- to what extent, we may not know as of yet.

I am not aware of any statement of the 2nd law of thermodynamics that says anything about a 'program' being required to inhibit or prevent increasing average entropy or even localized decreases in entropy.

I would ask what the 'program' is when snowflakes are formed. Certainly, at least from a subjective standpoint, snowflakes are much more structured and comples than water droplets or diffuse water vapor. Would Fisherking say that the formation of snowflakes violates the 2nd law or his 2 assumptions about how the 2nd law operates?