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.

[Goat]

Wallace does not impose any limits on biological evolution, the 2nd law of thermodynamics does.

Well, Wallace's explaintion on how thermodynamics imposes a limit is incorrect, and does not make sense. It is making assumptions based on incorrect understanding of both biological evolution and on thermodynamics.

You saying the explaination is incorrect does not make it incorrect. Maybe you could fill us in on the correct understanding of both biological evolution and thermodynamics

Please, I had asked you.. wehere in the 2LOT does it say anything about INFORMATION or ORGANISATION, which is what Wallasce talks about.

You are merely avoiding the quesiotn, and shifting the burden of proof.

Very deceitful

[ShadowRishi]

If the system does not have:

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

There is no such thing as a "direction" given by a "program" on the planet.

Sure there is, DNA is a good example of information directing the growth of an organism.

(Okay, I'll cede you your definition of program)


Yes, but you assumed that there was not a program that could create DNA. In fact, there is. The laws of nature seem like they would work, no?

Prove to me that, via the laws of nature, evolution is impossible.

I agree.

Good, this should be much easier then.

I have no idea what you are trying to say here or how it deals with mechanisms for storing and converting incoming energy.

Sorry, I was still on the idea of 2nd law of thermo was being employed. Never mind, I was being silly.


Chemical bonds --specifically, organic-- have the ability to store energy. If they meet another element to react with, that (can) convert it to work.

[QED]

It sure doesn't. The link I provided earlier went over this example along with others like it showing how snowflakes sing to the tune thermodynamics just like everything else.

You would seem to be looking for snowflakes forming into more "complex" arrangements exhibiting something called "functionality". I suggest you look into a mirror We've gone down the route of asking for definitions for life -- and it's a notoriously difficult thing to pin-down. Regardless of this problem, arguments that suggest the 2nd law prohibits all complexity and all functionality are clearly flawed as snowflakes and convection cells demonstrate. These examples of self-ordering atomic structure do have specific (ho-hum) complexity and, although you may not be able to identify it, functionality. If studied carefully enough it will be realised that the differences are ultimately quantitative not qualitative.

[Fisherking]

.....arguments that suggest the 2nd law prohibits all complexity and all functionality are clearly flawed as snowflakes and convection cells demonstrate.

Well, my argument suggests that the 2nd law prohibits all life arising from non-life.

The “order” found in a snowflake or a crystal has nothing to do with increased information, organization or complexity, or available energy (i.e., reduced entropy). 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 structures with minimal complexity, and no function. These are not examples of matter forming itself into more organized or more complex structures or systems (as postulated in evolutionist theory), even though they may certainly reflect “order” in the form of simple patterns Thermodynamics vs. Evolutionism

Snowflakes are a result of water's movement towards equilibrium. As a snowflake drops on my face and melts (as I look into the mirror ), I realize that I have not reached a state of equilibrium for some reason. I have:
"1. a “program” (DNA)
2. a mechanism for storing and converting the incoming energy."(metabolism),
enabling me to generate heat on a cold snowy day. If this mechanism were to break down and quit, entropy increases would no longer appear to be thwarted and I would move towards equilibrium(death). There is a difference.

[Furrowed Brow]

Snowflakes are a result of water's movement towards equilibrium. As a snowflake drops on my face and melts (as I look into the mirror ), I realize that I have not reached a state of equilibrium for some reason. I have:
"1. a “program” (DNA)
2. a mechanism for storing and converting the incoming energy."(metabolism),
enabling me to generate heat on a cold snowy day. If this mechanism were to break down and quit, entropy increases would no longer appear to be thwarted and I would move towards equilibrium(death). There is a difference.

Not sure how you are using the term “equilibrium” here. Dynamic equilibrium occurs when two processes occur at the same time and balance out. The energy stored in your body released as heat to counter say the temperature of a room would be at equilibrium when the room is raised to body temperature by the body heat you are giving off. If you were out in the snow and your metabolism broke down so that it produce no heat you will die of hypothermia, not equilibrium.

[ShadowRishi]

My post is about 3 up above, you may wish to address it, Fisher.

[Fisherking]

Snowflakes are a result of water's movement towards equilibrium. As a snowflake drops on my face and melts (as I look into the mirror ), I realize that I have not reached a state of equilibrium for some reason. I have:
"1. a “program” (DNA)
2. a mechanism for storing and converting the incoming energy."(metabolism),
enabling me to generate heat on a cold snowy day. If this mechanism were to break down and quit, entropy increases would no longer appear to be thwarted and I would move towards equilibrium(death). There is a difference.

Not sure how you are using the term “equilibrium” here. Dynamic equilibrium occurs when two processes occur at the same time and balance out. The energy stored in your body released as heat to counter say the temperature of a room would be at equilibrium when the room is raised to body temperature by the body heat you are giving off. If you were out in the snow and your metabolism broke down so that it produce no heat you will die of hypothermia, not equilibrium.

Yes, you are just saying what I said in a different way. From a purely thermodynamic perspective though, when your body ceases to heat itself (due to metabolic breakdown) it will start towards equilibrium with the surrounding environment, becoming the same temperature as its surroundings -- the end result is death (hypothermia would of course occur during that process).

[Goat]

Snowflakes are a result of water's movement towards equilibrium. As a snowflake drops on my face and melts (as I look into the mirror ), I realize that I have not reached a state of equilibrium for some reason. I have:
"1. a “program” (DNA)
2. a mechanism for storing and converting the incoming energy."(metabolism),
enabling me to generate heat on a cold snowy day. If this mechanism were to break down and quit, entropy increases would no longer appear to be thwarted and I would move towards equilibrium(death). There is a difference.

Not sure how you are using the term “equilibrium” here. Dynamic equilibrium occurs when two processes occur at the same time and balance out. The energy stored in your body released as heat to counter say the temperature of a room would be at equilibrium when the room is raised to body temperature by the body heat you are giving off. If you were out in the snow and your metabolism broke down so that it produce no heat you will die of hypothermia, not equilibrium.

Yes, you are just saying what I said in a different way. From a purely thermodynamic perspective though, when your body ceases to heat itself (due to metabolic breakdown) it will start towards equilibrium with the surrounding environment, becoming the same temperature as its surroundings -- the end result is death (hypothermia would of course occur during that process).

Yet, none of this is violating the 2LOT. That is because energy is pumped into the system (food in the case of animals, and light in the case of most plants). The 2LOT has nothing to specifically say about the 'program', and the 'mechanism'.

You will not see any physicist discussing 'information' or 'program' when discussing the 2LOT. To say complex system can not form because of entropy is a misconception. THe term 'entropy' in thermodynamics does not mean 'disorder'.That is an equivocation used by creationist in their ignorance.

[Fisherking]

Chemical bonds --specifically, organic-- have the ability to store energy. If they meet another element to react with, that (can) convert it to work.

That kindof sounds like dynamite. Dynamite can accomplish work, but I would not try to build a house with it

Heres a good read on various theories dealing with the self organization of life and the problems encountered with thermodynamics.

.....we saw that the work necessary to polymerize DNA and protein molecules from simple biomonomers could potentially be accomplished by energy flow through the system. Still, we know that such energy flow is a necessary but not sufficient condition for polymerization of the macromolecules of life. Arranging a pile of bricks into the configuration of a house requires work. One would hardly expect to accomplish this work with dynamite, however. Not only must energy flow through the system, it must be coupled in some specific way to the work to be done. This being so, we devoted Chapter 8 to identifying various components of work in typical polymerization reactions. In reviewing those individual work components, one thing became clear. The coupling of energy flow to the specific work requirements in the formation of DNA and protein is particularly important since the required configurational entropy work of coding is substantial

Throughout Chapters 7-9 we have analyzed the problems of complexity and the origin of life from a thermodynamic point of view. Our reason for doing this is the common notion in the scientific literature today on the origin of life that an open system with energy and mass flow is a priori a sufficient explanation for the complexity of life. We have examined the validity of such an open and constrained system. We found it to be a reasonable explanation for doing the chemical and thermal entropy work, but clearly inadequate to account for the configurational entropy work of coding (not to mention the sorting and selecting work). We have noted the need for some sort of coupling mechanism. Without it, there is no way to convert the negative entropy associated with energy flow into negative entropy associated with configurational entropy and the corresponding information. Is it reasonable to believe such a "hidden" coupling mechanism will be found in the future that can play this crucial role of a template, metabolic motor, etc., directing the flow of energy in such a way as to create new information?

I have yet to see any evidence suggesting life can exist without a "program" and a "mechanism for storing and converting incoming energy".

[Goat]

Chemical bonds --specifically, organic-- have the ability to store energy. If they meet another element to react with, that (can) convert it to work.

That kindof sounds like dynamite. Dynamite can accomplish work, but I would not try to build a house with it

Heres a good read on various theories dealing with the self organization of life and the problems encountered with thermodynamics.

.....we saw that the work necessary to polymerize DNA and protein molecules from simple biomonomers could potentially be accomplished by energy flow through the system. Still, we know that such energy flow is a necessary but not sufficient condition for polymerization of the macromolecules of life. Arranging a pile of bricks into the configuration of a house requires work. One would hardly expect to accomplish this work with dynamite, however. Not only must energy flow through the system, it must be coupled in some specific way to the work to be done. This being so, we devoted Chapter 8 to identifying various components of work in typical polymerization reactions. In reviewing those individual work components, one thing became clear. The coupling of energy flow to the specific work requirements in the formation of DNA and protein is particularly important since the required configurational entropy work of coding is substantial

Throughout Chapters 7-9 we have analyzed the problems of complexity and the origin of life from a thermodynamic point of view. Our reason for doing this is the common notion in the scientific literature today on the origin of life that an open system with energy and mass flow is a priori a sufficient explanation for the complexity of life. We have examined the validity of such an open and constrained system. We found it to be a reasonable explanation for doing the chemical and thermal entropy work, but clearly inadequate to account for the configurational entropy work of coding (not to mention the sorting and selecting work). We have noted the need for some sort of coupling mechanism. Without it, there is no way to convert the negative entropy associated with energy flow into negative entropy associated with configurational entropy and the corresponding information. Is it reasonable to believe such a "hidden" coupling mechanism will be found in the future that can play this crucial role of a template, metabolic motor, etc., directing the flow of energy in such a way as to create new information?

I have yet to see any evidence suggesting life can exist without a "program" and a "mechanism for storing and converting incoming energy".

Define 'program'. and as for a mechanism for storing and converting incoming energy'.. what does that have to do with the 2lot? Please explain. Use any mainstream physics books at your disposal, and not creationist web sites.