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.

[ShadowRishi]

My mathematical and physics opinion?

The entire idea is moronic.


The entire point of the thermodynamic and conservation laws is to describe this previously unknown quantity called "energy." Which is to say: these laws only apply to energy; organisms are not energy (Well, they are, but that's a side topic and even under those considerations, it's irrelevant).

Okay, these laws apply to a thermodynamic system. Let's give some definitions:

1. System: the stuff you're looking at. In this case, we're looking at the thermal energy (kinetic energy of the particles that make up your system) of the earth; because that's what the stuff comes from and evolves off of.

2. Energy: In this case, the ability to increase heat, the ability to create reactions, and/or the ability to do work.

3. Organic compound: molecules made out of carbon.

4. Organisms: A system (in this case, a prokaryotic cell) of organic compounds.

5. Second Law of Thermodynamics (Entropy): The thermal energy in every system cannot completely be converted into work (the ability to cause movement, in laymen's terms).


So, this is essentially the argument of Creationists:


The Second Law of thermodynamics states that all things (not true, only energy) tends towards decay (a gross over simplification, explained below).



Even assuming that organisms were energy, which they aren't, they get energy --the whole Earth gets energy-- from the Sun. The Earth is not a closed system (That is to say, it doesn't have constant energy; there's energy coming in and out constantly).


So the whole argument, in my personal opinion... Is crap.

[Jose]

Thanks!

The argument is, indeed, crap. But organic stuff, even crap, is composed of molecules, and they have energy. Maybe that's why the argument energizes creationists....

By the time students get to junior high school (aka middle school), a lot of 'em have been turned off to science. They've had to "learn about" photosynthesis, food chains, and all this stuff, with these vague terms of matter and energy. But, the Rules established by the Schools of Education, based on Piaget (and now outmoded, but still followed rigidly) say that you can't tell students about atoms until junior high school. It is said that elementary students are hopelessly "concrete" thinkers and can't handle such abstract concepts as The Particulate Nature of Matter. I see this as rather wonky, since it means that generations of students are going through school imagining energy as a thing, and that eating food causes some kind of mystical ball of white light to operate inside us, spreading matter and energy around.

Now, imagine getting to something sophisticated like High School, and hearing about the 2nd law. Mesh that with your image of the mystical ball of white light, and what do you have? Add to that the discussions of biology and biological molecules that occur before taking chemistry, so that all that chemical stuff has been internalized as soporific gibberish, and here we are.

Unfortunately, presenting the basic facts usually fails to connect for those with the misconceptions bred of this type of educational progression. You've given us the basic facts of the 2nd law. I've tried the basic facts of evolution (1. mutations happen. 2. some individuals have more offspring than others.) Everything follows from the basic facts, but the implications of those basic facts are not always evident to everyone.

Say, Fisherking, what do you make of this? Do you think we're still not addressing your concerns?

If so, can you present your concerns in your own phrasing, simply enough that we can figure out what they are?

[Fisherking]

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

There is, indeed, a mechanism for storing and converting incoming energy, although the converting comes first.

But note: even as you lose your biochemical energy-interconversion mechanisms upon death, your energy-storing molecules fuel the massive production of ordered life.

Yes, my 'dead' energy-storing molecules fuel other life with their biochemical energy-interconversions mechanisms.

Those mechanisms follow the "program" orchestrated by the proteins and RNAs encoded by their DNA

.

But there's nothing magical or mystic about it, and nothing that requires divine guidance.

I never claimed there was anything magical or mystical about it -- or that the program needed divine guidance.
It seems we can agree that life has a mechanism and program making it capable of storing and converting energy.

some kind of divine guidance or mystical Program

Nah, programs are purposeful inventions of intelligence.

but it's all perfectly possible without such a thing.

No it isn't.

With no evidence for such a thing

The program itself is evidence that intelligence was involved.

there's no compelling reason to make the model more complicated by adding unnecessary, imaginary components.

Don't make the model more complicated by adding unnecessary, imaginary components then

Give it a billion years, with continued energy input, and there's plenty of opportunity for interesting things to happen--all within the 2nd law.

Heh, it doesn't appear life is one of them.

Nonetheless, our friend Ol' Fish is genuinely puzzled

Nope, but thx for the thought!

So the whole argument, in my personal opinion... Is crap.

The argument is, indeed, crap

It's crap because...

should be able to understand you, I should: And I don't

......can you present your concerns... simply enough that we can figure out what they are?

If this is the case, please ask question about my argument that you are having a tough time with. I'm not sure how it can be simplified anymore than what it is. Hopefully, failing to address the argument presented is due to a lack of understanding...many times it's just because the argument and evidence is contrary to ones current philosophy---hopefully this isn't the case.

[Cathar1950]

If this is the case, please ask question about my argument that you are having a tough time with. I'm not sure how it can be simplified anymore than what it is. Hopefully, failing to address the argument presented is due to a lack of understanding...many times it's just because the argument and evidence is contrary to ones current philosophy---hopefully this isn't the case.

It might be that you have not presented an argument but a statement of opinion or belief.
I think you stated that the SLTD doesn't allow for life and it is obvious you are wrong as there is life.

[ShadowRishi]

Thanks!

The argument is, indeed, crap. But organic stuff, even crap, is composed of molecules, and they have energy. Maybe that's why the argument energizes creationists....

By the time students get to junior high school (aka middle school), a lot of 'em have been turned off to science. They've had to "learn about" photosynthesis, food chains, and all this stuff, with these vague terms of matter and energy. But, the Rules established by the Schools of Education, based on Piaget (and now outmoded, but still followed rigidly) say that you can't tell students about atoms until junior high school. It is said that elementary students are hopelessly "concrete" thinkers and can't handle such abstract concepts as The Particulate Nature of Matter. I see this as rather wonky, since it means that generations of students are going through school imagining energy as a thing, and that eating food causes some kind of mystical ball of white light to operate inside us, spreading matter and energy around.

Now, imagine getting to something sophisticated like High School, and hearing about the 2nd law. Mesh that with your image of the mystical ball of white light, and what do you have? Add to that the discussions of biology and biological molecules that occur before taking chemistry, so that all that chemical stuff has been internalized as soporific gibberish, and here we are.

Unfortunately, presenting the basic facts usually fails to connect for those with the misconceptions bred of this type of educational progression. You've given us the basic facts of the 2nd law. I've tried the basic facts of evolution (1. mutations happen. 2. some individuals have more offspring than others.) Everything follows from the basic facts, but the implications of those basic facts are not always evident to everyone.

Say, Fisherking, what do you make of this? Do you think we're still not addressing your concerns?

If so, can you present your concerns in your own phrasing, simply enough that we can figure out what they are?

Agreed.


FisherKing, you're latest post has shown nothing more than that you desperately need to take the following courses:

1. Biology 101
2. Introduction to Physics 101 (The section on thermodynamics)
3. Introduction to Chemistry 101 (The section on O-chem and thermochemistry)



Two people who are reasonable well versed in the topic you are discussing are not following your conclusion from the points; do you find this strange?

[Easyrider]

FisherKing, you're latest post has shown nothing more than that you desperately need to take the following courses:

1. Biology 101
2. Introduction to Physics 101 (The section on thermodynamics)
3. Introduction to Chemistry 101 (The section on O-chem and thermochemistry)

Two people who are reasonable well versed in the topic you are discussing are not following your conclusion from the points; do you find this strange?

In collegiate Bio 101 our text was Starr's "Biology - The Unity and Diversity of Life." In it I recall on a discussion of the laws of thermodynamics the text said that inevitably (15-20 billion years from now or thereabouts) energy conversions will cease to occur (a state of total entropy will then exist) and the mean temperature of the universe will approach absolute zero.

This is verified in the link below. The pertinent conclusion being,

"The question arises, what will happen when all the usable energy in the universe is converted into randomized heat energy and is no longer capable of performing such work as expanding the universe. We refer to this condition as the Heat Death of the Universe: Once all the energy in the universe is converted to and randomized as heat, then the universe will be in a state of energy equilibrium, everything will be of the same temperature and entropy will remain constant. This is where science gets more complicated and involves the microwave background radiation consisting of photons near, but not quite at, absolute Zero. "

http://www.rationality.net/entropy.htm

[ShadowRishi]

Very true, this is one model that is accepted by some scientists as plausible.


However, it is irrelevant to the debate we're currently having.

[Fisherking]

Very true, this is one model that is accepted by some scientists as plausible.


However, it is irrelevant to the debate we're currently having.

You are free to join the debate whenever you like. Again, if you are trouble understanding the argument, just ask questions

[ShadowRishi]

Very true, this is one model that is accepted by some scientists as plausible.


However, it is irrelevant to the debate we're currently having.

You are free to join the debate whenever you like. Again, if you are trouble understanding the argument, just ask questions

I would not be so arrogant when two well versed members on the subjects you've been talking about have refuted your claims as strawman fallacies of the Second Law of Thermodynamics and that your comprehension level of chem, phys, and bio seems to be bordering on useless.


Until you address my comments a page back, I see absolutely no reason to ask you questions on your failed understanding of science. The burden of proof is on you to refute me and Jose's counter arguments to your theories. If you feel we do not understand the core of your argument, then the burden of proof is on you to lay out your argument in an understandable format. (This means: thesis, support 1-3, conclusion; filling it with evidence, logic, and understanding of scientific theory)

[Fisherking]

Very true, this is one model that is accepted by some scientists as plausible.


However, it is irrelevant to the debate we're currently having.

You are free to join the debate whenever you like. Again, if you are trouble understanding the argument, just ask questions

I would not be so arrogant when two well versed members on the subjects you've been talking about have refuted your claims as strawman fallacies of the Second Law of Thermodynamics

Being the well versed member on the subjects we've been talking about, maybe you could clearly explain how you have refuted an argument that you have claimed not to understand.

The burden of proof is on you to refute me and Jose's counter arguments to your theories.

The entire idea is moronic.

So the whole argument, in my personal opinion... Is crap

you either take a science course on thermodynamics, organic chemistry, and evolution, or you should seriously consider realizing that this is a very in-depth topic that makes not good arm-chair philosophy.

Like these?
I'm still waiting for an argument to respond to. All I have heard so far is are a few definitions, a few ad homs, and what someone thinks of junior high science education.

If you feel we do not understand the core of your argument, then the burden of proof is on you to lay out your argument in an understandable format.

Do you or do you not understand:

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.

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