Does the second law of thermodynamics refute evolution?

[goodwithoutgod]

No.

The four laws of thermodynamics define fundamental physical quantities (temperature, energy, and entropy) that characterize thermodynamic systems. The laws describe how these quantities behave under various circumstances, and forbid certain phenomena (such as perpetual motion).

The four laws of thermodynamics in informal terms are:

Zeroth law of thermodynamics: states that if each of two systems is in thermal equilibrium with a third, they are in thermal equilibrium with each other. This law helps define the notion of temperature.

First law of thermodynamics: states that energy cannot be created or destroyed. Equivalently, perpetual motion machines of the first kind are impossible.

Second law of thermodynamics: states that the entropy of a closed system tends to increase to its maximum value (entropy is the amount of energy not available for work, sometimes in formerly referred to as disorder or chaos). Equivalently, perpetual motion machines of the second kind are impossible.

Third law of thermodynamics: reduces to the conclusion that absolute zero can never be reached in a finite amount of time.

I bring this up because it seems that some creationists like to posit that the second law of thermodynamics refutes evolution. They grasp at this straw of disingenuous misinformation by claiming that since entropy increases in a closed system, evolution or the emergence of an ordered universe is impossible, requiring an outside creator.

As a solid rebuttal, it is easy to point out that the earth, bombarded by energy from the sun, is not a closed system, and though our observed universe is probably indeed a closed system (if that means anything), the second law of thermodynamics applies only to the energy of particles, which did not exist at the earliest stage of the Big Bang. The second law of thermodynamics is irrelevant to the topic of evolution, and completely useless as a theistic argument.

Another question that comes to mind, since you obviously imagine that the Second law, which is derived from within the universe, applies to the universe as a whole, does the First law also apply? Since the First law states that energy/matter cannot be created, doesnt that rule out the creation of the universe?

[H.sapiens]

[Replying to post 1 by goodwithoutgod]

All themo questions answered here: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html

CF001. Claim: The second law of thermodynamics prohibits evolution. http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CF/CF001.html

[stcordova]

NO!

I pointed out the reasons here, and I'm creationist.

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... hp?t=26434

That said I don't think this is a solid rebuttal:

l, it is easy to point out that the earth, bombarded by energy from the sun, is not a closed system, and though our observed universe is probably indeed a closed system (if that means anything), the second law of thermodynamics applies only to the energy of particles,

A more solid rebuttal doesn't have to deal with questions of open or closed as much as the fact that more complex system generally require more entropy, not less. Entropy is not always equated with disorder. That notion was by an offhand comment by Boltzmann and has since caused agony every since. Besides, formally speaking biological complexity is Kolmogorov disordered, even though it is highly organized. Order is not what makes biology special, it is organization. There is a formal distinction in technical literature between order and organization.

The second law of thermodynamics is irrelevant to the topic of evolution, and completely useless as a theistic argument.

I agree 2nd law inapplicable as an argument against evolution, but the 2nd law suggests the universe had a beginning vs. being eternal, and circumstantially I've heard many atheists say they think that opens the possibility of God getting everything started. The usable energy in the universe is dying, which suggests the universe had a beginning. The 2nd law implies the universe is slowly dying.

[Enoch2021]

I bring this up because it seems that some creationists like to posit that the second law of thermodynamics refutes evolution. They grasp at this straw of disingenuous misinformation by claiming that since entropy increases in a closed system, evolution or the emergence of an ordered universe is impossible, requiring an outside creator.

As a solid rebuttal, it is easy to point out that the earth, bombarded by energy from the sun, is not a closed system

evolution does Violate 2LOT. As Evidenced By...

General Theory of Evolution, defined by the evolutionist Kerkut as the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form.
Kerkut, G.A., Implications of Evolution, Pergamon, Oxford, UK, p. 157, 1960.

Attempting to describe evolution without abiogenesis is Tantamount to describing repairs to the Hubble Telescope before Space Flight.

DNA/RNA/"Functional Proteins" NEVER spontaneously form "naturally", outside already existing cells, from Sugars, Bases, Phosphates, and Aminos, respectively.
It's Physically and Chemically IMPOSSIBLE.
That's just the Hardware! ....

The DeltaG for Nucleosides wickering themselves together from bases and sugars is positive as is the Phosphorylation into Nucleotides along with 50 other CRUCIAL reactions from the "Building Blocks". Sunlight is a severe demonstrable antagonist to ALL of it (as it destroys Nucleic and Amino Acids). That's not even speaking to: Stereoisomerization, Hydrolysis/Brownian Motion, pH, and Cross Reactions from here to Christmas. I'd also like to see the precursors for those Bases (purines and pyrimidines) all "Natural" like within the constraints of 2LOT.

To Capture and Use the "Energy" from the Sun you need the Specific: Ingestion-Storage-Energy Convertor (Mitochondria/Chloroplast/Metabolic Pathways) and Information Program (DNA) already EXISTING FIRST...Otherwise, you're gonna have yourself a football bat, Biochemically speaking. UV Light is like a Bull in a China Shop if not controlled.

A real world example: Mid Summer in Texas, the sun is destructive. It will burn the tires clean off a tractor if left in the field long enough. And it will eventually do the same with the roof on your house and your car if not protected. Why? Because there is no "Pre-Existing" mechanism to capture the heat of the sun and an information program to direct its use. Now let's put solar panels on the roof, and add an information program (computer) to capture the sun's energy and direct it to produce electricity. Now the sun is no longer destructive. But-----and this is important, the sun will NEVER EVER build the solar panels or write a program to convert the heat to usable energy.

See the "Specific" Energy Converter and Information Program in the above example?
Or do you ascribe to the Sun sending Intelligent Messages or Instructions to "Stupid" Atoms so they can build it?

The Software/Information---Genetic "CODE" is another Mammoth in the Room...and it ain't movin!!

The second law of thermodynamics is irrelevant to the topic of evolution, and completely useless as a theistic argument.

Au Contraire, as explained above. You may need to consider reconsidering your position, and..... changing your handle. (Just a Thought)

Since the First law states that energy/matter cannot be created, doesnt that rule out the creation of the universe?

Thanks for bringing this up...

No... it Rules "Nature" out since the Laws of Thermodynamics are "Natural Laws": Ergo...

You only have 2 choices: Random Chance (Nature) or Intelligent Design (GOD). The Laws of Physics, Chemistry/Biochemistry, Information; and the tenets of Specific Complexity, Irreducible Complexity, and Common Sense Rule Nature out...Laughingly so. If you summarily rule one of the choices out.... where does it leave you?
Based on the Law of Non-Contradiction--- 2 things that are contradictory can't be responsible the same time (or do you disagree?). This is not a False Dichotomy (Bifurcation Fallacy) because there is no THIRD CHOICE. Now if I summarily refute Randomness the choice MUST BE ID. YOU MAY THEN conjure thousands of possibilities under ID; however, it has ZERO to do with the tenets of first postulate.

Thanks

[H.sapiens]

[Replying to post 4 by Enoch2021]
Rank stupidity! Even the creationist website: http://www.uncommondescent.com/intellig ... d-not-use/says: 2nd Law of Thermodynamics " an argument Creationists and ID Proponents should NOT use

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 4 by Enoch2021]
Rank stupidity! Even the creationist website: http://www.uncommondescent.com/intellig ... d-not-use/says: 2nd Law of Thermodynamics " an argument Creationists and ID Proponents should NOT use

Moderator Clarification
This appears to be an attack on an argument, not the person; however, it's best to avoid the word "stupidity" and explain why one thinks the argument is 'stupid' rather than labelling it.
Rules
C&A Guidelines


______________

Moderator clarifications do not count as a strike against any posters. They serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received and/or are given at the discretion of a moderator when he or she feels a clarification of the rules is required.

[stcordova]

Even the creationist website: http://www.uncommondescent.com/intellig ... t-use/says: 2nd Law of Thermodynamics " an argument Creationists and ID Proponents should NOT use

Thanks for the citation. I'm the one who wrote the article (scordova)!

[H.sapiens]

Even the creationist website: http://www.uncommondescent.com/intellig ... t-use/says: 2nd Law of Thermodynamics " an argument Creationists and ID Proponents should NOT use

Thanks for the citation. I'm the one who wrote the article (scordova)!

Good advice, saves wasting everyone's time.

[H.sapiens]

[Replying to post 1 by goodwithoutgod]

Here is, I believe, the end of the 2nd Law discussion: Statistical Physics of Self-Replication

[Talishi]

Third law of thermodynamics: reduces to the conclusion that absolute zero can never be reached in a finite amount of time.

A quantum adjustment to the third law states that absolute zero can never be reached in any event, because the momentum of a molecule of water in an ice cube, for example, would have a definite value (zero), which is forbidden by the Heisenberg uncertainty principle.