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?

[Delphi]

If any law-giving gods were as remotely demonstrable as the laws themselves, we would all become theists!

It seems to me that attempting to 'refute' evolution by introducing entropy is doomed to failure.

[Talishi]

It seems to me that attempting to 'refute' evolution by introducing entropy is doomed to failure.

At every step of the way as evolution unfolds, the plants and animals involved are totally in compliance with the second law. Creationists key in on the concept that "disorder always increases" and claim that an animal that has adapted has a more orderly strand of DNA. But if you sequence the DNA and read it, it's still a random stream of gobbedly-gook: ACTAGGATCCAGTA....

[Delphi]

But if you sequence the DNA and read it, it's still a random stream of gobbedly-gook: ACTAGGATCCAGTA....

Hold on there! Life is not random nor gobbeldy nor gook!

The nucleotide base pairs that constitute mere life are our best friends. ATC&G are our best friends.

Life is the utter opposite of random.

[Talishi]

But if you sequence the DNA and read it, it's still a random stream of gobbedly-gook: ACTAGGATCCAGTA....

Hold on there! Life is not random nor gobbeldy nor gook!

The nucleotide base pairs that constitute mere life are our best friends. ATC&G are our best friends.

Life is the utter opposite of random.

Only when the string of DNA operates in the context of a cell, and the cell in its organism, and the organism in its niche. But creationists are attacking evolution on grounds of information theory, as though there was some objective, inherent order to the string.

[Delphi]

Nothing in this universe could be any less random than life. We as life defy all randomness.

Life is organization.

Is that not completely awesome?

[H.sapiens]

Nothing in this universe could be any less random than life. We as life defy all randomness.

Life is organization.

Is that not completely awesome?

More than that, there are those who claim that the second law causes life to exist: https://www.quantamagazine.org/20140122 ... y-of-life/

[Kenisaw]

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

Hey, I recognize this post. There was a guy in Yahoo science stories who cut and paste this exact argument in all the time. His name was Recon I think.

I can't believe you are still pasting this same defeated material on the internet. Specific complexity and irreducible complexity? I'm shocked anyone still tries to use that stuff to support their ID arguments.

Interesting logic at the end of the post. Since the Christian god creature is impossible, and you say natural explanations are impossible, than that means we are impossible. It's a weird feeling, typing this post while knowing that it is impossible for me to be here...