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]

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'.

Exactly -- plants (photosynthesis) and animals(metabolism) have mechanisms to convert this energy and use it for work. We can put a rock in the sun but it lacks this mechanism. We could lay a Big Mac on a rock but it does not have a mechanism to eat it and convert it to usable energy. Who said anything about violating the 2lot? Life coming from non-life is a violation of 2lot if life does not already have a program and a mechanism to store and convert incoming energy.

To say complex system can not form because of entropy is a misconception

-- that would depend on what the definition of a complex system was.
My argument is that the 2nd law prohibits life arising from non-life.

[Goat]

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'.

Exactly -- plants (photosynthesis) and animals(metabolism) have mechanisms to convert this energy and use it for work. We can put a rock in the sun but it lacks this mechanism. We could lay a Big Mac on a rock but it does not have a mechanism to eat it and convert it to usable energy. Who said anything about violating the 2lot? Life coming from non-life is a violation of 2lot if life does not already have a program and a mechanism to store and convert incoming energy.

To say complex system can not form because of entropy is a misconception

-- that would depend on what the definition of a complex system was.
My argument is that the 2nd law prohibits life arising from non-life.

You have yet to make the case. You are making straw man arguments, using the
logical fallacy of equivocation when it comes to the word 'disorder', and a misunderstanding of the 2LOT, as well as chemistry.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law ... modynamics

Complex systems

It is occasionally claimed that the second law is incompatible with autonomous self-organisation, or even the coming into existence of complex systems. This is a common creationist argument against evolution.[9] The entry self-organisation explains how this claim is a misconception.

In fact, as hot systems cool down in accordance with the second law, it is not unusual for them to undergo spontaneous symmetry breaking, i.e. for structure to spontaneously appear as the temperature drops below a critical threshold. Complex structures, such as Bnard cells, also spontaneously appear where there is a steady flow of energy from a high temperature input source to a low temperature external sink. It is conjectured that such systems tend to evolve into complex, structured, critically unstable "edge of chaos" arrangements, which very nearly maximise the rate of energy degradation (the rate of entropy production).[10]

Furthermore, the concept of entropy in thermodynamics is not identical to the common notion of "disorder". For example, a thermodynamically closed system of certain solutions will eventually transform from a cloudy liquid to a clear solution containing large "orderly" crystals. Most people would characterize the former state as having "more disorder" than the latter state. However, in a purely thermodynamic sense, the entropy has increased in this system, not decreased. The units of measure of entropy in thermodynamics are "units of energy per unit of temperature". Whether a human perceives one state of a system as "more orderly" than another has no bearing on the calculation of this quantity. The common notion that entropy in thermodynamics is equivalent to a popular conception of "disorder" has caused many non-physicists to completely misinterpret what the second law of thermodynamics is really about.

[Fisherking]

You have yet to make the case. You are making straw man arguments, using the
logical fallacy of equivocation when it comes to the word 'disorder', and a misunderstanding of the 2LOT, as well as chemistry.

With all due respect, you are the one building strawmen goat. The complexity I have continuously referred to is that of life. If I am misunderstanding the 2Lot and chemistry in anything I've said, the best thing to do would be to address where I am misunderstanding it and correct me if necessary. Claiming equivocation on the word "disorder" because we do not like its implications to our philosophy does not mean anyone was being deceptive. I am trying to show the difference between the order in snowflakes and Bnard cells and the order I see when I "look at myself in the mirror". You are free to explain the differences you see between the two and why there is an apparent difference in their thermodynamics.

[ShadowRishi]

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

Worst analogy of the month goes to....


Sorry, that's comparing two completely unrelated things. We're talking about two separate processes:


Your metabolism is a furnace. It burns hydrocarbons (Ever hear of carbs? It means hydrocarbon) and oxygen and with the help of enzymes, creates a variant of combustion.

Your body (cells, tissues, organs, systems) is built off of chemical structures made from molecules and molecular geometry --like a crystal that grows in water.


I build your "house" because of a whole serious of heat evolving reactions (like dynamite or a furnace); the structure of my "house" is made around molecular geometry.

Yes, I don't build my house with dynamite, but I power my 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".

I'll repeat this once more; if you still do not understand it, then I'll request one of two things: 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.

[Goat]

You have yet to make the case. You are making straw man arguments, using the
logical fallacy of equivocation when it comes to the word 'disorder', and a misunderstanding of the 2LOT, as well as chemistry.

With all due respect, you are the one building strawmen goat. The complexity I have continuously referred to is that of life. If I am misunderstanding the 2Lot and chemistry in anything I've said, the best thing to do would be to address where I am misunderstanding it and correct me if necessary. Claiming equivocation on the word "disorder" because we do not like its implications to our philosophy does not mean anyone was being deceptive. I am trying to show the difference between the order in snowflakes and Bnard cells and the order I see when I "look at myself in the mirror". You are free to explain the differences you see between the two and why there is an apparent difference in their thermodynamics.

You are trying to. You have not succeeded. You have yet to show , using a source that is not a religious site, and using information strictly from a person with religious motivation, any reason what so ever for this.

Chemistry happens. Life is just a specialized form of chemistry.

[Fisherking]

Yes, I don't build my house with dynamite, but I power my house with it.

Now we are getting somewhere! What mechanism/s do you use to prevent the inside temperature of your house from becoming equal with the outside temperate?

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".

I'll repeat this once more; if you still do not understand it, then I'll request one of two things: 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.

Ahh, the old "Fisherking's argument isn't valid because he doesn't understand" fallacy. These ad hominem types of statement do not attempt to address the argument -- they are an attempt to invalidate an argument based on what I know or who I am personally.

Goat says, "You are trying to. You have not succeeded" [because]"you have yet to show , using a source that is not a religious site, and using information strictly from a person with religious motivation, any reason what so ever for this".

"Organized systems are to be carefully distinguished from ordered systems. Neither kind of system is random, but whereas ordered systems are generated according to simple algorithms and therefore lack complexity, organized systems must be assembled element by element according to an external wiring diagram with a high information content ... Organization, then, is functional complexity and carries information. It is non-random by design or by selection, rather than by the a priori necessity of crystallographic order."
[Jeffrey S. Wicken, The Generation of Complexity in Evolution: A Thermodynamic and Information-Theoretical Discussion, Journal of Theoretical Biology, Vol. 77 (April 1979), p. 349]

"The point is that in a non-isolated [open] system there exists a possibility for formation of ordered, low-entropy structures at sufficiently low temperatures. This ordering principle is responsible for the appearance of ordered structures such as crystals as well as for the phenomena of phase transitions. Unfortunately this principle cannot explain the formation of biological structures."
[I. Prigogine, G. Nicolis and A. Babloyants, Physics Today 25(11):23 (1972)]

The thermodynamicist immediately clarifies the latter question by pointing out that ... biological systems are open, and exchange both energy and matter. The explanation, however, is not completely satisfying, because it still leaves open the problem of how or why the ordering process has arisen (an apparent lowering of the entropy), and a number of scientists have wrestled with this issue. Bertalanffy (1968) called the relation between irreversible thermodynamics and information theory one of the most fundamental unsolved problems in biology."
[C. J. Smith, Biosystems 1:259 (1975)]

"We have repeatedly emphasized the fundamental problems posed for the biologist by the fact of lifes complex organization. We have seen that organization requires work for its maintenance and that the universal quest for food is in part to provide the energy needed for this work. But the simple expenditure of energy is not sufficient to develop and maintain order. A bull in a china shop performs work but he neither creates nor maintains organization. The work needed is particular work; it must follow specifications; it requires information on how to proceed."
[G.G. Simpson and W.S. Beck, Life: An Introduction to Biology, Harcourt, Brace, and World, New York, 1965, p. 465]

"Closely related to the apparent paradox of ongoing uphill processes in nonliving systems is the apparent paradox of spontaneous self-organization in nature. It is one thing for an internally organized, open system to foster uphill processes by tapping downhill ones, but how did the required internal organization come about in the first place? Indeed the so-called dissipative structures that produce uphill processes are highly organized (low entropy) molecular ensembles, especially when compared to the dispersed arrays fro which they assembled. Hence, the question of how they could originate by natural processes has proved a challenging one."
[J.W. Patterson, Scientists Confront Creationism, L:R: Godfrey, Ed., W.W. Norton & Company, New York, 1983, p. 110]

After meeting the conditions you have set forth ("using a source that is not a religious site, and using information strictly from a person with religious motivation") I suspect I will be accused of quote mining and misinterpreting what these bonafide evolutionists have said.
How about discussing/debating what is being said for a change?

[QED]

For anyone interested in the relationship between self-organizing systems and thermodynamics I think this is worth a look:

Into the Cool is a scientific tour de force showing how evolution, ecology, economics and life itself are organized by energy flow and the laws of thermodynamics. There are natural, animate and inanimate systems like hurricanes and life whose complexity are not the result of conscious human design, nor of divine caprice, nor of repeated, computer-like functions. The common key to all organized systems is how they control their energy flow. Scientists, theologians, and philosophers have all sought to answer the questions of why we are here and where we are going. Finding this natural basis of life has proved elusive, but in the eloquent and creative Into the Cool Eric D. Schneider and Dorion Sagan look for answers in a surprising place: the second law of thermodynamics.

[ShadowRishi]

Ahh, the old "Fisherking's argument isn't valid because he doesn't understand" fallacy. These ad hominem types of statement do not attempt to address the argument -- they are an attempt to invalidate an argument based on what I know or who I am personally.

You've done nothing yet to show to me --a physics and mathematics double-major student at the 33rd best college in the United States-- that you have clue what you're talking about. This is not saying that you are wrong because I say so, this is saying that if anyone here (That I know of, anyways) should be able to understand you, I should: And I don't.


The citations you've used is nothing short of horrible quote patch work. You use actual scientific source with ambiguous claims:

"The point is that in a non-isolated [open] system there exists a possibility for formation of ordered, low-entropy structures at sufficiently low temperatures. This ordering principle is responsible for the appearance of ordered structures such as crystals as well as for the phenomena of phase transitions. Unfortunately this principle cannot explain the formation of biological structures."
[I. Prigogine, G. Nicolis and A. Babloyants, Physics Today 25(11):23 (1972)]"

Which in science means: "We don't know this part yet."

"We don't know yet" =/= "This theory fails completely and we must move on"



Science tries to discuss tons of things at once; there's literally trillions of different aspects to think about in evolution. Tons of things that need to be explained; it seems implausible to discard a theory that explains tons of other phenomena just because we're not sure how it functions yet. By your logic, because we couldn't explain DNA's structure prior to circa 1968, we should have just discarded it, called it illogical crap, and said that there must be other reasons for how humans pass on genes.

I will repeat: This is not science, nor is it the scientific method.


So then you take quotations from actual physics sources, and fill in the blanks with religions rhetoric. "It isn't known yet means it must be wrong!"

[Jose]

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

That's because life has mechanisms that do the things life does. There is, indeed, a mechanism for storing and converting incoming energy, although the converting comes first. Incoming light energy is converted into an electrical potential across the thylakoid membrane, which is then converted into the formation of the phosphodiester bond that links ADP and P together as ATP. The ATP stores the energy, at least temporarily. It yields that energy to the assembly of CO2 into glucose, and the glucose now stores the energy.

When we eat plant stuff--say, a potato--we take those molecules built by plants, and that store the energy they converted from sunlight, and bust up the chemical bonds. The energy from that is used to convert energy-as-glucose into energy-as-ATP. [blah blah blah....zzzzzzzz-nkx!-zzzzz...]

This is all fully in line with the 2LOT. Even you melting your snowflakes is in line with it, as you transfer energy that was "lost" by your mitochondria (making you warm) to the snowflake (making it warm). But note: even as you lose your biochemical energy-interconversion mechanisms upon death, your energy-storing molecules fuel the massive production of ordered life. All those microbes that cause the process we refer to as "rotting" get to grow and have kids.

Hmmmm....I haven't stuck my hand into the middle of a decomposing animal, but I have opened up a compost heap. The middle is quite warm. There are species of molds and bacteria that live only in the centers of rotting heaps because their preferred temperature is way higher than the surrounding environment. This is not exactly "coming to equilibrium" with the air temperature. Of course, this is possible by those mechanisms the microbes use to live. 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. It's easy, and sometimes kinda fun, to imagine some kind of divine guidance or mystical Program, but it's all perfectly possible without such a thing. With no evidence for such a thing, there's no compelling reason to make the model more complicated by adding unnecessary, imaginary components.

My argument is that the 2nd law prohibits life arising from non-life.

And my argument is that you are laboring under a misconception. I agree that your argument seems reasonable, given the sloppiness of your average sea foam compared to the sophistication of living things. But many things that seem like common sense turn out to be incorrect once the details are known. Again, the bottom line is that order can be created out of disorder when there is energy input. Lightening, geothermal heating, and even exothermic chemical reactions involving junk spewed forth from volcanic activity can provide energy to assemble molecules that wouldn't form otherwise. It's also necessary to think in terms of what makes sense--we aren't talking about sea foam spontaneously assembling one fine day into an E. coli cell. We're talking about molecules in something probably like sea foam interacting with each other on silica particles in, perhaps, a wet, warm fissure in a geologically-active region. There are chemicals, energy, and a catalytic surface. Stuff happens. It's not life as we recognize it today, but "just chemistry." 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.

We might note, by the way, that all of your component parts are themselves "non-life." Yet, here they are, piled up together, creating life from non-life. According to your argument, my friend, you are impossible.

[Jose]

So then you take quotations from actual physics sources, and fill in the blanks with religions rhetoric. "It isn't known yet means it must be wrong!"

I quite agree, SR. Nonetheless, our friend Ol' Fish is genuinely puzzled. His quotes may be partial, but they really are quotes. In the usual quote-mining project, the aim is to find things that sound like scientists saying evolution is bunk. Here, it's just a matter of saying "this is a thorny problem," which they may go on to discuss at length beyond the bit that's quoted, but the fact remains that it's a thorny problem. We don't know the details, after all.

This is, of course, why creationists attack the origin of life instead of evolution per se. Too much is known about how life changes through time. But if we go back to where the only fossils are curious mineral deposits with no actual structures, and before DNA-based inheritance, then rather less is certain.

I am a mere biologist, myself. I wonder what physical/mathematical light you can shed on this issue for us. It will help me to hear things from this angle, and may help Ol' Fish as well. He has, after all, asked for us to address the "what" of what he's quoted.