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]

How about showing me a case where the second law doesn't doesn't apply equally well to open systems?

We already did: snowflakes.

How does a snowflake violate the second law of thermodynamics?

Which has more 'order' , as creationists describe it? A snowflake or a drop of water?

Which has more energy (i.e. less entropy)?

[Thought Criminal]

The second law applies equally well to open systems. If there wasn't a "a program (information) to direct the growth in organized complexity" or a "mechanism for storing and converting the incoming energy" what would happen to the information stored on your computer? How does the sun shining on something decrease entropy?

Your claim that the 2nd law applies to open systems is uncontroversially false. Full stop.

TC

[byofrcs]

How about showing me a case where the second law doesn't doesn't apply equally well to open systems?

We already did: snowflakes.

How does a snowflake violate the second law of thermodynamics?

If anything violated the second law of thermodynamics, then it wouldn't be a law.

Exactly:

...there are no known violations of the second law of thermodynamics. Ordinarily the second law is stated for isolated systems, but the second law applies equally well to open systems ... there is somehow associated with the field of far-from equilibrium phenomena the notion that the second law of thermodynamics fails for such systems. It is important to make sure that this error does not perpetuate itself. [Dr. John Ross, Harvard scientist (evolutionist), Chemical and Engineering News, vol. 58, July 7, 1980, p. 40]

The interesting thing about the snowflake example is that the reduction in entropy results from a reduction of energy.

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 structural patterns with minimal complexity, and no function. Living things, on the other hand, do not arrive at and maintain their high levels of order, organization, and complexity in order to achieve thermodynamic equilibrium, but are in fact maintaining far from equilibrium conditions in order to arrive at and maintain those levels. Five Major Evolutionist Misconceptions
about Evolution

The odd thing here is that people talk about living things and the 2nd Law but looking around I see live animals. I can't deny these live animals. I can also (via technology) see Bacteria and from pictures I've seen virus (I don't have that technology to hand to see virus).

Even with the 2nd law things still live so the 2nd law isn't very applicable to living things today but something else.

Abiogenesis ? In the link to Five Major Evolutionist Misconceptions about Evolution by T Wallace that you provided Wallace never mentions Abiogenesis once except from quotes of Mark Isaak.

But in the end, we cannot deny we're surrounded by living things nor can we deny Evolution (yeah I suppose we can argue over macro-verses micro but it's Evolution, stupid) so I have no idea what Wallace is arguing about except that it must be Abiogenesis.

The crazy thing is that today most of the free world's Theists believe in Evolution too. In the study published in Science (example 3rd party link here) only in the US and Turkey does literal creation without Evolution figure high.

We know that the US technology understands the importance of the blue-print of life due to the manufacture of things like the PCR machines and involvement in sequencing, but does anyone sensible actually realise the danger that the US is in if the literal creationists get the upper hand with bioscience ?

From the first stumbling steps in the beginning of the 20th century, biotech will grow to be the largest technology focus until humans are able to transfer our consciousness to non-biotech.

The US can thank fundamentalists in holding back the wealth and development of society in the same way that the UK destruction of the original computers and plans by order of the Government (the Colossus) after the 2nd world war probably caused untold damage to the UK's chances in the computer revolution.

In 1942 and '44 we see the UK entries and then nothing !. There are probably fast machines in use but with so much being classified the UK languished.

So in one year the UK is creating the worlds fastest computers and in another it's not ? Probably a simplistic example but the availability of best-of-class computers drives people to think of real-world applications which drives industry and the UK needed industry back on its feet after the war. Breaking the worlds fastest computer at the time into little chunks of junk can't have helped - you would have thought that the mentality of destroying things would have died in the rubble of society and that the Government would want to rebuild not destroy.

People talk about Evolution and Evolutionists and avoid Abiogenesis but in the end it is Abiogenesis that is the least understood step and one in which Evolution isn't involved.

Why do non-Evolution creationists avoid talking about Abiogenesis ? This thread is nonsense unless people can define what we are arguing about. Arguing Evolution is stupid as that has too much supporting it as fact (as well as scientific theory).

[Thought Criminal]

The odd thing here is that people talk about living things and the 2nd Law but looking around I see live animals. I can't deny these live animals. I can also (via technology) see Bacteria and from pictures I've seen virus (I don't have that technology to hand to see virus).

Even with the 2nd law things still live so the 2nd law isn't very applicable to living things today but something else.

Abiogenesis ? In the link to Five Major Evolutionist Misconceptions about Evolution by T Wallace that you provided Wallace never mentions Abiogenesis once except from quotes of Mark Isaak.

But in the end, we cannot deny we're surrounded by living things nor can we deny Evolution (yeah I suppose we can argue over macro-verses micro but it's Evolution, stupid) so I have no idea what Wallace is arguing about except that it must be Abiogenesis.

The crazy thing is that today most of the free world's Theists believe in Evolution too. In the study published in Science (example 3rd party link here) only in the US and Turkey does literal creation without Evolution figure high.

We know that the US technology understands the importance of the blue-print of life due to the manufacture of things like the PCR machines and involvement in sequencing, but does anyone sensible actually realise the danger that the US is in if the literal creationists get the upper hand with bioscience ?

From the first stumbling steps in the beginning of the 20th century, biotech will grow to be the largest technology focus until humans are able to transfer our consciousness to non-biotech.

The US can thank fundamentalists in holding back the wealth and development of society in the same way that the UK destruction of the original computers and plans by order of the Government (the Colossus) after the 2nd world war probably caused untold damage to the UK's chances in the computer revolution.

In 1942 and '44 we see the UK entries and then nothing !. There are probably fast machines in use but with so much being classified the UK languished.

So in one year the UK is creating the worlds fastest computers and in another it's not ? Probably a simplistic example but the availability of best-of-class computers drives people to think of real-world applications which drives industry and the UK needed industry back on its feet after the war. Breaking the worlds fastest computer at the time into little chunks of junk can't have helped - you would have thought that the mentality of destroying things would have died in the rubble of society and that the Government would want to rebuild not destroy.

As an American and an atheist, I am quite concerned that religious dogma is harming our educational system and holding us back internationally.

People talk about Evolution and Evolutionists and avoid Abiogenesis but in the end it is Abiogenesis that is the least understood step and one in which Evolution isn't involved.

Why do non-Evolution creationists avoid talking about Abiogenesis ? This thread is nonsense unless people can define what we are arguing about. Arguing Evolution is stupid as that has too much supporting it as fact (as well as scientific theory).

Well, if you want to get very technical, biological evolution doesn't include abiogenesis. Some people hide behind this technicality in what I feel is a mistaken attempt to avoid getting side-tracked from the key issue of evolution. However, abiogenesis is necessarily going to be driven by natural selection, so it's really part of the same thing. Given any replicator, natural selection applies. And natural selection is the only way we can get from a simple replicator, such as a fairly short peptide, to a complex, living one, such as even the simplest cell.

The practical issue is that abiogenesis was a one-time event that happened billions of years ago, and while we have many viable explanations, we can't expect to have any direct evidence. There is progress in the field, but there's no expectation that we can reproduce what took billions of years in any lab.

TC

[byofrcs]

....
The practical issue is that abiogenesis was a one-time event that happened billions of years ago, and while we have many viable explanations, we can't expect to have any direct evidence. There is progress in the field, but there's no expectation that we can reproduce what took billions of years in any lab.

TC

One time or many-times ? Given how big the Universe either Jesus has got a lot of travelling to do or the human-analogs on other planets didn't actually get to eat from the Tree of Knowledge. Or does God on Earth only handle Earth and other Gods handle other planets e.g. outsourcing. So many questions.

The lab is over our heads. Why only at the middle of last year, Organic molecules found on alien world for first time.

Now that is great science more so because whilst it provides huge amounts of data, the very data of the planet HD 189733b challenges our understanding of the formation of simple organic chemicals on planets. Eventually we'll understand it all and our knowledge base grows.

I guess we could say that where "Religionists" just challenge without providing any data they are thus are doomed to never advance our understanding and so never advance our knowledge.

Studies in space have shown dozens of organic molecules and the beauty of organic (i.e. carbon) chemicals is that they have a tendency of forming chains.

Abiogenesis bootstrapped from space-originated prebiotic chemistry is a compelling theory. The proof should lie in the chiral asymmetry, which we all know is left-hand on Earth and compellingly enough also found in space originated objects. The theory I think is that the chiral asymmetry could be due to polarised starlight through space dust selecting one orientation.

[Thought Criminal]

One time or many-times ? Given how big the Universe either Jesus has got a lot of travelling to do or the human-analogs on other planets didn't actually get to eat from the Tree of Knowledge. Or does God on Earth only handle Earth and other Gods handle other planets e.g. outsourcing. So many questions.

One time that we know of. While I suspect there might be life elsewhere, we have no evidence to support this at this time. Then again, it wasn't that long ago that we had no evidence for planets in other solar systems.

The lab is over our heads. Why only at the middle of last year, Organic molecules found on alien world for first time.

Now that is great science more so because whilst it provides huge amounts of data, the very data of the planet HD 189733b challenges our understanding of the formation of simple organic chemicals on planets. Eventually we'll understand it all and our knowledge base grows.

I guess we could say that where "Religionists" just challenge without providing any data they are thus are doomed to never advance our understanding and so never advance our knowledge.

Studies in space have shown dozens of organic molecules and the beauty of organic (i.e. carbon) chemicals is that they have a tendency of forming chains.

Abiogenesis bootstrapped from space-originated prebiotic chemistry is a compelling theory. The proof should lie in the chiral asymmetry, which we all know is left-hand on Earth and compellingly enough also found in space originated objects. The theory I think is that the chiral asymmetry could be due to polarised starlight through space dust selecting one orientation.

I'm not sure how much bootstrapping is really needed, and I'm not the least bit persuaded by panspermia.

Of course, what you said about the tendency of organic molecules to form chains is entirely correct. I just don't think there's any need to postulate that these chains formed anywhere but here.

TC

[byofrcs]

One time or many-times ? Given how big the Universe either Jesus has got a lot of travelling to do or the human-analogs on other planets didn't actually get to eat from the Tree of Knowledge. Or does God on Earth only handle Earth and other Gods handle other planets e.g. outsourcing. So many questions.

One time that we know of. While I suspect there might be life elsewhere, we have no evidence to support this at this time. Then again, it wasn't that long ago that we had no evidence for planets in other solar systems.

The lab is over our heads. Why only at the middle of last year, Organic molecules found on alien world for first time.

Now that is great science more so because whilst it provides huge amounts of data, the very data of the planet HD 189733b challenges our understanding of the formation of simple organic chemicals on planets. Eventually we'll understand it all and our knowledge base grows.

I guess we could say that where "Religionists" just challenge without providing any data they are thus are doomed to never advance our understanding and so never advance our knowledge.

Studies in space have shown dozens of organic molecules and the beauty of organic (i.e. carbon) chemicals is that they have a tendency of forming chains.

Abiogenesis bootstrapped from space-originated prebiotic chemistry is a compelling theory. The proof should lie in the chiral asymmetry, which we all know is left-hand on Earth and compellingly enough also found in space originated objects. The theory I think is that the chiral asymmetry could be due to polarised starlight through space dust selecting one orientation.

I'm not sure how much bootstrapping is really needed, and I'm not the least bit persuaded by panspermia.

Of course, what you said about the tendency of organic molecules to form chains is entirely correct. I just don't think there's any need to postulate that these chains formed anywhere but here.

TC

Up until 2 years ago I'd agree panspermia sounded fringe but the compelling theory on the chirality of amino acids from a non-Earth source for the asymmetry and the sheer number of molecules found through spectrography gives huge support to panspermia.

Now the issue is that so far finding amino acids in space is allusive e.g. glycine (the smallest in atom count) looked close but hasn't been proven (oddly enough it isn't chiral). In size of molecules there are larger molecules found in space e.g. cyanopolyyne as well as close family members e.g. amino acetonitrile.

"glycine" (i.e. not L-glycine) just sticks out like a sore thumb in all those L-???? amino acids. To me that's a real clue I can't work around.

This is why I think bootstrap. Space bootstraps the earth with precursors and the environment on Earth takes over but biased towards L-handedness because of the filtration in space.

Not that far-fetched given every atom bigger than Helium on Earth was nucleosynthesized from stars. To me that is incredible to think of that a few 10s of billion years ago every heavy atom in my body was rolling around in a Star.

[Beastt]

Up until 2 years ago I'd agree panspermia sounded fringe but the compelling theory on the chirality of amino acids from a non-Earth source for the asymmetry and the sheer number of molecules found through spectrography gives huge support to panspermia.

Now the issue is that so far finding amino acids in space is allusive e.g. glycine (the smallest in atom count) looked close but hasn't been proven (oddly enough it isn't chiral). In size of molecules there are larger molecules found in space e.g. cyanopolyyne as well as close family members e.g. amino acetonitrile.

"glycine" (i.e. not L-glycine) just sticks out like a sore thumb in all those L-???? amino acids. To me that's a real clue I can't work around.

This is why I think bootstrap. Space bootstraps the earth with precursors and the environment on Earth takes over but biased towards L-handedness because of the filtration in space.

Not that far-fetched given every atom bigger than Helium on Earth was nucleosynthesized from stars. To me that is incredible to think of that a few 10s of billion years ago every heavy atom in my body was rolling around in a Star.

While Panspermia offers some promise, I tend to look at as pushing the answer back one step rather than providing an answer. Whether or not life on Earth first formed here or elsewhere, it still had to form. I think abiogenesis is the most likely scenario.

And while I'm certainly grasp your meaning, to put a bit finer edge on ti, some of the heavier-that-helium atoms were formed in stars, many of the elements were formed in the destruction of stars, rather than in the star while still active.

[Fisherking]

The second law applies equally well to open systems. If there wasn't a "a program (information) to direct the growth in organized complexity" or a "mechanism for storing and converting the incoming energy" what would happen to the information stored on your computer? How does the sun shining on something decrease entropy?

Your claim that the 2nd law applies to open systems is uncontroversially false. Full stop.

TC

It should be fairly easy to give an example of the 2nd law not applying to open systems then.

[Goat]

The second law applies equally well to open systems. If there wasn't a "a program (information) to direct the growth in organized complexity" or a "mechanism for storing and converting the incoming energy" what would happen to the information stored on your computer? How does the sun shining on something decrease entropy?

Your claim that the 2nd law applies to open systems is uncontroversially false. Full stop.

TC

It should be fairly easy to give an example of the 2nd law not applying to open systems then.

THat it is. Look at a pot full of water.. it is an open system. Heat from an outside source gets applied. The water boils.