Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next

Reply to topic
EarthScienceguy
First Post
PostPosted: Tue Sep 04, 2018 2:56 pm  Does man have a soul? Reply with quote

What is the true physical and spiritual nature of man? Does man have a soul?

Over the centuries there has been three categories that these theories fall into.

1. the naturalistic theories which makes man an animal like any other creature. Naturalistic evolution would fall into this category. Although this theory will struggle in this discussion to overcome current theories in cosmology that makes man some sort of virtual creature instead of a specific entity. Man is void of free will because the future already has to be determined.

In this view man is only material.

2. Pantheistic theories which claim that man is god and god is man. There are many of variations of this type of theory. But they all have the idea of a god or force directing the creation of the cosmos. All of life exist as the same energy force. All of man is the same because we all come from the same force.

In this view man consists of a material body and god.

3. Creator God. Each man is an individual entity. Man is not God and God is not man. God created man as an living being distinct from rest of creation. The only thing that man has in common with the animals is the life processes that make them up.

In this view man consist of a material body and an eternal soul.
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 51: Tue Sep 11, 2018 8:14 pm
Reply

Like this post
[Replying to post 48 by EarthScienceguy]

EarthScienceguy wrote:

It takes energy to organize the genome into the correct sequence to create all of these animals. And to organize how these animals use and transport energy. This extra energy to preform these tasks breaks the second law of thermodynamics so this "evolution" as you say is impossible.


E=MC²... E (energy) is equal, equivalent to, M (mass or matter). Matter IS energy. Matter is a form of concentrated energy.

The sun bathes the Earth in energy 24 hours a day unrelentingly.

Wikipedia
Chlorophyll
Chlorophyll (also chlorophyl) is any of several related green pigments found in cyanobacteria and the chloroplasts of algae and plants.[1] Its name is derived from the Greek words χλωρός, chloros ("green") and φύλλον, phyllon ("leaf").[2] Chlorophyll is essential in photosynthesis, allowing plants to absorb energy from light.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chlorophyll

Plants use chlorophyll to turn energy from the sun into sugar. Sugar is a chemical form of energy. The plants use the sugar to grow and live. And reproduce. Herbivores "borrow" the sugar from the plants, by eating the plants so that THEY can grow and live. And reproduce. Carnivores "borrow" the sugar from the herbivores, by eating the herbivores so that THEY can grow and live. And reproduce. Some species, like humans (apes) are omnivores. They "borrow" the sugar from plants and animals, by eating the plants and other animals (Big Macs and the like) so that THEY can grow and live. And reproduce.

Your claim that evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics demonstrates a childlike level of ignorance of biology. But then, I attended secular universities where they taught actual science, rather than Christian universities, where they teach make believe.

EarthScienceguy wrote:

This kind of reasoning has always been very upsetting to me. Because this is the same kind of reasoning that men use to enslave other men and to kill other men. If they can prove that one kind of man is not as evolved as another type of man then there is no reason to consider the worth of that person.


First of all, evolutionary divergence has nothing to do with the "worth" of a species. Species which are isolated from each other diverge in an attempt to survive, based on environmental needs and conditions.

If two (or more) populations are separated from each other long enough they will evolve in different directions. Which is why we find llamas in south America, and camels in Eurasia. This is natural selection at work.




Wikipedia
Llama
The llama (/ˈlɑːmə/; Spanish pronunciation: [ˈʎama]) (Lama glama) is a domesticated South American camelid, widely used as a meat and pack animal by Andean cultures since the Pre-Columbian era.

Scientific classification e
Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Class: Mammalia
Order: Artiodactyla
Family: Camelidae
Genus: Lama
Species: L. glama
Binomial name
Lama glama
(Linnaeus, 1758)
Lama glama Vicugna pacos range.png
Domestic llama and alpaca range[1]
Synonyms
Camelus glama Linnaeus, 1758

The genera Lama and Vicugna are, with the two species of true camels, the sole existing representatives of a very distinct section of the Artiodactyla or even-toed ungulates, called Tylopoda, or "bump-footed", from the peculiar bumps on the soles of their feet.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Llama

Llamas and camels diverged from a common species. Llamas and camels retain distinct familial resemblance however. Hogs and hippos on the other hand, although they appear to share a familial resemblance, are not actually directly descended from each other.

Wikipedia
hippopotomus
Evolution
Until 1909, naturalists grouped hippos with pigs, based on molar patterns. Several lines of evidence, first from blood proteins, then from molecular systematics[11] and DNA [12][13] and the fossil record, show that their closest living relatives are cetaceans – whales, dolphins and porpoises.[14] The common ancestor of hippos and whales branched off from Ruminantia and the rest of the even-toed ungulates; the cetacean and hippo lineages split soon afterwards.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hippopotamus




Now, let's tackle the second problem with your statement.

EarthScienceguy wrote:

This kind of reasoning has always been very upsetting to me. Because this is the same kind of reasoning that men use to enslave other men and to kill other men. If they can prove that one kind of man is not as evolved as another type of man then there is no reason to consider the worth of that person.


You seem to be suggesting that humans enslaving other humans leads to different species of humans. There were various species of humans in the past. But only ONE species of humans exists today. ALL existing humans are of the species homosapians sapiens. Misunderstanding science often lead to misinformed conclusions.

EarthScienceguy wrote:

This is hardly new information. One gene copied onto another gene means that the information already existed. This is not new information.


The information often does not always copy exactly. This leads to slight variations between generations. Mutations. Mutations which are harmful to the organism can be fatal. The organism often does not survive to reproduce. In which case the mutation has reached a dead end. Mutations which give the offspring slight advantages that the parent did not possess can help the offspring to survive... and reproduce. Successive generations of these slightly mutated improvements produce individuals better suited to the conditions at hand for survival. Evolution and natural selection at work. Humans have sped up the process of genetic evolution by artificially selecting traits which humans find useful. Corn is just one example.

EarthScienceguy wrote:

Heck yea, I do and I also know why. Because whenever animals die they have to be buried quickly otherwise they will decay. So it would be a very rare event that this would happen. In fact it is amazing that we have as many fossils as we do. Almost like there was a flood over the whole earth that buried all of the animals that we find in the fossil record.


As a rule, animals do not bury their dead. Dead creatures are devoured by other creatures, who tend to drag off portions to safer locations for eating. Sometimes though, even large animals are caught in natural conditions, such as floods, or mud pits, in which their carcasess are buried and protected from scavengers. Such conditions are much more rare, but allow for some of the remains to be discovered thousands, or millions, of years later. Sometimes all still in close proximity.


EarthScienceguy wrote:

Life also has to follow the laws of thermodynamics that means that life has to follow the equation

dG= dH - TdSth - TdSc

G is gibbs free energy
H is enthalpy
Sth is entropy of thermal work
Sc is Configurational entropy


A plant or animal is living as long as TdSth and TdSc are 0 meaning that there is only one path for energy flow and only one arrangement that the atoms can have.

Now when a plant or animals dies then the energy has more than one path to take. There fore TdSth is not longer 0. And there are many arrangements that the atoms can have therefore TdSc also is not longer 0.

This is why plants and animals begin to decay when they die.

Or it could be 81% like Thompson and Bergman suggest.

Jeffrey Tomkins and Jerry Bergman, “Genomic Monkey Business—Estimates of Nearly Identical Human-Chimp DNA Similarity Re-evaluated Using Omitted Data,” Creation Ministries International, accessed December 16, 2015, http://creation.com/human-chimp-dna-similarity-re-evaluated.

Or it could be 70% like Bugg's suggest

Richard Buggs, “Chimpanzee?” Reformatorisch Dagblad, October 10, 2008, http://www.refdag.nl/.chimpanzee_1_282611; “An Automatic Comparison of the Human and Chimpanzee Genomes,” Progetto Cosmo, accessed December 16, 2015, http://progettocosmo.altervista.org/index.php?option=content&task=view&i... Tomkins, “Comprehensive Analysis of Chimpanzee and Human Chromosomes Reveals Average DNA Similarity of 70%,” Answers Research Journal 6 (2013): 63–69, https://answersingenesis.org/answers/research-journal/v6/comprehensive-analysis-... among others.

or 88-90%

In the 2005 Nature paper describing the elucidation of the chimpanzee DNA sequence (accessable at http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v437/n7055/full/nature04072.html), the authors stated, “Best reciprocal nucleotide-level alignments of the chimpanzee and human genomes cover ~2.4 gigabases (Gb) [2,400,000,000 DNA letters] of highquality sequence, including 89 Mb [89,000,000 DNA letters] from chromosome X and 7.5 Mb [7,500,000 DNA letters] from chromosome Y” (p.71). Only these 2,400,000,000 DNA letters were used to calculate the published 1.23% DNA difference between humans and chimpanzees. In table 1 of the same paper, it is clear that 2.7 gigabases (GB) — 2,700,000,000 DNA letters — in total were sequenced, leaving 0.3 GB

Take your pick.

So lets take a look at where we stand.

Evolutionary claim
Human - chimpanzee genetic identity is 98-99%

Actual data
Actual genetic identity is only 88% (400,000,000 DNA differences
between the two species)

Evolutionary claim
Humans chromosome #2 arose via fusion of two ape-like chromosomes

Actual Data
The purported "fusion" site is actually a functional DNA element in human
gene

Evolutionary claim
Gene order along chromosomes has no function, therefore shared gene
order demonstrates common ancestry

Actual Data
Gene order along chromosomes does indeed perform a function

Evolutionary claim
Humans and chimpanzees shared genetic mistakes (e.g., pseudogenes)

Actual Data
Pseudogenes appear to be functional DNA elements, not mistakes

Evolutionary claim
Humans possess the broken remnants of an ancient chicken gene
(vitellogenin)

Actual Data
No such remnant exists; instead the “fragment” appears to be a functional
DNA element

In your make believe holographic world you might imagine what you would like life to be like. But here in the real world based on facts evolution is simply not supported by the evidence and the laws of Nature.


You appear to be taking your information from a source, or sources, on creationism. Creationism is NOT a science. Creationism is gibberish. Only a novice, or someone with no understanding of basic science would claim that evolution contradicts thermodynamics. Graduate high school. Take some college level biology. Then we can talk.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 52: Wed Sep 12, 2018 2:50 pm
Reply

Like this post
[Replying to Tired of the Nonsense]

Quote:
E=MC²... E (energy) is equal, equivalent to, M (mass or matter). Matter IS energy. Matter is a form of concentrated energy.

The sun bathes the Earth in energy 24 hours a day unrelentingly.


Ok, let's break this down farther then, for those that are struggling with the thermodynamic equations. It might have been easier if you would have listen and studied in your Chemistry course but have no fear EarthScienceguy is here to explain the ins and outs of thermodynamics for you.

In your quote above I can see that at least you listened in your physical science class (I will give you the benefit of the doubt) Einstein's famous equation E=mc2.

For our sun, hydrogen fuses and turns "mass" into energy releasing the entire spectrum of radiation. Most of the uv and pretty much all of the x-rays through gamma rays are blocked by the our atmosphere. Good thing God put that atmosphere in place.

That means that most of the suns visible light through radio waves that reach the Earth make it through our atmosphere. And let's say those rays strike a rock. When these rays strike a rock with it grow? It will expand because of an increase in entropy

Now the second law of thermodynamics states "that the state of entropy of the entire universe, as an isolated system, will always increase over time. The second law also states that the changes in the entropy in the universe can never be negative."

This is telling us that the universe is an isolated system and since it is then the entropy everywhere in the universe will increase. Therefore, the entropy is increasing everywhere in the universe unless organized energy is being used to reduce the entropy.

It does not matter whether the Earth is an Isolated, closed or open system because it is in this universe and since it is in this universe entropy is always increasing no matter where you are. Unless you are in an isolated system in which case entropy does have the possibility of remaining unchanged.

Now you, because you believe in a naturalistic creation of the universe you have no choice but to believe that the universe is an isolated system so in your worldview, the entropy of the universe must always increase.

Now in my worldview, entropy does have the possibility of increasing because of God adding organized energy to the universe.

Now entropy can be decreased but it takes energy to decrease the entropy.
This increase in entropy can be expressed in the following derived equation. Which you have seen before.

dG=dH-TdSth -TdSc

This means that everything in this universe must follow the second law of thermodynamics. Inanimate objects living systems everything.

Take our rock that is being heated by the sun as an example of how everything must follow the second law of thermodynamics. Reworking the equation a little results in

-dH =-dG- TdSth - TdSc

dH is the change in heat energy

dH = -q + PV

Again rearranging the equations:

PV = dG + TdSth + TdSc + q

dG and q all would remain unchanged so this means that the change in volume is a result of a change in entropy of TdSth and TdSc. TdSth in the micro-state of the of energy paths. TdSc would be the an increase in the number possibilities of the micro-states of the molecules in the rock.

Since the Earth is part of the universe then everything on the Earth must follow the second law of thermodynamics, whether the earth is an open, closed or isolated system. Because the entropy of the universe must increase, this law is so much a part of the universe that time itself is based on the increase of entropy. SO EVOLUTION MUST FOLLOW THE SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS.

If you do not think that evolution does not have to follow the second law of thermodynamics why? Everything else in the universe has to follow the second law of thermodynamics so can you explain to my why evolution does not have to follow the laws of thermodynamics.

dG=dH - TdSth - TdSc



Quote:
Wikipedia
Chlorophyll
Chlorophyll (also chlorophyl) is any of several related green pigments found in cyanobacteria and the chloroplasts of algae and plants.[1] Its name is derived from the Greek words χλωρός, chloros ("green") and φύλλον, phyllon ("leaf").[2] Chlorophyll is essential in photosynthesis, allowing plants to absorb energy from light.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chlorophyll

Plants use chlorophyll to turn energy from the sun into sugar. Sugar is a chemical form of energy. The plants use the sugar to grow and live. And reproduce. Herbivores "borrow" the sugar from the plants, by eating the plants so that THEY can grow and live. And reproduce. Carnivores "borrow" the sugar from the herbivores, by eating the herbivores so that THEY can grow and live. And reproduce. Some species, like humans (apes) are omnivores. They "borrow" the sugar from plants and animals, by eating the plants and other animals (Big Macs and the like) so that THEY can grow and live. And reproduce.

Your claim that evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics demonstrates a childlike level of ignorance of biology. But then, I attended secular universities where they taught actual science, rather than Christian universities, where they teach make believe.


Now your example of a plant producing energy for the plant is a perfect example of how plants also follow the laws of thermodynamics.

The plant or animal eating food and or receiving sunlight, resulting in the growth of the plant or animal can only happen if there is only one micro-state that the energy and mass can take. This one micro-state allows the plant to use the energy that is absorbed.

In thermodynamics terms TdSth and TdSc would both be zero. Resulting in the Gibbs free energy low enough to the reaction to take place.

Now during an evolutionary event like during the Cambrian explosion. The number possible micro-states of the energy path increases 0<TdSth. And the number of possible micro-states of the mass also increases 0< TdSc.

So can you explain how evolution follows the laws of thermodynamics during an evolutionary event.

Quote:
First of all, evolutionary divergence has nothing to do with the "worth" of a species. Species which are isolated from each other diverge in an attempt to survive, based on environmental needs and conditions.

If two (or more) populations are separated from each other long enough they will evolve in different directions. Which is why we find llamas in south America, and camels in Eurasia. This is natural selection at work.


This does not matter because there would be only one path that would result in this evolutionary event. There were trillions of possible micro-states but it takes energy to organize this mass and energy.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile Visit poster's website 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 53: Wed Sep 12, 2018 4:08 pm
Reply

Like this post
[Replying to post 52 by EarthScienceguy]

Quote:
It does not matter whether the Earth is an Isolated, closed or open system because it is in this universe and since it is in this universe entropy is always increasing no matter where you are.


I can't help chiming in on this one. The statements you are making are very clearly from someone who doesn't actually understand the thermodynamics you are regurgitating. Here you are trying to argue that entropy in every part of the universe must increase, including everywhere on the earth whether it is an open, closed or isolated system. But that isn't the case, so your conclusions from that very wrong assumption are also not correct.

Entropy can increase in one part of the universe and decrease in another, and still satisfy an overall increase in entropy with time. So instead of "EarthScienceguy" explaining thermodynamics to us all, you are misunderstanding it and then drawing inferences that are wrong because your assumptions are wrong. The earth is an open system (this does matter), so entropy could decrease for the entire earth system and not violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics if there is an increase elsewhere. This is the fundamental point you are missing, and your argument that evolution violates the 2nd law falls apart as a result (and as has been shown by many people in the past who do understand thermodynamics). As ToN said ... learn more about the subject and maybe you can present a better case, rather than just quoting creationist website nonsense and trying to pass it off as personal knowledge.

Here is a very simple, numerical example:

http://physics.gmu.edu/~roerter/EvolutionEntropy.htm

See where your argument fails? You have to consider not just any entropy decrease on earth, but also entropy increases in the sun/space system that the earth exchanges matter and energy with (because it is an open system). You are ignoring part of the system completely, and trying to claim that if the 2nd law requires an overall (for the universe) increase in entropy with time, that also means that the entropy of the earth system by itself (or any subset of the universe the way you are describing it) must also increase wiht time. That is not how it works.

You could take a new deck of cards and toss it high into the air and let all the cards hit the floor in a random mess. This would increase the entropy of the group of cards. Then I could collect them all and put them neatly back into the original order in the pack and therefore decrease the entropy of the cards, which according to your interpretation would not be possible. But you would be ignoring the energy I expended in collecting and reorganizing the cards. You have to consider the entire system in question, and you are not doing that. This is why your argument fails.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 54: Wed Sep 12, 2018 9:17 pm
Reply
Re: Does man have a soul?

Like this post
EarthScienceguy wrote:

What is the true physical and spiritual nature of man? Does man have a soul?

Over the centuries there has been three categories that these theories fall into.

1. the naturalistic theories which makes man an animal like any other creature. Naturalistic evolution would fall into this category. Although this theory will struggle in this discussion to overcome current theories in cosmology that makes man some sort of virtual creature instead of a specific entity. Man is void of free will because the future already has to be determined.

In this view man is only material.

2. Pantheistic theories which claim that man is god and god is man. There are many of variations of this type of theory. But they all have the idea of a god or force directing the creation of the cosmos. All of life exist as the same energy force. All of man is the same because we all come from the same force.

In this view man consists of a material body and god.

3. Creator God. Each man is an individual entity. Man is not God and God is not man. God created man as an living being distinct from rest of creation. The only thing that man has in common with the animals is the life processes that make them up.

In this view man consist of a material body and an eternal soul.


I'd say #3 would seem the most logical would it not?- it is hardly controversial to most that we appear to be the primary intended beneficiaries of creation, life, and hence anything thereafter.. But then again the ultimate purpose of creation (or anything) is love- to the extent that you can experience love, perhaps you also have a soul?

e.g.. that would be a yes for Dogs..
& no for cats

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 55: Wed Sep 12, 2018 9:20 pm
Reply

Like this post
[quote="Tired of the Nonsense"]
[Replying to post 48 by EarthScienceguy]


Nonsense, any luck finding that elusive Giraffe ancestor yet?

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 56: Thu Sep 13, 2018 10:53 am
Reply

Like this post (1): Guy Threepwood
[Replying to post 53 by DrNoGods]

Quote:
Entropy can increase in one part of the universe and decrease in another, and still satisfy an overall increase in entropy with time.


Well, sure it can, but there must be some type of organizing energy to accomplish the decrease in entropy.

Take for example a car engine. An explosion can be an event that produces a very high entropy state. But since the engine only allows the mass and energy of that explosion one direction or state to flow. Man organized the energy and mass, we decreased the entropy of the explosion, so we can use the energy of the explosion.


Great article thanks for helping my argument!!!

In your article he makes the following statement.

Quote:
Even if it is true that the processes of life on earth result in an entropy decrease of the earth, the second law of thermodynamics will not be violated unless that decrease is larger than the entropy increase of the two heat reservoirs. Any astronomy textbook will tell you that the earth absorbs 1.1 x 1017 Joules per second of power from the sun, so in one year we get (1.1 x 1017 J/sec)x(365 days/year)x(24 hours/day)x(60 min/hr)x(60 sec/min) = 3.5 x 1024 Joules of energy from the sun. This corresponds to an entropy increase in the heat reservoirs of


Your article perfectly hit on the problem.

The problem is not the energy involved it is organizing the energy into a state that will allow chemical reactions in the direction of increased organization.

Just putting raw energy on the earth does not help the problem it simply increases the entropy of the earth system. Or to put it in chemical terms more energy increases the micro-states the energy and the matter can be in. And it is this increase in micro-states that forces the Gibbs free energy to value that makes an increase in information and/or new organs impossible.

Living systems right now basically only have one micro-state for the flow of energy and matter. As soon as mutations happen the number of possible micro-states greatly increases. There is only one micro-state that is possible for the an upward direction to happen this organization takes energy. The second law of thermodynamics says that this will raise the energy of the reaction to a point where it will not take place.

So the problem is not having enough energy it is having to much energy.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile Visit poster's website 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 57: Thu Sep 13, 2018 12:17 pm
Reply

Like this post
[Replying to post 56 by EarthScienceguy]

Quote:
Great article thanks for helping my argument!!!


It doesn't help your argument ... it shows clearly that you are wrong. But you so misunderstand thermodynamics that you can't see the obvious and continue to move the goal posts and divert into random statements that have nothing to do with the problem.

Quote:
Living systems right now basically only have one micro-state for the flow of energy and matter. As soon as mutations happen the number of possible micro-states greatly increases. There is only one micro-state that is possible for the an upward direction to happen this organization takes energy. The second law of thermodynamics says that this will raise the energy of the reaction to a point where it will not take place.

So the problem is not having enough energy it is having to much energy.


This is complete gibberish. You've yet to make any progress in showing that evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics. I think you've only convinced yourself at this point, or simply gotten more confused as comments like those quoted above show (such as "there is only one micro-state that is possible ..."). Try doing some more Googling and read more of the (very many) articles that debunk this claim that evolution violates the 2nd law. I'm sure there are some even simpler ones than the ones I have linked, which may explain it in a way that you can follow without twisting their conclusions as you just did with the last one I provided a link for. Are you a flat earther perhaps? You seem to have adopted many of their tactics.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 58: Thu Sep 13, 2018 12:54 pm
Reply

Like this post
[Replying to post 57 by DrNoGods]

You don't even know what a micro-state is do you.

Might want to look that up so you know what I am talking about.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile Visit poster's website 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 59: Thu Sep 13, 2018 1:21 pm
Reply

Like this post
[Replying to post 58 by EarthScienceguy]

Quote:
Might want to look that up so you know what I am talking about.


I know what a microstate is as you are trying to use it, and here is a little article describing it for you to help you understand why it is irrelevant to this discussion:

http://entropysite.oxy.edu/microstate/index.html

Microstates have nothing to do with supporting your claim that evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics. This has been the problem all along. You keep throwing different things out there in an attempt to defend your claim, but nothing so far has done that. You are just evading the issue and making random statements with a few buzzwords thrown in, usually misusing them or not understanding them, and when called out you repeat the process with another set of buzzwords (in this instance it is mircostate).

Here is the gibberish from post 56:

Quote:
Living systems right now basically only have one micro-state for the flow of energy and matter. As soon as mutations happen the number of possible micro-states greatly increases. There is only one micro-state that is possible for the an upward direction to happen this organization takes energy. The second law of thermodynamics says that this will raise the energy of the reaction to a point where it will not take place.


Now read the link above describing what a microstate is as far as thermodynamics is concerned. This is near the end:

That might be fine, but how can we find out how many microstates are accessible for a macrostate? (Remember, a macrostate is just any system whose thermodynamic qualities of P, V, T, H, etc. have been measured so the system is exactly defined.) Fortunately, Ludwig Boltzmann gives us the answer in S = kB ln W, where S is the value of entropy in joules/mole at T, kB is Boltzmann's constant of 1.4 x 10-23 J/K and W is the number of microstates. Thus, if we look in “Standard State Tables” listing the entropy of a substance that has been determined experimentally by heating it from 0 K to 298 K, we find that ice at 273 K has been calculated to have an So of 41.3 J/K mol. Inserting that value in the Boltzmann equation gives us a result that should boggle one's mind because it is among the largest numbers in science. (The estimated number of atoms in our entire galaxy is around 1070 while the number for the whole universe may be about 1080. A very large number in math is 10100 and called "a googol" — not Google!) Crystalline ice at 273 K has 10^1,299,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 accessible microstates.

See how ridiculous your comment was above? You said "Living systems right now basically have only one micro-state for the flow of energy and matter." You're out by thousands of orders of magnitude making your further comments irrelevant. So again you are throwing around a buzzword presumably expecting no one to see through it, and making some claim that can't possibly be derived from the misstated and misused comments around the buzzword (microstates in this case). I expect the next reply will abandon microstates and replace it with some other attempt to either evade the original point (evolution violates the 2nd law), or head down another path with yet another misused buzzword.

Evolution does NOT violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics, and there is no way you can support any claim that it does with the tactics you are employing (evade, divert, hit 'em with buzzwords and hope no one notices their misuse).

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 60: Thu Sep 13, 2018 3:08 pm
Reply

Like this post
Quote:
Quote:
Living systems right now basically only have one micro-state for the flow of energy and matter. As soon as mutations happen the number of possible micro-states greatly increases. There is only one micro-state that is possible for the an upward direction to happen this organization takes energy. The second law of thermodynamics says that this will raise the energy of the reaction to a point where it will not take place.



Well then fine think of it as decreasing. Your article again does nothing to my argument. As long as the microstates are decreasing then the Gibbs free energy still increases. Unless you are saying that life has no order to it.

dG = dH - TdSth - TdSc

dSth = k In W (distribution of thermal energy) A decrease in the number of ways that thermal energy can be distributed results in an increase in gibbs free energy.

dSc = Scr - Scm (if there is only one configuration possible Scr = 0(or decreasing does not matter either one: one makes the math easier))

Scr = k In Wcr (number of possible configurations)

Scm = k In Wcm (desired number of configurations)

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile Visit poster's website 
Display posts from previous:   

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next

Jump to:  
Facebook
Tweet

 




On The Web | Ecodia | Hymn Lyrics Apps
Facebook | Twitter

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group.   Produced by Ecodia.

Igloo   |  Lo-Fi Version