Someone please help me here. I have studied evolution for some time now but I can't get past this one point. It violates the second law of thermodynamics and to just beleive in evolution is like asking someone to just beleive in God. I have to have facts and currently the facts are against evolution.

Life is organization. From prokaryotic cells, eukaryotic cells, tissues, and organs, to plants and animals, families, communities, ecosystems, and living planets, life is organization, at every scale. The evolution of life is the increase of biological organization, if it is anything. Clearly, if life originates and makes evolutionary progress without organizing input from outside, then something has organized itself. Logical entropy in a open system has decreased. This is the violation that people are getting at, when they say that life violates the second law of thermodynamics. This violation, the decrease of logical entropy in a closed system, must happen continually in the darwinian account of evolutionary progress.

Most darwinists just ignore this staggering problem. When confronted with it, they seek refuge in the confusion between the two kinds of entropy. Entropy [logical] has not decreased, they say, because the system is not closed. Energy such as sunlight is constantly supplied to the system. If you consider the larger system that includes the sun, entropy [thermodynamic] has increased, as required.

While it is true that local order can increase in an open system if certain conditions are met, the fact is that evolution does not meet those conditions. Simply saying that the earth is open to the energy from the sun says nothing about how that raw solar heat is converted into increased complexity in any system, open or closed.

The fact is that the best known and most fundamental equation of thermodynamics says that the influx of heat into an open system will increase the entropy of that system, not decrease it. All known cases of decreased entropy (or increased organization) in open systems involve a guiding program of some sort and one or more energy conversion mechanisms.

Evolution has neither of these. Mutations are not "organizing" mechanisms, but disorganizing. They are commonly harmful, sometimes neutral, but never add useful information to the genetic code (at least as far as observed mutations are concerned). Natural selection cannot generate order, but can only sieve out the disorganizing mutations presented to it, thereby conserving the existing order, but never generating new order. In principle, it may be barely conceivable that evolution could occur in open systems, in spite of the tendency of all systems to disintegrate sooner or later. But no one yet has been able to show that it actually has the ability to overcome this universal tendency, and that is the basic reason why there is still no bona fide proof of evolution, past or present.

We don't get heat from the sun.

i find it hard to believe that you've studied evolution. partially because you said, "without organizing input from outside". someone hasn't been studying their darwinism! secondly, what does the law of thermodynamics have to do with it? nevertheless, it's not in conflict if you insist on looking at it so obtusely.
it is important to know that darwin was a naturalist. if you ask darwinists about it you will get a detailed account of how selection shapes an organism. it decreases diversity and eliminates unnecessary and harmful traits (or genes, but he didn't know anything about them).
programmed genetic mutation increases the (to cross fields) "entropy" of the system, while selection (natural, sexual, etc.) decreases it. they work together to bring about that magical process known as evolution, kids!

If evolution is nothing but a decreasing process then how did more complex organisms arise from simple ones as outlined by evolution.

you're either:
a. not too bright
b. have inferior reading skills

evolution is:
a. programmed genetic mutation
(+)
b. selection of traits

+! notice the +!
not nothing but. both.
sorry for being hostile, but seriously you're not even trying.

Life is organization. From prokaryotic cells, eukaryotic cells, tissues, and organs, to plants and animals, families, communities, ecosystems, and living planets, life is organization, at every scale. The evolution of life is the increase of biological organization, if it is anything. Clearly, if life originates and makes evolutionary progress without organizing input from outside, then something has organized itself. Logical entropy in a closed system has decreased. This is the violation that people are getting at, when they say that life violates the second law of thermodynamics. This violation, the decrease of logical entropy in a closed system, must happen continually in the darwinian account of evolutionary progress.

.
BlackJackal.
If this was true then life its self would be impossible!
Can you please explain how any life can survive here (animal or plant) if we can only decay?

The answer is all down to chemistry, and atoms and molecules natural tendency to link together. This is incredibly complex stuff but if it didn’t happen you could never have been born.

I am kind of confused by the 2nd law myself, but this is how I look at it. I figure the best way to unerstand it is to understand where it comes from instead of reading the various and confusing definitions that it has.

I think what is basically happening is that the amount of energy that can be used to do work is decreasing because it is being turned into heat and that heat is gradually becoming weaker and weaker as it spread out. The universe is basically cooling down and reaching equilibrium. When you drive your car, the combustion energy turns the energy in the gasoline into heat and then that heat spread out. This heat that it expells can never go back to its previous state, it can never be used in a combustion engine ever again. There is a fixed amount of energy in the universe, so at some point, complex systems like the combustion energy and evolution will cease to exist because the form of energy that we need for these things to work will be gone.

I am not sure, but I think people say that things are getting less complicated because the universe is cooling down. Think if the temperature from the universe ranged from about 0-10 kelvin, there wouldn't be much variety. But if the universe ranged from 0-10000000000 kelvin, a lot of different kinds of systems could exist and thus it would be more complex.

One thing that I never understood about the argument about evolution breaking the second law is what about all the other things? A one day old fetus gets more and more complicated over time and it's not breaking any laws and so does a sprouting apple seed. A lot of bacteria is gaining immunity to penicillin, which is the kind of progressiveness complexities that we're talking about when speaking of evolution. Anything that eats increases entropy since it radiates heat, but it's still doing progressive work with the energy it used to build more complex things.

9. The Second Law of Thermodynamics says that systems must become more disordered over time. Living cells therefore could not have evolved from inanimate chemicals, and multicellular life could not have evolved from protozoa.

This argument derives from a misunderstanding of the Second Law. If it were valid, mineral crystals and snowflakes would also be impossible, because they, too, are complex structures that form spontaneously from disordered parts.

The Second Law actually states that the total entropy of a closed system (one that no energy or matter leaves or enters) cannot decrease. Entropy is a physical concept often casually described as disorder, but it differs significantly from the conversational use of the word.

More important, however, the Second Law permits parts of a system to decrease in entropy as long as other parts experience an offsetting increase. Thus, our planet as a whole can grow more complex because the sun pours heat and light onto it, and the greater entropy associated with the sun's nuclear fusion more than rebalances the scales. Simple organisms can fuel their rise toward complexity by consuming other forms of life and nonliving materials.

Things can get more complex (e.g. life can continue to be and evolve) in our solar system until the decrease in entropy associated with it gets very close to the increase in entropy of the system generated by (mainly) the sun.

No

You are confusing order with complexity. The difference between crystals in rocks and proteins in living organisms is profound. Break a crystal and you just get smaller crystals; break a protein and you don’t simply get a smaller protein; rather you lose the function completely. Large crystals have low information content that is simply repeated, while the protein molecule isn’t constructed simply by repetition. Those who manufacture proteins know that they have to add one amino acid at a time, and each addition has about 90 chemical steps involved.

Also, there is no such thing as a truly closed system. The French scientist and mathematician, Emil Borel, has proved this fact mathematically.

Alright let me say this, I admit that order can and does increase in certain special types of open systems, but this is no proof that order increases in every open system. The statement that "the earth is an open system" is a vacuous statement containing no specific information, since all systems are open systems.

You can bathe the Earth with energy from the Sun day in and day out, and it will not cause evolution to occur because, while energy from the Sun is a necessary condition, it is not a sufficient condition. There are other factors involved besides just the need for energy. It is those conditions that evolutionists “ignore” and on which they are “confused.” A discussion of this “open system” argument, and the factors that prevent evolution from occurring even in such a system, is therefore in order.

My statement:

“If evolution is nothing but a decreasing process then how did more complex organisms arise from simple ones as outlined by evolution.”

Was in response to this reply made by Swedishfish that was apparently in complete agreement with evolution being a downhill only process

His original statement:

“it is important to know that darwin was a naturalist. if you ask darwinists about it you will get a detailed account of how selection shapes an organism. it decreases diversity and eliminates unnecessary and harmful traits (or genes, but he didn't know anything about them).
programmed genetic mutation increases the (to cross fields) "entropy" of the system, while selection (natural, sexual, etc.) decreases it. they work together to bring about that magical process known as evolution, kids!”

Notice the word decrease twice and eliminate once. Also don't be fooled because increasing entropy is really decreasing order. So his entire statment said evolution was a downhill process.

Also one last thing that I would like to say in this post I like the way that you debate Swedishfish resorting to insults in just your second post in a scientific debate, very mature.

Life is organization. From prokaryotic cells, eukaryotic cells, tissues, and organs, to plants and animals, families, communities, ecosystems, and living planets, life is organization, at every scale. The evolution of life is the increase of biological organization, if it is anything. Clearly, if life originates and makes evolutionary progress without organizing input from outside, then something has organized itself. Logical entropy in a open system has decreased. This is the violation that people are getting at, when they say that life violates the second law of thermodynamics. This violation, the decrease of logical entropy in a closed system, must happen continually in the darwinian account of evolutionary progress.

Most darwinists just ignore this staggering problem. When confronted with it, they seek refuge in the confusion between the two kinds of entropy. Entropy [logical] has not decreased, they say, because the system is not closed. Energy such as sunlight is constantly supplied to the system. If you consider the larger system that includes the sun, entropy [thermodynamic] has increased, as required.

While it is true that local order can increase in an open system if certain conditions are met, the fact is that evolution does not meet those conditions. Simply saying that the earth is open to the energy from the sun says nothing about how that raw solar heat is converted into increased complexity in any system, open or closed.

The fact is that the best known and most fundamental equation of thermodynamics says that the influx of heat into an open system will increase the entropy of that system, not decrease it. All known cases of decreased entropy (or increased organization) in open systems involve a guiding program of some sort and one or more energy conversion mechanisms.This thread is great example of the sort of problems that people run into when they try to use 'dumbed down' science explanations to analyze complicated issues. This whole argument is based around the premise that the second law of thermodynamics prohibits the spontaneous increase of complexity. In reality, the second law says no such thing. Saying that the second law prohibits increasing complexity is just an inaccurate paraphrase of the second law. The second law actually says:

dS > dQ/T where S=kb ln sigma and sigma is a term related to the number of quantum microstates in the system.

As you can see, this isn't a fuzzy, qualitative statement like 'disorder always increases' – it's a precise mathematical equation. It's reasonably accurate to describe the number of quantum microstates as the 'disorder in the system,' but in reality it's a complex, quantitative measurement of things like quantum energy levels, particle spin, and other things.

There's nothing in the second law of thermodynamics that prohibits the development of complex life. This old lie was started by creationists who either didn't really know anything about thermodynamics beyond the usual dumbed down explanations, or understood the second law but decided to simply lie about it.

If evolution cannot be because of the second law of dynamics prohibits an increase in complexity than ontogeny (development from egg to adult) can also not be.

Which is a false statement, because I just wrote this post and I used to be a simple egg fused with a simple sperm.

Here's something else that I probably wasn't clear about in my previous post: thermodynamics doesn't have anything to say about the 'complexity' of things. Entropy of a system (S) is calculated as S=k ln(W). The only real variable is W, which increases as the possible positions and velocities of the particles in the system increases. So, for example, a gas would usually have a higher entropy than a solid because the particles in a gaseous substance (where the particles can zip around wherever they want) would have far more possible positions and velocities than the particles in a solid (where the atoms and molecules are held in place by the molecular bonds).

This term W is sometimes referred to as a measure of 'disorder' or 'complexity' because a substance with a high W would have many possible positions and velocities for its particles, which would make it more 'disordered' or 'complex'. The main thing to notice here is that W only relates to the phase and energy of the particles in the system. It doesn't really have anything to do with complexity in the sense that we normally think of complexity, ie. a finished building being more complex than a random pile of concrete and steel.

Anyway, hopefully I've illustrated that the definition of 'entropy' that many creationists use in their arguments about the second law is based on an inaccurate analogy that doesn't really convey what's going on. The second law doesn't have anything to say about 'complexity'; calling W a measure of complexity is just a simplification that's used in very low-level explanations of entropy, and you can't get carried away with using it to evaluate things like evolution.

I hope that's cleared up your evolutionary confusion, BlackJackal.

BlackJackal:

Following your argument, it would be equally impossible for a human being to make a sandwich or to clean up a room.

No.

Who are u talking to BlackJackal? I am right.

I hope that's cleared up your evolutionary confusion, BlackJackal.

Thank you for your help Nasor! I have a good understanding of thermodynamics and the main sticking point to me is that evolutionists argue that local order can increase just because the earth is an open system which is not a complete argument. By just being an open system the probablity that life, even simple RNA based life could arise without a guiding program and a few energy conversion mechanisms, is at best astronomical.

Even today, Scientists study mutations to help prove evolution but every mutation ever observed is mostly harmful, sometimes neutral, rarely beneficial but always deletrious. Not one mutation has ever been found to add more information to a genome. Below is a link to the 2,279 published reports from the Journal of the American Medical Association about HIV and mutation and human and every one outlines a deletrious mutation:


http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/search?fulltext=hiv+mutation

Just to say that evolution can overcome the 2nd Law is not enough it has to be observed but the only thing that has ever been observed is deletions.

Also about making the sandwich argument. We are the guiding program making the more complex and ordered materials such as sandwichs, computers, etc. However if you throw your computer out the window, its not going to put itself back together again.

If evolution cannot be because of the second law of dynamics prohibits an increase in complexity than ontogeny (development from egg to adult) can also not be.

Which is a false statement, because I just wrote this post and I used to be a simple egg fused with a simple sperm.

The fertilized egg (embryo) is already a very complex organism (a human being) with that being’s physical characteristics and demeanor already defined by the DNA code. The DNA will instruct the embryo to develop over the next nine months into a baby ready for birth and entry into the world we know. Hair color, teeth strength, height and gender are already programmed into the little critter. Information, plus outside energy (food for Mom) will develop that human body.

BlackJackal -- this is an easy one -- you are confusing energy and heat.

Heat is simply an increase in the vibrational and rotational movement of atoms and molecules, and if all the sun did was increase heat, you would be correct in your assessment of the entropy profile. But the sun does more than that -- it transfers capturable and holdable and gateable and guidable packets of energy to highly sophisticated molecular circuitry at the level of very simple carbon compounds, and higher.

The game of catch and throw that goes on between the sun and organic compounds is a primordial one. And at the particular energies of these packets, carbon-based molecules exhibit an incredible range of physical qualities and responses. If melting and refreezing ice are beautiful, imagine threads and membranes and tubes and shells and levers and cannons and balloons and fireworks and pneumatic pumps and ion pumps and...

These are the almost spontaneous formations that organic molecules are capable of, and capable of building, at the energy bandwidths of photon-capture/release by carbon and other contributing elements. And with this set of implements, organic structure begins the magic of preserving its templates, genetically passing on the accumulated wisdom of the species.

Wherever organic processes can capture/release or redirect energy in a manner similar to a mechanical or cybernetic process, that energy packet is negentropic.

Don't get me wrong, all of this "negentropy" is the result of catching the "lightfall" of energy sliding down the slope from sun to earth, and it will snuff out immediately when the lightfall stops. But the show is not a miraculous violation of any 2nd law I know about.

Actually, Jackal, aren't you confusing energy with information?

When you write information to a hard drive, you're increasing entropy because you're turning energy into heat. On the other hand, you're also creating an ordered pattern of information that you can recover and reproduce - that is, greater complexity.

As far as mutations go, the more complex a system, the less likely any variation will be beneficial. But if we think back to simpler origins, it is impossible to avoid the conclusion that some variations will dominate (securing greater resource-share), and then variations of those variations will dominate. It is only problematic whether that parsing process terminates at some point.

Actually the 2nd Law applies to any closed system (where all energy remains accounted for). That includes the sun, earth, and the space into which earth radiates.

Taking the earth by itself, entropy could decrease (i.e. the number of possible states could theoretically decrease). But I don't think anyone seriously believes that is the case. Local negentropy occurs in relevant locations (those that manage future states of local systems.) That's all we need.

About the sun transferring energy instead of heat, According to most biology books the earth was a barren wasteland with a hostile atomosphere when the first amino acids just happened to bounce into one another and create life. This is just not possible and let me tell you why. The ultraviolet light coming from the sun is deadly and destructive, certainly not constructive the way that it would have to be to be in accordance with the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Thus life is only possible because of the ozone layer which prevents UV light from reaching the earth and because of the existence of photosynthesis of green plants, neither of which would have existed on a hypothetical primitive earth.

The Analogy about the computer works because there is a guiding program (the user) and energy conservation mechanisms (power supply ,transistors, etc.)

About mutations, if that was the case then there should be instances where useful genetic information is gained through mutations in our simplest organisms (IE bacteria, Viruses) however there is not one example.

BlackJackle : Are you really serious about wanting to learn about this, or are you just a young-earth creationist who likes to argue with people?

I just explained to you (in pretty good detail, I think) why the second law of thermodynamics doesn't have anything to do with the 'complexity' of a system in the way that you're using the term complexity. You seem to think that the second law of thermodynamics prohibits the spontaneous formation of complex molecular structures, but that isn't the case. Remember, in thermodynamics 'complexity' is just an analogy for the possible locations and kinetic energy of all the particles in a system. The second law of thermodynamics has nothing to do with the kind of complexity that you're talking about.

DNA is thought to have come about before amino acids in life by some theories; in any case, there are and have always been parts of the Earth that are not exposed to the Sun, like deep underwater.

Bacteria gain genetic information that is useful to themselves through mutation all the time. That's how we get bacteria that eat through the windows of space stations.

BlackJackal,
It looks to me like you've been studying the creationist slant on evolution and thermodynamics. Your posts are full of references to a "guiding program", which has nothing to do with the Second Law.

There are a number of other "telltales" (scientists are "trying to prove" evolution, ______ has never been observed, etc.).

For every creationist site on the Net, there are two others that refute every argument, including the "evolution violates the Second Law" argument.
Please do some research on non-creationist sites.

the main point to me is that evolutionists argue that local order can increase just because the earth is an open system which is not a complete argument.

Evolutionists don't say "local order can increase just because the earth is an open system", they say that "evolution doesn't break the second law of thermodynamics because the earth is an open system". Sounds like a strawman to me.

Just to say that evolution can overcome the 2nd Law is not enough it has to be observed but the only thing that has ever been observed is deletions.

The fact that evolution doesn't break the second law of thermodynamics has never been used as evidence for evolution. The 2nd law has only been used against the theory of evolution by creationists who don't understand it. As you said yourself in your first post "It violates the second law of thermodynamics". No one says "evolution doesn't break the 2nd law so it must be true!"

Not one mutation has ever been found to add more information to a genome.

Sometimes extra copies are made which can become useful over time. The fact that we can tell red from green is thought to have occured in this way, which would explain why these two genes are right next to each other while the one for the blue receptor is not.

BTW, I don't think he thinks it violates the second law anymore. After Nasor's post he seemed to be more concerned about other things.

BlackJackal:

You are wrong on many counts.

Even today, Scientists study mutations to help prove evolution but every mutation ever observed is mostly harmful, sometimes neutral, rarely beneficial but always deletrious.

Scientists do not study mutations to prove evolution. Evolution is an established fact which underpins all research in biology.

Contrary to what you say, most mutations are neutral, not harmful. Some are beneficial, as you say, and others are harmful. Natural selection selects for the beneficial ones and weeds out the harmful ones.

Not one mutation has ever been found to add more information to a genome.

Many mutations add information to the genome. Richard Dawkins has completely refuted this creationist chestnut.

Just to say that evolution can overcome the 2nd Law is not enough it has to be observed but the only thing that has ever been observed is deletions.

That is wrong.

Also about making the sandwich argument. We are the guiding program making the more complex and ordered materials such as sandwichs, computers, etc. However if you throw your computer out the window, its not going to put itself back together again.

But how can we make a sandwich? That would require creating order out of chaos, and you say the second law of thermodynamics doesn't allow that. Looks like its no more sandwiches for us!

But how can we make a sandwich? That would require creating order out of chaos, and you say the second law of thermodynamics doesn't allow that. Looks like its no more sandwiches for us!

I suspect that is the ultimate point of his argument. There has to be a willful power manipulating things such that the sandwich is made. There has to be someone or something using an 'intelligent design' to order the materials into a sandwich, circumventing the second law of thermodynamics (if it applied to large objects).

Of course that argument has little to do with evolution.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics applies to the fundamental possibility of a sandwich being made. It says nothing about "how" the sandwich is made or "who" made it.
If the Second Law of Thermodynamics was invalid, even "God" couldn't make a sandwich.

sideshowbob is correct. Having an "intelligent designer" for your sandwich doesn't get you around the laws of thermodynamics. They must always apply.

If a system experiences increased disorder is there a corollary increase in order for other systems?

The second law of thermodynamics is only to do with heat (Thermo = heat).

Heat is just the measure of the average velocity of the atoms (The faster the atoms whiz around, the harder they hit other atoms, so the hotter they are).

All the law is saying is that if you put a hot item in with a cold item, they both end up the same temperature (lukewarm).

I have no idea why anybody talks about information. There is no information.

As for Entropy, I would have though that starting with a variety of different heat sources which then all merge into one, is disorder into order (yes I know what they really mean).

All of this has nothing to do with chemistry, biology or life.

Argument about UV radiation assumes that life originated in the atmosphere, and not underwater. (bad assumption). Underwater development (possibly SO2 based)-> ozone layer -> life in the atmosphere.

Mechanical processes do not need programming. They merely need to behave periodically and reliably for a long enough period for some other process to take advantage of their output.

Programming assumes a predefined function, but opportunism merely includes anything that systematically garners resources that increase its ability to garner resources.

Igor:

Perhaps you should find out what you're talking about before you make definite statements about it.

The second law of thermodynamics is only to do with heat (Thermo = heat).

Fundamentally, the 2nd law is about entropy, not heat.

Heat is just the measure of the average velocity of the atoms (The faster the atoms whiz around, the harder they hit other atoms, so the hotter they are).

That's not heat, that's temperature, which is a different thing. Do you know the difference?

I have no idea why anybody talks about information. There is no information.

Have you ever heard of statistical mechanics, and in particular the statistical definition of entropy?

As for Entropy, I would have though that starting with a variety of different heat sources which then all merge into one, is disorder into order (yes I know what they really mean).

Entropy is a very specific kind of measure, rather than a vague notion of order and disorder.

All of this has nothing to do with chemistry, biology or life.

The laws of thermodynamics apply to life, chemistry and biology, just like they do to everything else.

The laws of thermodynamics apply to life, chemistry and biology, just like they do to everything else.

Be that as it may, it is apparent that this Jackal character is using thermodynamics as an argument against life, life's origins, and life's evolution, and clearly this is an invalid argument.

If Jackal thinks that the second law of thermodynamics contradicts the natural phenomena of life, wouldn't it be more appropriate to say that since life exists, and that this life had some natural origin, and since that origin, life has evolved into many diverse forms, then the second law of thermodynamics doesn't exist the way he thinks it does, or if it does, then it doesn't apply to life?

It's obvious that Jackal is a creationist trying to stir up some old creationists arguments against the evolution of life, by lying and misleading the general public, which is a sin, by the way Jackal, and very un-Christian.

"By their actions shall ye know them!"

Have fun burning in Hell!

Are you still out there BlackJackal? You've been pretty quiet for a while...

This term W is sometimes referred to as a measure of 'disorder' or 'complexity' because a substance with a high W would have many possible positions and velocities for its particles, which would make it more 'disordered' or 'complex'. The main thing to notice here is that W only relates to the phase and energy of the particles in the system. It doesn't really have anything to do with complexity in the sense that we normally think of complexity, ie. a finished building being more complex than a random pile of concrete and steel.

In the "W" sense of complexity, could something that we consider complex not be as complex as something we consider simple. Like, could a campfire be considered more complex than a microprocessor or possibly something else that has more order?

I think it is easier to think of things getting more complex and less complex for now Saith! U could be right though

I have studied evolution for some time now......

It always cracks me up when people say this before weaving a creationist fog. In response I always ask to what level of college education they studied evolution and what their specific subjects were. Funnily enough, they never respond, as most of the time their “study” of evolution constitutes nothing more than looking through Answersingenesis.com :bugeye:

So, BlackJackal, may I ask what evolution subjects you studied to get your B.S.? In what physics subjects did you study thermodynamics? :rolleyes:

In the "W" sense of complexity, could something that we consider complex not be as complex as something we consider simple. Like, could a campfire be considered more complex than a microprocessor or possibly something else that has more order?Yes. The W notion of 'complexity' has a lot to do with temperature, since high temperature matter will have many more possible microstates than low temperature matter. A campfire would almost certainly be considered more 'complex' from a thermodynamic standpoint than a microprocessor that contained an equivalent amount of matter.

This is a perfect example of why 'complexity' and 'disorder' in thermodynamics don't necessarily correspond well to our everyday, common-sense notions of complexity and disorder.

Evolution does not violate the second law!!!

The second law of thermodynamic proclaims that energy is always being lost at the global, universal level. Basically disorder is a free ride, no energy needed, to reverse disorder energy is needed and the extraction of energy is causing disorder. So for example for a organism to live it needed energy, if not it dies and decays, entropy wins, when the organism gets energy its at the cost of something else paying its tax to entropy, again entropy wins, so no matter what entropy gets its way and the second law is followed. Life can cause a great amount of organization in the local system seeming to violate the second law, but its at the cost of much energy somewhere else: for most life its at the cost of mass in the sun as sun light feeds most life on earth, so the sun is paying and providing the energy for life to counter entropy, so the global system (the sun and the universe) is increasing in entropy greatly, second law say alright with the local system losing entropy as long as the universe in general is gaining it. If there was no energy input all life would die. If life could live without any energy input that would be breaking the second law.

All the law is saying is that if you put a hot item in with a cold item, they both end up the same temperature (lukewarm).

That's the zeroeth law.

Yes. The W notion of 'complexity' has a lot to do with temperature, since high temperature matter will have many more possible microstates than low temperature matter. A campfire would almost certainly be considered more 'complex' from a thermodynamic standpoint than a microprocessor that contained an equivalent amount of matter.

This is a perfect example of why 'complexity' and 'disorder' in thermodynamics don't necessarily correspond well to our everyday, common-sense notions of complexity and disorder.

Im not sure many textbooks say that about entropy do they Nasor? I don't think they talk about 'absolute order and disorder'. What they do is give simple examples of things which, when they are getting more disordered, they are increasing in entropy. The most important thing of course is giving these examples to show that entropy always increases (your room will never tidy itself!)

Im not sure many textbooks say that about entropy do they Nasor? I don't think they talk about 'absolute order and disorder'. What they do is give simple examples of things which, when they are getting more disordered, they are increasing in entropy. The most important thing of course is giving these examples to show that entropy always increases (your room will never tidy itself!)A campfire would almost certainly have to have a higher entropy than a microprocessor, if for no other reason than that it's very hot and contains a lot of gas. Hot gases usually have much higher entropy than solids.

Personally I think that the examples of entropy that are usually given in low-level textbooks are very poor and more likely to confuse someone than help them understand entropy. Take the messy room, for example...the entropy of the room isn't necessarily any higher when it's messy vs. when you've cleaned diligently. Those sorts of bad examples are partially responsible for creationists being able to pass off lies on people, like BlackJackal was trying to do.

Where is ol' BlackJackal, anyway? Think he's out diligently studying thermodynamics?

I do believe that its not a complete description when u are studying advanced thermodynamics and u really want to know what entropy is all about but a better example (than the messy room because there's human input there) is the broken vase. The 2nd law says that through time, total entropy must increase whenever there is an exchange of energy (i.e. whenever there is an event). Everyone agrees the vase made by the manufacturer is highly ordered. When there is a change of energy (dropping off the table) then the entropy increases and the vase is broken

I doubt he IS studying thermodynamics! I'd say he has just given up. He's had enough :D

Even though some of you have explained it rather well, I still think some of you should read http://talkorigins.org/
It explains many of the things discussed here (properly).

IMO, survival is the antithesis of entropy.

It makes me think that entropy might be a phenomenon which results as a consequence of dimensional borders at compactificated dimensions, and survival results as a consequence of interaction at dimensional borders to which our spacetime might seem compactificated.

AND that makes me think of evolution as more like "conservation of life energy", so to speak.

HMM.... that seems like a significant epiphany to me. Doesn't do much for you?

IMO, survival is the antithesis of entropy.

Why would u say that Wes?

:rolleyes: how low this place is getting these days.

So this place is low because I say I think entropy is the antithesis of survival?

Right.

Hey, you guys should crawl off BlackJackal's back. It looks to me that he was confused by semantics, and wasn't trying to sow the seeds of creationist discontent.

wesmorris,

I'm sorry i was not talking about you I was talking about you and everyone else in general. :D

Well, actually guys... evolution does break technically the second law.

But so do parts light bulbs, air conditioners, heaters, liquids, etc etc...

Nothing says that patchs of order will not develop... just that the entropy increases. This does NOT relate directly to our everyday visions of 'order' on any level besides an analogy.

A local system can become more organized as long as the entropy of the global system increases.

wesmorris,

I'm sorry i was not talking about you I was talking about you and everyone else in general. :D

LOL.

Pardon, it's just that sometimes my insane ramblings result in moments of being self-conscious.

Well, actually guys... evolution does break technically the second law.

No it doesn't. The universal entropy still increases

Well, actually guys... evolution does break technically the second law.

But so do parts light bulbs, air conditioners, heaters, liquids, etc etc...

Nothing says that patchs of order will not develop... just that the entropy increases. This does NOT relate directly to our everyday visions of 'order' on any level besides an analogy.Nothing, so far as we know, breaks the second law. You seem to be a little confused about exactly where it applies.

I phrased it incorrectly. I meant that as an isolated system it does break the second law.

Luckily it's not an isolated system.

I would imagine that if an isolated system behaved like that, we wouldn't have a second law to break :D

Lol, good point

9. The Second Law of Thermodynamics says that systems must become more disordered over time. Living cells therefore could not have evolved from inanimate chemicals, and multicellular life could not have evolved from protozoa.

Where'd ya get that definition? If it didn't come from some bathroom humor book then I'm stumped.

First. There are many applications for the 2nd law of thermodynamics. The one you want to try and cling onto is the entropy aspect. It states, in pretty basic terminology (even though I'll still explain it): Second Law of Thermodynamics: In any cyclic process the entropy will either increase or remain the same.

First. The earth is not in a cyclical process. There is the sun. We are not going to tend toward entropy because we are not a closed system (i.e. cyclic process).

It really is that simple.

Think of life like an air conditioner, as both in erroneous understanding of thermodynamics violate the 2nd law. Both cause local organization: a air-conditioner cools things reducing randomness and entropy and a cells organizes molecules, but require energy, that energy was released by making disorder out of order somewhere else, the air-conditioner requires electricity from a generator, the generator turned fuel into gas, entropy goes up. The cell takes energy from food, food is metabolized into simpler molecules, entropy goes up. Even though both have reduced entropy in the local system, globally entropy had to go up for them to do this.

Damn you WCF. You said what I wanted to say, but made it make sense.

I said "survival" as the antithesis of entropy.

That is survival is a struggle - a directed (i almost see it as a four D gradient), unweilding compulsion not to fall to entropy. It is implemented subjectively.

If viewed survival as a "force in the internal dimension" or whatever, I can't help but see a reverse analogous relationship between survival and entropy. It's sort of analagous either way maybe. On one hand, survival is analagous to entropy in that both are a result of conservation (as I mentioned survival being the "conservation of life-energy"). On the other, their function is opposite in that entropy nullfies potential whereas survival (which I claim to be a force or something - definately a property of the reality of life, or actually I've called it "the life force" or "whatever it is that coaxes things to want to survive") attempts to manipulate it to persist.

Organisation in a closed system causes disorganisation in the system/s outside it.
But yeah, i'm agreeing with everyone else, this doesn't really affect Darwin