Does Entropy Contradict Evolution?

If you are interested in this topic please review the link below:

http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-141.htm

Based on the article above, does anyone have a “scientific” explanation for how the supposed random generation of a “first cell” or the random generation of any of its sub-components could have ever overcome the natural forces of entropy? How could the most primitive and simple single celled life form that ever existed overcome the natural forces of entropy when life cannot hope to do so today?

How then, can a person hold onto the theory of evolution (as it applies to the origin of life) when it so clearly contradicts the most basic fundamentals of physics and chemistry?

Ken

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

short answer "no"

. If the Second Law really said what creationists often say it does, no organism could grow given simple molecules as nutrients. Since thermodynamic entropy has a precise mathematical definition, defining it as simply "disorder" is bound to lead to incorrect conclusions. Misstating the Second Law leads to further errors.

Fortunately, the real Second Law of Thermodynamics in no way forbids local decreases in entropy as long as energy or matter is released to the surroundings to increase the net thermodynamic entropy of the Universe as a whole. For example, the energy released to the surroundings when ice forms "pays" for the decreased thermodynamic entropy of the ice. Those creationists who understand this aspect of the Second Law will still often refuse to give up the argument by bringing up the fact that adding heat to a squashed bug in a test tube will not cause the bug to re-assemble. They claim that adding energy to the bug guts is insufficient to get a local decrease in thermodynamic entropy in the form of bug resurrection. Surprise, surprise. From a thermodynamic standpoint, trying to form ice by heating water is equally absurd. However, they use the bug example to introduce an additional confusion -- the idea that intelligently programmed information is somehow a necessary condition for local decreases in thermodynamic entropy in biological systems. While it is true that local decreases in thermodynamic entropy require the proper conditions in addition to energy and/or matter exchanges with the surroundings, trying to invoke the need for information with the bug example is pointless. The Second Law of Thermodynamics says nothing about information being a necessary condition to get local decreases in thermodynamic entropy under any circumstances. Information theory is a completely separate realm from thermodynamics. The presence of intelligently programmed information is clearly not necessary for ice formation, for example. (Note: In thermodynamics, the technical term for something that exchanges energy and/or matter with the surroundings is an "open system." The energy and matter can go in or out in an open system. Animals are open systems because they take in energy in the form of food, radiate heat to the surrounding, breathe air, and produce wastes.)

In the end, the Second Law dictates that energy must be expended or released under the right conditions to put complex molecules together from simpler ones. Again, the Second Law says nothing about the need for information for this to occur. The Second Law also dictates that organisms that cease taking in energy and cease releasing wastes will, at best, be in stasis or, more likely, die and deteriorate because energy will become increasingly unavailable in such closed systems. As long as organisms eat and breathe, however, no aspect of their existence, including their evolution, will not violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

But what about this idea of information then? If the Second Law of Thermodynamics says nothing about information, obviously information theory has a lot to say about it. Does evolution, the idea that organisms can become more complex over succeeding generations, violate information theory? The short answer is "no."

thanks Chymyst

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Animals create entropy by taking in ordered macromolecules such as proteins and carbohydrates and breaking them down (releasing energy) into metabolic water and CO2, much simpler (less ordered) molecules. And of course plants use photons from the sun, the ultimate source of energy in this small bit of the Universe, to create macromolecules hence the circle of life minus one God

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Ironically I think you’ll find all sorts of example of orderedness in our little world, from salts spontaneously forming crystals to, as mentioned above, water forming ice. Yup, quite natural really, much like evolution itself – a perfectly natural process among all sorts of other natural processes.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

If the defeat of entropy by “perfectly natural processes” is so easy, even inevitable, then which of these “perfectly natural processes” have been demonstrated by science through repeatable experimentation to actually produce life?

What elementary law of physics or simple chemical process can defeat entropy not only temporarily but even hold it at bay for the hundreds or thousands or even millions of years it would take to bring about the creation of even the simplest form of life? What kind of non-reproducing form of life could survive and defeat entropy long enough to actually "evolve" the ability to reproduce itself?

I do not ever recall reading in a scientific journal, where the simple formation of salt crystals or the elementary changing of water into ice crystals has ever been shown to produce life. These examples prove nothing to me. They may even indicate just the opposite. That no known local entropy defeating process is capable of creating life?

If not then please answer this simple question:

What chemical or physical (local entropy defeating) process is known that creates life? Even simple life?


Ken

 

Seriously - people need to stop responding to these strawman "questions." The creationist argument about the second law of thermodynamics has been taken down in better forums than these and yet it keeps reappearing. If real science acted this way, there would still be scientists arguing over bodily humours and phlogiston. But "creation science" defines oxymoron in a way that the founders of that word would have been proud.

Oh, and "I do not ever recall reading in a scientific journal..."? What was the last scientific journal that you read, 1Dude? And don't say "Science" or "Nature." Nobody reads the entirety of Science or Nature, not even the best minds in science. If you can even come up with a journal that addresses these viewpoints, I will give you mad props. And by the way, most scientists have a hard time addressing the difference between "life" and the formation of salt crystals. Both are self-propagating; that is, a certain pattern of crystal will propagate itself (i.e., Vonnegut's Ice-Nine). In fact, the very definition of life is so difficult and at the same time so useless that science gave it up about 50 years ago. Go peddle your b.s. elsewhere.

 

Is unfounded personal attack the only answer you have zyncod? That is not very scientific or logical.

Ken

 

Hi Ken,

"How then, can a person hold onto the theory of evolution (as it applies to the origin of life) when it so clearly contradicts the most basic fundamentals of physics and chemistry?"

The theory of evolution doesn't apply to the origins of life in the way you seem to mean. The theory of evolutions states: "genetic change over time has been shown to occur in DNA based life".

Once one assumes the theory to be true it has some interesting applications such as similarity in DNA structure indicating common ancestory.

Zebras and horses are assumed to have common ancestors based on the theory of evolution. I don't think there is much reason to think that Zebras and horses don't have common ancestors do you?

 

I agree with everything you said, Throckmorton! Thank You! I completely accept the theory of evolution to the extent that it is provable and observable. It is the “must be, in spite of known information” part that I have difficulty with. So far, I have not been able to find any proof of what I will call abiogenesis. If that is even a word? I do not have extensive knowledge in this area, however. Perhaps you or someone else does.

Best Wishes!

Ken

 

Hi Ken,

"So far, I have not been able to find any proof of what I will call abiogenesis."

There isn't any and I doubt there ever will be. Science certainly doesn't preclude divine creation.

I'm inclined to attribute life to some sort of divine spark and I look for the spark wherever I go........It's easier to perceive when one is out in nature I think.

The Bible isn't a science book though. Just because abiogenesis hasn't been, and likely never will, be shown to occur doesn't mean that Genesis is a scientific theory and should be taught as an "alternative theory" in science classes. (I'm not accusing you of asserting that the Bible is a science book I'm just bringing it up for discussion).

Genetic change over time (Evolution) should be taught in biology classes as there are mountains of evidence that show that it occurs. The Bible contains profound and important truth but not of the scientific sort.

 

Does entropy contradict evolution? No, it does not.

 

Throckmorton,

I have all three of my sons in public schools because I want to expose them to all of the current theories available on evolution and everything else. But they will not be taught all of the current theories on abiogenesis there. They will only be taught one, a very biased version of atheistic abiogenesis. Freedom of speech (for teachers) is no longer allowed in this particular arena at school. I hope I am wrong on this point.

Personally, I see nothing wrong with teaching both evolution and very basic ideas about intelligent design theory in public school as long as no particular religion is forced down the throats of our kids. I don’t want that either. But many in the atheistic evolution crowd (see zyncod above) seem to be very judgmental and intolerant of any other view but their own.

Thanks,
Ken

 

We're intolerant of idiots peddling their pseudoscience. Honestly, that thermodynamics argument has been refuted so many times, I'm amazed you can use it and not feel even a little embarassed.

Do you have a PEER-REVIEWED scientific journal where that argument was presented in?

More games. You have failed to define life, hence it is pointless for anyone to respond. What would 'simple life' consist of, exactly? What are the requirements?

Please provide actual scientific articles, presented in peer reviewed scientific journals, which support that 'fact' that the 2nd law of thermodynamics prevents the formation of simple life. You made the claim, it's up to you to back it up.

 

Hi Dude,

"a very biased version of atheistic abiogenesis."

I have never heard of such a thing. I have two children in public schools (one just graduated) and they weren't/aren't taught any atheistic versions of anything.

"Freedom of speech (for teachers) is no longer allowed in this particular arena at school."

Freedom of speech isn't something teachers have ever been allowed........most people "on the clock" don't have freedom of speech. A teacher has the right to recomend certain sexual practices but not while they are teaching. I don't have freedom of speech while I'm on my job either....I must wait until after work for that.

The point is that science should be taught in science classes. Teaching astrology as a "valid" alternative to astrophysics isn't something most people would approve of and teaching ID as an alternative to biology comes down to the same thing.

"But many in the atheistic evolution crowd (see zyncod above) seem to be very judgmental and intolerant of any other view but their own."

Evolution is no more atheistic than atomic theory (atoms appear in chemical compounds in certain definite proportions). Evolution is a merely a scientific theory. The theory of evolution has nothing to do with atheism any more than the germ theory of disease does.

As someone who has studied biology I am very intolerant of lying to science students about what science is. ID/Creationism isn't a scientific theory and teaching it as one is lying about science. For the same reason I'm intolerant of the idea of teaching that the square root of 25 =4 or that there is a scientific theory that states we descended from aliens.

I've taught my children a bit of science (my youngest takes to it like a fish to water) and I've taught them a bit of theology (once again the little guy excels). I don't confuse the two though. Science and theology are both very important subjects but they aren't the same thing. Exposing the Bible to scientific scrutiny is a horrible thing to do to the Bible. The Bible is something much better than just a bad attempt at science......If exposed to scientific scrutiny it becomes just that though.

 

Thank you all for your views on this topic! I really appreciate it! I will have to look into all of this a bit more before I can come to my own conclusions on this matter. I would appreciate it if someone could direct me to some good sources of information on this topic.

Best Wishes To All!

Ken

 

To be honest, it's better if you find your own sources, since anyone here will give you only one side of the story. Since you asked however, www.talkorigins.org is a pretty nifty site, which shows why the likes of ICR and AiG are pseudoscience.

I would seriously suggest taking anything the Institute of Creation Research, and Answers in Genesis, with less than a grain of salt. If you are going to read their 'science', make sure you check up their claims. And if they use quotes from 'evolutionists', make sure you check whether they are in context.

They have mangled the second law. The second law never states that entropy can't decrease in an OPEN system, as long as there is a net decrease in the closed system. While there may be a temporary decrease here on Earth, there is a net increase in the long run.

Just in case you still don't believe me, if the second law said what the Creationists' claimed it does, how do seeds managed to grow into plants? Or water formed into complex ice crystals and snowflakes? Doesn't the second laws supposedly 'forbid' this.

Creationists will then babble something about an 'energy conversion mechanism' being needed (LOL!). Of course, this is their own invention, it is stated nowhere in the law. And order can come from disorder without 'energy conversion mechanisms'.

 

Ken,
The laws of entropy, as per physics, do not contradict abiogenesis. Complex things (albeit, not as complex as DNA or RNA), such as water crystals, arise from simple states. I think the issue most have with abiogenesis is that we have no suitable analogies for simplicity giving rise to complexity.

Only 5 or so basic chemicals and some sugars are behind all the differences in life as we know it.

There are multiple threads around on this forum that run several pages and do a good job discrediting the claim that evolution runs afoul of the second law.

Basically, entropy is heat related, and when physicists speak of complexity, they speak of particle location. When the heat in a system increases, complexity increases, as there is more random movement in molecules. To maintain complexity, there must be constant energy in the system to keep it warm. When energy decreases, the system loses complexity.

Earth has a gigawatt power source, the sun, feeding energy constantly. There is also energy coming from thermal vents and energy locked up in some chemicals. There is no lack of energy to feed complexity on earth, nor has there been since the earth was created.

As for life being created in a lab, we've only had about 40 years of concerted effort to do so. Compare that to the billions or so of prehistory that life had to do it. Orders of magnitude greater. 40 years is so close to zero compared to a billion that our search to create life may as well have not started. However, there has been success in creating amino acids in what was believed to be the primordial environment (oxygenless, lots of carbons, methane, electricity, heat, etc).

 

Judgmental and intolerant? Except for my last (admittedly inflammatory) statement, there were no personal attacks in my post. I honestly wanted to know which scientific journals were still devoting any space to this arrant idiocy (which, since you seem unable to distinguish between the two, is an attack on an idea and not you personally). My real problem with this thread in general is that you have taken "creation science" methodology to a cliched extreme. The typical response on the part of the creationists to a refutation of one of their ideas, ie the entropy thing (which was disproven 30 years ago!), is to not respond to the refutation and then bring the same idea up again. And again. And again. Please, at least bring up some of the more modern ideas like intelligent design's theories about ATPase channels.

You've done some reading about entropy, which is good, even though it obviously came from creationist sources that have mangled it almost beyond recognition. If you are serious about really understanding whether evolution is true or not, don't take the information that you acquired in five minutes and go out and start trying to persuade people. It is this that makes us atheistic evolutionists judgmental, as it indicates that you have no real desire to know what the truth is but only to advance a viewpoint that you held before you read anything even remotely scientific. As a scientist, who is halfway through my decade of learning and training, it is infuriating to see people take scientific studies and twist them to prove an unscientific viewpoint. If ANY creationists devoted the ten years that it really requires to become scientifically literate and then started trying to disprove evolution (from a scientific viewpoint), they could be taken seriously. Now it's just infuriating.

Because the whole thing is about trying to tell other people's children what to believe. As far as your children go, do you honestly believe that the hour or so that schools devote to evolutionary theory will change their viewpoints if you or your church have been telling them repeatedly about the "merits" of intelligent design or creationism? I don't really think so. So teaching intelligent design in schools is really about opening the door in other people's children's minds that the universe was created by some omnipotent figure, and in the US, what possible omnipotent figure is there besides Yahweh? So, creationism and public schools is really only about using the publicly funded schools for proselytizing. And that is hateful and arrogant.

 

why do people always use the 2nd law against evolution? they describe different things. Take the solar system for instance. Look at it when it started out (ie gas cloud) look at it now (ie balls) look at it at the end (ie possably one BIG ball). That is the OPOSITE of entopathy, why? because the second law ignores gravity. Its the same with evolution and life. The second law simply doesnt apply because it was never WRITTEN to apply to life, it was writen to apply to gas. This is what happens when you take an aproximation of one situation and apply it to a totally different one

 

Thank you for your comments zyncod! It is sometimes hard for me to reach correct conclusions on matters such as these. I have a Christian upbringing to try and make sense of and I also deliberately expose myself to opposite points of view to challenge that understanding. I love my children and I do not want them to be misled by error in either science or Christianity. I tell them to challenge both. Science is “naturalism” as I understand it and has that bias built right into it at the foundation. Christianity is “supernaturalism” and has that bias built right into it at the foundation. It is difficult for me to cut through the bias on both sides.