Replies

Yes, I understand both the 1st and 2nd law ...the question is do you?

I have a reasonably good understanding. The 2nd Law is a pretty tough concept.

And please point me to scientific FACTS or REAL SCIENTISTS who say that evolutionary theory somehow escapes the 2nd ????

Evolution doesn't escape the 2nd Law. But it doesn't violate it either.

One of the biggest lies by evolutionists is to claim their "theory" is somehow exempt because the universe is not a closed system?

No evolutionist says this, only you.

Now rather than try and insult people, try bringing some real science to the table.

Certainly. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics says that

where S is the entropy of a closed system and t is time. Thermodynamic entropy is defined in a reversible process in which an amount of heat δ Q is introduced to the system as

In irreversible transformations, the entropy of a system can be shown to obey the relation

That is, the change in entropy of a system can be shown to be the integrated sum of the heat energy divided by the temperature that goes into the transformation process at hand. You're correct that this concept applies to all systems, but your attempt to handwave the law for 'evolution' fails for two reasons:

1) In real systems, actually measuring entropy is quite difficult. One possible way to do it requires the measurement of heat capacity at both constant volume a set of states over an integrable range of states between the reference and desired state. Unless you can at least semi-accurately quantify the entropy difference between two states, any application of the 2nd law is impossible. It may be quite possible that the entropy of 200 lbs. of primitive microbes has more entropy than a 200 lb. human, for example.

2) The entropy of a system can very well decrease in a system, as long as energy is input into the system. The 2nd Law still applies to such systems, and the amount that the entropy can change in such a subsystem depends empirically on the equation(s) given above. Increase the energy input, and the entropy can decrease, subject to the limits imposed above by the 2nd Law. If entropy of a subsystem could never decrease, ice could never freeze in your freezer, for example.
In order to consider a system where dS/dt is guaranteed to be greater than zero at all times, you have to consider the source of energy input as part of the system. Biochemical processes constantly take in heat from the sun (and geothermal energy in many cases). There is no doubt that the entropy of the earth-sun system is increasing - this occurs with every fusion reaction in the sun's core that produces the energetic radiation; it also happens in the environment as heat and waste products are output from biochemical processes into the earth's environment. The intermediate system, life, can very well have a localized entropy increase as it is only part of the system as a whole. In fact, according to the 2nd Law, the ordering of a subsystem requires an increase in entropy of the system around it as a whole.

The totality of this is that the Laws of Thermodynamics, while holding universally true, can't really be applied in a sweeping statement to the constituent lifeforms of the biosphere.

This is why that, absolutely nowhere you will find any entry in any peer-reviewed scientific journal that evolution is somehow prohibited by the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, and why such an assertion has absolutely no truth to it whatsover. (A basic link describing the definition and practical use of entropy.)

I would love to hear how the 2nd law of thermo does not conflict with evolution . You say basically it doesnt matter. How so? Your explanation is not based on any science; instead you ignore one of the most thoroughly tested laws in all science. The classical interpretation reads them at face value to mean the universe is winding-down irreversibly toward a heat death where all the mass=energy is still present but unavailable to perform work. These laws indicate the universe is not a perpetual motion machine.
Although , as you know, in the origins debate we typically hear of it as the universal tendency toward disorder or entrophy. There is another aspect of this law. The Second Law says that in a closed system, energy always distributes itself so it is no longer available to do useful work, and this will happen irreversibly.
Imagine a closed system of 2 rooms; a cold empty room next to a room full of hot steam. The non-uniform distribution of mass-energy - known as disequilibrium provides energy that is available to do work. This is called the available energy or free energy.
Imagine a steam engine in one of the rooms with pipes connected so that the hot steam powers the engine and the exhaust is then expelled into the cold room. The engine can then drive many devices to accomplish useful tasks. As the steam engine runs, the hot room gets colder and the cold room hotter. When the two rooms reach the same temperature the engine can no longer run, no matter what temperature the rooms or how efficient it may be. The system has reached equilibrium. All the mass-energy is still present. It has merely distributed itself so it can no longer do work. That available energy is now gone from the system forever. Process irreversible.

Look at Hawking's book on cosmology Brief History of Time. He gives us a fine example of evolutionary distortions.

He misinterprets the probablities involved in the Second Law of Therm. He has the reader imagine 2 boxes: one containing oxygen and the other nitrogen. These boxes are joined together and the intervening wall is removed. As predicted by the second law, the gases will mix throughout the box. What is the probablility the oxygen gas will randomly move back to its half the box? Hawking claims it can happen. Do you?