Evolution as Described by the Second Law of Thermodynamics

Physorg.com ^ | August 11, 2008 | Lisa Zyga

[Soliton]

By viewing evolution as the motion of energy flows toward a stationary state (entropy), evolution can be explained by the second law of thermodynamics, a law which conventionally describes physical systems. In this view, a cheetah serves as an energy transfer mechanism, and beneficial mutations allow the animal to transfer more energy within its environment, helping even out the energy.

[Mr. Lucky]

Borderline?

[Soliton]

I have been reviewing the original “peer reviewed articles”. The ones not by STURP are scientific but mostly do not impact authenticity. The STURPERS quote scripture and speak of radiating energies. They mostly cite other STURP papers. They make unsupported editorial comments throughout. The fix is in. Liars for God are everywhere.

You are a brave man to defend such nonsense.

[grey_whiskers]

ad hominem is not science.

Cheers!

[grey_whiskers]

Didn't you post to the wrong thread?

This thread is about the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics as it relates to evolution, not about STURP.

Incidentally, try looking up "open systems" and "equilibrium" while you're reviewing the 2nd Law.

Thermodynamics, not Robotics. /Asimov>

Cheers!

[scottdeus12]

“Borderline?”

No I don’t think so actually....over the edge is more like it.....

[sleepy_hollow]

Forgive me, but I must register the strongest of objections to your assertion. I am not aware of any living humans or anything recorded by a previously living human that claims direct observation of evolution. All such claims are based on inferences from forensics. This means that patterns or alleged patterns associated with real objects in existence today (fossils, rocks, layers of sediment, etc.) are used to hypothesize about past events and real world objects. None of these past events is observable, testable, or provable. Please help me understand how this comports with the scientific method?

I understand the value of forensics and its use in solving contemporaneous or near-contemporaneous events, like a plane crash or a crime. However, in these cases we still have the real world objects available for study. In the case of the study of fossils and other aspects of the earth, we have only the imprint or patterns left behind. We have suggestive material, but not the actual materials.

I am truly baffled that scientists do not place such speculation and conjecture in a completely different realm. Such activity fits the patterns of faith and belief much more readily than science. Just because we decide how to categorize a “mess of stuff” does not necessarily mean anything can be deduced with certanty about how that stuff came to be, or, what predecessor stuff must have existed. We have a lot of “might haves and probably’s.” We do not have certitude. The very same disdain cast on religious believers in a Diety is rightly cast upon religious believers in evolution I would assert.

The very fact that you cannot prove this and must resort to ridicule of the sizeable numbers of those who disagree lends credence to this argument.

[intropy]

I have often wondered about this myself. Still searching this through.

As regards the article:

Is not the steepest path for energy dispersal towards equilibrium just the direct flow of the sun out into space? Why, when it passes over the earth, does life slow down this path (ie, make it less steep). Life, if anything, retards the speed of the energy that wants to race out into space. The state of planet earth that would result in the fastest dispersal would be a a dead one, with a cold center.

So life should not be.

In fact, if we want to give the second law its way, the end of all life is imminent too. Life just gets in the way.

If this is bad logic, someone do jump in.

What the article seems to be saying then, is that evolution is attempting to speed up the eventual cessation of all life. I would expect just sort a thing from a random process, regardless if it is modulated by a selection mechanism.

[sleepy_hollow]

Thanks for your response. Unfortunately the topic sentence of your response appears to have a strategic typo.

Did you mean to say you would expect just “the opposite” sort of thing...

Or, did you mean you’d expect just “this” sort of thing...?

Funny but that was a “random mutation” that seems not to have benefited your evolutionary thought process.:)

[intropy]

Ha. Sorry about that. Random mutation leading nowhere. I meant the latter: “I would expect just this sort [of] thing from a random process, regardless if it is modulated by a selection mechanism.”

A random process allows the second law free reign, whereas a directed process attempts to curb that law. Because the energy is “seeking” the steepest slope, I infer that it is doing so because a random process is driving it. A directed process would attempt to lessen the slope. But, I am merely conjecturing, and have not made a clear study of this. I do know that entropy relies on randomness - like in the dispersion of a gas. All the gas particles have random vectors, they bang into one another, and so they tend to spread out evenly. Therefore, randomness -—> increase in entropy.

I think the damaging effect that random mutation has on the non-random information medium of DNA is inhibited by natural selection - the environment tries to make sure that good information is passed on. And I think that’s all that natural selection is: a mutation-preventing guardian. I don’t think that neutral mutations are necessarily neutral, either, which natural selection cannot prevent. The accumulation of many neutral mutations could create a barrier to otherwise neutral mutations in the future. IE, what WOULD have been neutral no longer is. I don’t think this is a pathway for morphological novelty, however. (That is, many neutral mutations, and then a ‘key’ mutation that ties all those mutations together to form something coherent and useful.) But in any case, I haven’t done a proper study of any of this, so I may be wrong. Then again, I might not be. :)

[Force of Truth]

On #15: I’m a creationist, but I have to admit, that was funny.

[csense]

The question is rather like asking, “If many Americans and Australians are descended from Europeans, why are there still Europeans around?”

Are you suggesting that the differences between nationalities is analogous to the difference between species? If so, then I'd say you have a very odd understanding of logic. Creationists themselves recognize the invalidity of this claim

[csense]

Strike that last sentence:

Creationists themselves recognize the invalidity of this claim

[Karliner]

If the 2nd law were provable, then evolution would be disprovable.

Not too sharp on the laws of thermodynamics but if, in science it is a law, this means it is provable(??) whereas evolution is no. There are also laws of entropy are there not/ The biggest question I have to evolution( aside from all the little nagging questions) is the length of time one human would have to mutate to become man...not enough time? Foe now, for this un-evolved man," When I consider Your heavens, the work of Your fingers, The moon and the stars, Which you have ordained, What is ma that You Are mindful of him, And the son of man that you visit him? For You have made him a little Lower than the angels, And you crowned him with glory and honor." Psalm 8:3-5)

So, until evolution isn't tossed in my face as a scientific proven fact ( and we'' just add in the puzzle pieces later) I'll believe in one God, one saviour and one way to heaven. Sounds crazier than evolution but my mind just LOVES the idea we are actually designed, and designed for a reason as opposed to the theorem we're just evolvoved gooey danged lucky mutations in a huge universe that was even more daned lucky to have existed in the first place As much as the Chuck Missler's peanut butter analogy is interesting to longer scientific essays I've read somewhere that the time it would take for one human to exist.

There are other questions I have, message in a bottle.

Of course one can use this format, to figure ones own theorem.

[DungeonMaster]

From:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2nd_law_of_thermodynamics

The second law of thermodynamics has been proven mathematically for thermodynamic systems, where entropy is defined in terms of heat divided by the absolute temperature. The second law is often applied to other situations, such as the complexity of life, or orderliness.[7] In sciences such as biology and biochemistry the application of thermodynamics is well-established, e.g. biological thermodynamics. The general viewpoint on this subject is summarized well by biological thermodynamicist Donald Haynie; as he states: "Any theory claiming to describe how organisms originate and continue to exist by natural causes must be compatible with the first and second laws of thermodynamics."[8] This is very different, however, from the claim made by many creationists that evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics. In fact, evidence indicates that biological systems and obviously the evolution of those systems conform to the second law, since although biological systems may become more ordered, the net increase in entropy for the entire universe is still positive as a result of evolution.[9]

All of that reminds me of 1Corinthians which points out the foolishness of the wisdom of man.