Autocatakinesis, Evolution, and the Law of Maximum Entropy Production

Advances in Human Ecology, Vol. 6 ^ | 1997 | Rod Swenson

[Cyber Liberty]

Ther you go. I knew somebody would have an answer. I guess order/dosorder can be swapped around between open systems like energy.

[PatrickHenry]

Thanks for the ping.

[orionblamblam]

No such assumption is assumed or implied, since it is irrelevant.

[IronJack]

I think the fallacy here is that "order" and "disorder" are used in the layman's sense, not the mathematical/physical sense. The Second Law of Thermodynamics states (basically) that systems move from a state of higher energy to a state of lower energy, not vice versa. There is no more "energy" in a more evolved system than in a more primitive one, so the use of the term "order" is somewhat misleading.

I don't see that one can invalidate evolutionary theory through physics.

[elbucko]

...seems a waste to spend a whole lot of time worrying about his concerns regarding the improbability of evolution.

You got it! The whole article can be summed up as an anti-evolution screed. What a waste of words.

[Paradox]

Come on, Paradox, we want more than your vote. Tell us what you know.

Rock Candy.

[betty boop]

Okay - I'll be the first to admit that I don't have a clue what this is talking about. Anybody out there to summarize in layman's terms?

Hi mic9852! Posted this on my lunch hour, but am now back to work. Will try to boil this down for you this evening. Stay tuned!

[2ndreconmarine]

with Boltzmann’s view of the second law of thermodynamics as a law of disorder according to which the transformation of disorder to order was said to be infinitely improbable

I am sorry but this is manifest nonsense. The reason that this guy is talking nonsense is that he is taking a physical concept, entropy and the second law of thermodynamics, and interpreting it out of context.

Another way of putting this, is that he has inverted cause and effect. Either way, he can be dismissed.

Fundamentally, entropy is derived from what is known as the canonical ensembles. There are three of them depending on the boundary conditions: the micro canonical ensemble, the canonical ensemble, and the macro canonical ensemble. These mathematical formalisms allow the specific calculation of entropy, S, as an intrinsic measure of the density of states, Omega.

S=-k * ln(Omega)

where k is Boltzmann's constant and is used to convert entropy "units" to energy units to simplify the thermodynamic equations.

The fundamental mistake this guy is making is that he obviously has never derived the entropy. If you do derive it, then you find that all of the canonical ensembles assume a heat bath. The reason is that energy and entropy need to flow between the heat bath and the local system.

My favorite Stat Mech book is F. Mandl, "Statistical Physics", although the standard is Reif, "Statistical and Thermal Physics". What is simply derived, is that the entropy in an isolated system always increases. However, if the system is not isolated, this entropy may or may not increase. From Mandl, p. 43: "During real (as distinct from idealized reversible) processes, the entropy of an isolated system always increases. In the state of equilibrium, the entropy attains its maximum value. "

The point is that this author assumes that the biological system is isolated. It clearly isn't. It is in thermodynamic, quasi equilibrium with its environment. Thefore, the entropy can decrease locally, so long as the entropy increases globally. Since the entropy of the Universe is increasing, the localized decrease in entropy of biological systems is allowed and the second law is satisfied.

The second law was actually derived by Causius (from the Clausius-Claperyon equation). Boltzman made the observation about the second law that the disorder increased. However, this was an observation. The cause was an increase in statistical probablility. Moreover, as an observation, implicit was the boundary conditions of the original deriviation. This has been perpetually misinterpreted by by many without a physics education, including this author, to mean that the second law was cuased by a necessary increase in disorder.

The simple fact is that biological evolution does not appear to violate the second law-- at least a priori.

In order to address whether evolution does in fact violate the second law, someone would have to calculate the absolute decrease in entropy (numerically) for biological systems under the predicate of evolution. Then they would have to show that the corresponding decrease in Helmholtz Free Energy did NOT occur in the global system. This is a very, very difficult calculation. I certainly don't know how to do it. I have never seen anyone actually do it--I know of no publication that has attempted. But certainly, this idiot does not have a clue on how to do it.

[betty boop]

Curiously enough, rivers are *forever* flowing down slopes.

Hey orionblamblam! Of course they are. What Swenson is doing in this article, however, is contrast the "thermodynamically down-hill processes" -- such as rivers flowing downhill -- and "thermodynamically uphill processes" -- which are exemplfied by living things. He calls this latter the "river that flows uphill. "

Have little time to write now, so must rush away. But stay tuned for details. I'll be speaking with you later on, perhaps.

[G.Mason]

" I've been making that point since day one here at FR, but no one would listen!"

While that is true, who was the very, very, first one to mention it?

Sheesh ... how soon we evolve into, pin the medal on me and the hell with you, types. ;)

[orionblamblam]

> What Swenson is doing in this article, however, is contrast the "thermodynamically down-hill processes" -- such as rivers flowing downhill -- and "thermodynamically uphill processes" -- which are exemplfied by living things.

And see, that's where Swenson shows himself to be either unintentionally or willingly ignorant. Rivers *DO* run uphill. How do you think the water *starts* the river? The water comes from the sea, lake or ocean at the lower end of the river; evaporates, floats uphill, and rains/snows out at higher elevation. THAT is the "thermodynamically uphill process" that Swenson is apparently willfully ignoring... as, it seems, you are. And the water molecules show no signs of intent or desire; they're just following the laws of thermodynamics... as other molecules do when they form gene sequences of greater or lesser complexity.

[Paradox]

This guy makes a good point, that the "Laymans" definition of the second law is what screws things up:

Citation: Lambert, Frank L. J. Chem. Educ. 2002 79 187.

To aid students in visualizing an increase in entropy, many elementary chemistry texts use artists' before-and-after drawings of groups of "orderly" molecules that become "disorderly". This seems to be a useful visual support, but it can be so misleading as actually to be a failure-prone crutch. Ten examples illustrate the problem.

Entropy is not disorder, not a measure of chaos, not a driving force. Energy's diffusion or dispersal to more microstates is the driving force in chemistry. Entropy is the measure or index of that dispersal. In thermodynamics, the entropy of a substance increases when it is warmed because more thermal energy has been dispersed within it from the warmer surroundings. In contrast, when ideal gases or liquids are allowed to expand or to mix in a larger volume, the entropy increase is due to a greater dispersion of their original unchanged thermal energy. From a molecular viewpoint all such entropy increases involve the dispersal of energy over a greater number, or a more readily accessible set, of microstates. Frequently misleading, order-disorder as a description of entropy change is also an anachronism. It should be replaced by describing entropy change as energy dispersal--from a molecular viewpoint, by changes in molecular motions and occupancy of microstates.

[Doctor Stochastic]

Perhaps it's because the guy is publishing in a social science rather than a biological science journal. Among the other articles in this issue:

LEGAL REFORM AND LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL MOBILIZATION

ACCUMULATION, DEFORESTATION, AND WORLD ECOLOGICAL DEGRADATION, 2500 BC TO AD

It's not clear that sociology has the same standards as biology (not worse, just different.)

[Doctor Stochastic]

I listened. But the hermanutics weren't in agreement with the feminism of quantum gravity.

[linear]

Well, if there is life outside the earth, doesnt that mean it evolved independently of our sun?

[mlc9852]

Thanks - I'll go over it more when I get home - at work right now.

[Doctor Stochastic]

I would also note that the inexact replication of genetic material is a manifestation (or consequence, depending on one's point of view) of the second law. Not only does evolutionary theory not violate the seecond law, it seems to be a consequence thereof.

[Getready]

Would you therefore think that there is no evolution on
let's say Titan? There is almost no energy from sunlight
there.

The "fecundity principle"...we're here because we're here.
"random mutation"- we can't figure out rhyme or reason,
it must be random
"gene frequency" - most of what's here has the most of
the "gene frequency- because it's here!(see fecundity
principle)
"Closed system"-only applies to earth, If one considers
the whole universe as a closed system well that's not
fair, cuz the closed system should tend to higher
entropy. Oh then, from what order or what principle
started the Universe?...well, it was paired virtural
anti-particle/particle pairs.coming into and going
out of existence (whatever "existence" means)
...which have always been.
Don't question me. I know. I was there. I have a Ph.D.

[general_re]

You've much more patience than I - I was just going to say that this thing is a pile, and leave it at that ;)

[talleyman]

Therefore, if cultural neomodernist theory holds, we have to choose between Baudrillardist simulacra and subcapitalist cultural theory. Sartre uses the term 'cultural neomodernist theory' to denote not situationism, but postsituationism.

I've been making that point since day one here at FR, but no one would listen!

Oh! I misunderstood - I thought you were trying to save the naugahydes - my apologies!