Evolution's Thermodynamic Failure

The American Spectator ^ | December 28, 2005 | Granville Sewell

[johnnyb_61820]

... the idea that the four fundamental forces of physics alone could rearrange the fundamental particles of nature into spaceships, nuclear power plants, and computers, connected to laser printers, CRTs, keyboards and the Internet, appears to violate the second law of thermodynamics in a spectacular way.

Anyone who has made such an argument is familiar with the standard reply: the Earth is an open system, it receives energy from the sun, and order can increase in an open system, as long as it is "compensated" somehow by a comparable or greater decrease outside the system. S. Angrist and L. Hepler, for example, in "Order and Chaos", write, "In a certain sense the development of civilization may appear contradictory to the second law.... Even though society can effect local reductions in entropy, the general and universal trend of entropy increase easily swamps the anomalous but important efforts of civilized man. Each localized, man-made or machine-made entropy decrease is accompanied by a greater increase in entropy of the surroundings, thereby maintaining the required increase in total entropy."

According to this reasoning, then, the second law does not prevent scrap metal from reorganizing itself into a computer in one room, as long as two computers in the next room are rusting into scrap metal -- and the door is open. In Appendix D of my new book, The Numerical Solution of Ordinary and Partial Differential Equations, second edition, I take a closer look at the equation for entropy change, which applies not only to thermal entropy but also to the entropy associated with anything else that diffuses, and show that it does not simply say that order cannot increase in a closed system. It also says that in an open system, order cannot increase faster than it is imported through the boundary. ...

[b_sharp]

"Putting a creationist appendix in a book primarily devoted to another subject seems unnervingly familiar. Something like sneaking a "peer reviewed" article pushing creationism into a journal otherwise devoted to cataloging birds and butterflies.

Hmmm...Coincidence or intentional?

Can you say 'Wedge'?

[longshadow]

dehydrated placemarker

[Timmy]

Can you explain what the Second Law of Thermodynamics is in just a sentence or two?

In a nutshell, it's that everything in a [closed] system moves from order to disorder. That is, the amount of entropy (disorder) in the system increases over time. There are simply no exceptions to this law. I think the point being made here is that evolution requires order from disorder. If that's the case, it can't happen. Please note that I am not taking a position on this because I haven't bothered to actually keep up with the arguments.

[b_sharp]

I've written a few quick and dirty databases using Access. My first program changed so much the first year of use none of the original code survived. After that I placed a limit for changes in the contract.

Re: your son. Kids will be kids, even when adults.

[Coyoteman]

Can you explain what the Second Law of Thermodynamics is in just a sentence or two?

In a nutshell, it's that everything in a [closed] system moves from order to disorder. That is, the amount of entropy (disorder) in the system increases over time. There are simply no exceptions to this law. I think the point being made here is that evolution requires order from disorder. If that's the case, it can't happen. Please note that I am not taking a position on this because I haven't bothered to actually keep up with the arguments.

This does not sound right to me. How about the solar system as a "closed" system (it is mostly closed). How then do you explain the planets, rings, and moons, all of which are more organized than empty space?

I think the problem is when you say "everything in a [closed] system moves from order to disorder. That is, the amount of entropy (disorder) in the system increases over time."

The overall amount of entropy (disorder) may increase over time, but that says nothing of localized decreases (from disorder to order) which is characteristic of life, among other things.

[Timmy]

Man, I was just stating the 2nd Law in a simple way, as requested. I certainly didn't expect anyone to argue that the Law is untrue, expecially you. Have you no respect for science?

[Timmy]

All kidding aside, please note that I stated I was not taking a position whether it was a good argument or not.

[Mark Felton]

There was a guy on this thread earlier that wanted to know - "Who created GOD?"

God wasn't created. He just always was. "I AM THAT I AM".

How?

In 3-dimensional space we can draw a circle, or a sphere, and nowhere on the surface is a point which would be called "the begginning", unlike a line.

In our 4-d universe we have time which is 1-dimensional, like a line. It is logical to think that time somewhere had a beginning, a start to the line.

Now in quantum mechanics, string theory tells us that there may be 10-dimensions. 6 more besides our own 4. It is conceivable that there are 2 additional dimensions of time to add to our 1 dimension. Each of the 3 time dimensions would be orthogonal to the other, just like our current 3-dimensions in space which are orthogonal (height x width x depth).

Science tells us those 10 dimensions exist. So it is quite possible that in 3-dimensional time we can create a sphere (or a circle) which has no beginning and no end.

God tells us He has no beginning and no end, just like a sphere in 3-dimensional time.

So science is just now within the last 5-6 years beginning to conceive of the physics that would describe the existence of the only God, "I AM THAT I AM" that has no beginning and no end, yet is still a distinct singular entity.

cool, huh?

[b_sharp]

"In a nutshell, it's that everything in a [closed] system moves from order to disorder. That is, the amount of entropy (disorder) in the system increases over time. There are simply no exceptions to this law. I think the point being made here is that evolution requires order from disorder. If that's the case, it can't happen. Please note that I am not taking a position on this because I haven't bothered to actually keep up with the arguments.

That is terribly over simplified. Local decreases in entropy can occur if external energy is supplied. The external energy source will experience a local increase in entropy. Entropy can also be 'held off' from happening, it does not need to occur immediately. Here is a short explanation

In the case of Earth we receive very low entropy energy (visible light (the higher the frequency the lower the entropy)) from the sun and radiate out (disperse) a lot of high entropy energy (infrared light) from our back side. Some of the conversion of low entropy to high entropy energy takes place within biological organisms who take already low entropy energy, use part of it to decrease our local entropy even further then 'express' higher entropy waste energy, usually in the form of heat. The lower the entropy in the energy biological organisms receive the less high entropy energy is produced (meaning it is easier to decrease local entropy).

[Coyoteman]

All kidding aside, please note that I stated I was not taking a position whether it was a good argument or not.

I guess when it comes to accuracy in science I have little sense of humor.

Please take my comments as they were intended, and Happy New Year to you and all.

[b_sharp]

"Man, I was just stating the 2nd Law in a simple way, as requested. I certainly didn't expect anyone to argue that the Law is untrue, expecially you. Have you no respect for science?"

He wasn't saying the 2LoT is untrue, he was showing by example that your definition of the 2LoT was incomplete. In fact it could be said to be a strawman version of the 2LoT. That isn't to say 'you' created a straw man simply that you have probably been handed a strawman from elsewhere. Gravity is a huge force for creating order. Don't mistake the 2LoT 'disorder' for the type of disorder humans envision, they aren't quite the same.

[Timmy]

Look. I was trying to explain it in a way it is being used in this debate. Of course, the 2nd Law is talking about energy in a system, that it tends to dissipate from any central location and spread around the system. I WAS NOT making any argument at all. However, the fact that systems tend to disorder is one evolutionists have got to deal with, and simply insinuating that those who raise the question are imbeciles (and I'm not necessarily talking about you) isn't a legitimate way to go about it. Unfortunately, it is the most common response, as it is to most complex arguments raised.

[grey_whiskers]

Can you say 'Wedge'?

Hmmm, misread your post and started thinking of Dilbert's character, Bob the Dinosaur.

Full Disclosure: Yank!

[b_sharp]

Why aren't you drunk yet? At your age I'd expect you to be an expert at 'New Years' shenanigans.

Good Night and have a Happy and Healthy Celebration. :^)

[Mark Felton]

Thanks for the well written summaries of entropy but I was hoping js1138 would answer the question so he could point out how the 2nd law of thermo was consistent with evolution.

socratic method...;^)

[b_sharp]

"Look. I was trying to explain it in a way it is being used in this debate. Of course, the 2nd Law is talking about energy in a system, that it tends to dissipate from any central location and spread around the system. I WAS NOT making any argument at all. However, the fact that systems tend to disorder is one evolutionists have got to deal with, and simply insinuating that those who raise the question are imbeciles (and I'm not necessarily talking about you) isn't a legitimate way to go about it. Unfortunately, it is the most common response, as it is to most complex arguments raised.

Don't worry, I wasn't attacking you, I was simply using your post as an opportunity to supply a little information to the lurking masses.

I don't consider those with incorrect or insufficient information to be imbeciles and I disagree with those that do. Most evos here are just tired of hearing the same arguments from people who should know better (people who have asked and been informed about the same questions multiple times before). For the vast majority of us it takes a long time to reach that point of frustration, yet some reached that point years ago. This just shows how long this debate has been going on and how 'resilient' some questions can be.

Personally I like the complex questions.

[js1138]

This is the level of thinking I referred to as pig ignorant. I am unapologetic.

I am waiting for one of these geniuses to tell me how evolution differs from other life processes in terms of thermodynamics.

[b_sharp]

Ooops! Sorry.

I was just helping out.
Not that js1138 really needs my help.

[Stultis]

Having less amount of variation in the population is the _opposite_ of evolution.

Huh? How do you figure? By at least conventional definition any populational change in the organism is "evolution". Less variation, more variation, the same amount of variation but a different mix of genotypes -- its all evolution.

Besides, this state of affairs isn't permanent. If an organisms is subjected to strong selective pressure that will tend to lower the total variation in the population (at least for the selected trait) but once a new adaptaptive peak is reached variation will re-accumulate about the new mean.

In addition, what evidence is there that the variation is the result of random mutation? This is assuming the conclusion.

Again, HUH? You wanna just throw out population genetics entirely? (This would make you a bit of an oddball even among creationists.) Evidence? Thousands and thousands of experiments, both on wild and laboratory populations, documenting the spread of mutations through populations, and documented that this occurs in accordance with the core equations of population genetics.

In sum, mutations DO occur. This is a fact. At least some are beneficial, neutral, and/or only weakly deleterious. This is a fact. According to the extraordinarily well confirmed formulas of population genetics some portion (the probabilities are definite) of such mutations MUST become fixed in the population.

are you sure that in the example you give

??? I didn't give an example. I just said in general that there is available variation in a population/species, allowing it to evolve much faster than if it had to wait on new mutations to occur. This is uncontroversial even to creationists. (Indeed they insist on it. Indeed they may claim this is the only kind of evolution that happens.)

either random mutationor of selection being the reason for the variation

Pinging Ichneumon in case he knows of an exception, but I think I'm correct is saying that "selection" is never the "reason" (in the sense of being the cause of) variation. Selection, as noted, will tend to reduce variation.

Mutation on the other hand does cause variation. What other mechanism do you propose, btw? Variation obviously exists. In many cases we can look at populations that we know absolutely must have gone through a severe population bottle neck as some stage (for instance species living on volcanic islands) and we know that the small progenitor population couldn't possibly have carried the total variation found in the current population.

[b_sharp]

"I am waiting for one of these geniuses to tell me how evolution differs from other life processes in terms of thermodynamics."

That is the crux of the matter. It is one thing to state that 'order' and 'information' is necessary for abiogenesis and evolution to occur, but quite another to clearly explain the hows and whys inherent in the statement.

So far it seems the creationists and IDists feel it sufficient to just make assertions.

I would really like to see the answer to your question and a to number of earlier questions I've posted.