Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Evolution's Thermodynamic Failure
The American Spectator ^ | December 28, 2005 | Granville Sewell

Posted on 12/28/2005 3:01:53 PM PST by 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. ...

(Excerpt) Read more at spectator.org ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial; News/Current Events; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: creation; crevolist; evolution; intelligentdesign; law; mathematics; physics; scientificidiocy; thermodynamics; twaddle
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 681-700701-720721-740 ... 1,461-1,471 next last
To: atlaw

"Where's the proof of this supposed macro-drift that happened over millions of years?"

Duh. There's not any. That's my point.

"Discerning patterns and making inferences? "

As long as they admit that's they are inferences we have no problem. It's when they go beyond that and refuse to admit it that there is a problem.


701 posted on 12/29/2005 2:54:23 PM PST by webstersII
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 699 | View Replies]

To: bobdsmith
Add to that list evolution and you will see why evolution does not contradict the 2nd law either.

Um, where's the "program" in the case of evolution?

Also, can you evos clarify something for me: if I, say, take some OJ and cranbery juice and pour both of them together in a glass and stir it for a while and stop and then I notice that the OJ and CJ are perfectly separated, that would also not be a violation of the second law, right, on a pure energy basis?

But would it be a violation of the laws of entropy? Is there only one kind of entropy? Is there a single well accepted definition?

One more question: can you give me any example of observed natural processes which result in arrangements of matter of both long-term higher potential energy and statistical complexity with no guiding program or blueprint?

702 posted on 12/29/2005 3:06:33 PM PST by jbloedow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 692 | View Replies]

To: johnnyb_61820
"This is not so far fetched. We already know that animals can sense predators in the area, and such sensing will cause phenotypic changes in their offspring. I don't think that it would be too out-of-touch to propose that visual senses can contribute to this as well, and to think that like other senses, it can be tricked to produce specific sensation and response.

Huh?

Are you implying that sensing predators will cause inheritable changes in the phenotype?

703 posted on 12/29/2005 3:29:33 PM PST by b_sharp (Science adjusts theories to fit evidence, creationism distorts evidence to fit the Bible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 683 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian

"Similarities in DNA prove common ancestry. Ask any family court judge."

I know that. Most of the transitional forms aren't established using DNA, though.


704 posted on 12/29/2005 3:36:07 PM PST by webstersII
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 700 | View Replies]

To: caffe

I've posted Ed Blick's work before here, and all it does is stimulate their fear reactions, which causes massive ad-hominem attack against the author (blick in this case) without any basis in knowledge or fact.


705 posted on 12/29/2005 3:38:33 PM PST by editor-surveyor (Atheist and Fool are synonyms; Evolution is where fools hide from the sunrise)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 391 | View Replies]

To: caffe

Another thing that they hate about Blick is that he is the guy that proved that the Masoretic text had pi accurate to the third or fourth decimal place, by demonstrating the numeric value of the accumulation of characters using the Hebrew number system.


706 posted on 12/29/2005 3:41:41 PM PST by editor-surveyor (Atheist and Fool are synonyms; Evolution is where fools hide from the sunrise)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 391 | View Replies]

To: Timmy
Well, if you're NOT certified as the smartest living human, would it hurt to conduct your debates with a little humility and courtesy?

Oh boy. Now you've really done it...

707 posted on 12/29/2005 3:42:08 PM PST by jbloedow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 697 | View Replies]

To: All
After reading all of this and allot of other stuff from both side elsewhere, here is what I am wondering most.

1. Are the fossil sequences that I see used to document evo based on more than similarities, and if so with what degree of certainty is each step made? Who gets to debate the realtionship between each step, and where are the arguments made?

2. I read the "Chihuahua (sp) versus Great Dane argument regarding species. I also read here in this thread "Groups that can interbreed to some degree can still be separate species. Consider lions and tigers, for example. A better definition is that species are groups that *don't* interbreed to any large degree. A more technical way to put it is that they are independent breeding populations. "
Would this not make these dogs into two different species, because they are (almost certainly) unlikey to breed? Could physical geography be used as a reason to seperate a species?
708 posted on 12/29/2005 3:59:12 PM PST by xmission
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 703 | View Replies]

To: webstersII
[Me:]"Similarities in DNA prove common ancestry. Ask any family court judge."

[You:] I know that. Most of the transitional forms aren't established using DNA, though.

The human-chimp relationship is, however.

709 posted on 12/29/2005 4:02:12 PM PST by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 704 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian
[You:] I know that. Most of the transitional forms aren't established using DNA, though.

The human-chimp relationship is, however.


How?
710 posted on 12/29/2005 4:05:33 PM PST by xmission
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 709 | View Replies]

To: jbloedow
if I, say, take some OJ and cranbery juice and pour both of them together in a glass and stir it for a while and stop and then I notice that the OJ and CJ are perfectly separated, that would also not be a violation of the second law, right, on a pure energy basis?

This is a result allowed by thermodynamics. However, thermodynamics would assert that this result is highly improbable.

But would it be a violation of the laws of entropy? Is there only one kind of entropy? Is there a single well accepted definition?

There are no "laws of entropy", though thermodynamics does describe a bias toward higher entropy under certain constraints. You can remove entropy from one place by putting it somewhere else, which is perfectly permissible in thermodynamics and why your example does not violate the 2nd law.

There is only a single abstract definition for entropy, but most people are familiar with constrained derivative descriptions (like in thermodynamics). There is no specific requirement for any system to increase its entropy in the theoretical abstract; for thermodynamics that bias exists due to intrinsic properties of our class of universe.

can you give me any example of observed natural processes which result in arrangements of matter of both long-term higher potential energy and statistical complexity with no guiding program or blueprint?

Your terminology is laden with assumptions that are not actually valid, making it kinda hard to answer that question. For starters, everything is an algorithm by definition by the simple fact of existence, yet it appears you are trying to posit a case where something exists that is not an algorithm. Trying to separate these concepts is a common example of intuition failing.

711 posted on 12/29/2005 4:16:17 PM PST by tortoise (All these moments lost in time, like tears in the rain.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 702 | View Replies]

To: InABunkerUnderSF
Re the Thermodynamic argument

I gave this example on FR before in a variant form, so excuse if you have already seen it.

You stop in Manhattan during July. On a walking tour near the Chelsea Piers you stop to watch a street magician. He stands behind a card table and opens up a roll of new pennies. You examine the pennies. All 2005's, heads and tails. He places the pennies in a white thick plastic jug. "The shaker" he says, shaking them madly. He empties the pennies from the jar onto the table, like pouring milk in a cat's saucer. You look at the coins -- every single one is heads up!

My question to you is, what's on the other side of the coins?

Simple question. Simple answer.

712 posted on 12/29/2005 4:23:35 PM PST by bvw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 442 | View Replies]

To: xmission

Human and chimp DNA have both been fully sequenced, and they show evidence of common ancestry in the same way that DNA of 2 humans shows evidence of common ancestry (except that the last common ancestor of humans and chimps was farther in the past).


713 posted on 12/29/2005 4:24:56 PM PST by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 710 | View Replies]

To: johnnyb_61820

You wouldn't know what an entropy was if it slapped you upside the head!


714 posted on 12/29/2005 4:31:04 PM PST by shuckmaster (An oak tree is an acorns way of making more acorns)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 689 | View Replies]

To: bvw
My question to you is, what's on the other side of the coins?

Table.

715 posted on 12/29/2005 4:31:51 PM PST by Coyoteman (I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 712 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian

How is it sequenced to arrive at this conclusion?


716 posted on 12/29/2005 4:34:42 PM PST by xmission
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 713 | View Replies]

To: webstersII
Me: "Where's the proof of this supposed macro-drift that happened over millions of years?"

You: "Duh. There's not any. That's my point."

So you don't accept continental drift as a legitimate theory? No one actually witnessed it, so its just a ruse foisted on an unsuspecting public by chuckling, devious scientists? (BTW, eyewitness testimony is universally regarded as the least reliable evidence in both criminal and civil litigation.)

"As long as they admit that's they are inferences we have no problem. It's when they go beyond that and refuse to admit it that there is a problem.

Fess up, you fraudulating scientists! You are only drawing inferences from (overwhelming) circumstantial evidence! Admit it, and we'll let you off with a warning. But don't you dare try it again!

717 posted on 12/29/2005 4:35:57 PM PST by atlaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 701 | View Replies]

To: tortoise
There is no specific requirement for any system to increase its entropy in the theoretical abstract; for thermodynamics that bias exists due to intrinsic properties of our class of universe.

Can you believe these braindead creationist hicks making such antiscientific assumptions? Slander them all I say!

For starters, everything is an algorithm by definition by the simple fact of existence, yet it appears you are trying to posit a case where something exists that is not an algorithm.

No offense, but this is such a load of cr@p. Everything is not an algorithm. Unless you're just trying to say that the physical universe is governed by the laws of physics. But if you're trying to say that every physical entity follows some pre-existing set of built-in instructions, then I think you're on your own from here...

You don't like my assumption that there are physical entities that are not following any preprogrammed set of instructions beyond the laws of physics?

718 posted on 12/29/2005 4:46:23 PM PST by jbloedow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 711 | View Replies]

To: jbloedow
Oh boy. Now you've really done it...

i kent hep myselph.

719 posted on 12/29/2005 4:54:40 PM PST by Timmy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 707 | View Replies]

To: jbloedow
No offense, but this is such a load of cr@p. Everything is not an algorithm.

A great deal of mathematics you use everyday depends on you being wrong. You assert it is a "load of crap", but you not given a reason why. And this has nothing to do with the laws of physics, it actually underlies physics.

On the other hand, I dare you to try. It is not every day that someone tries to prove that a core theorem of a very broad section of mathematics is obviously broken despite rigorous proofs to the contrary. It seems kind of disingenuous and hypocritical that you insist that a mathematics is wrong while enjoying and using devices that depend on that same mathematics being correct to function at all.

Any fool can say something is a load of crap, but someone who knows what they are talking about can easily take apart an invalid mathematical construction -- you can actually prove things in math, unlike science. You claim insight, so how about providing some? If my assertion is wrong, you should be able to prove it, in strict terms. I'll be waiting, but I won't be holding my breath. You are not the first person on FR to attack this notion, maybe you should ask the survivors how it has turned out in the past.

Mathematics takes no sides, it is what it is.

720 posted on 12/29/2005 5:03:23 PM PST by tortoise (All these moments lost in time, like tears in the rain.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 718 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 681-700701-720721-740 ... 1,461-1,471 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson