How Evolutionists Misunderstand Entropy

Creation Matters ^ | Timothy R. Stout

[GodGunsGuts]

It has always amazed me how unconcerned evolutionists seem to be about entropy and the problems it poses both for a natural origin of life and for macroevolution. The argument from entropy is one of the most powerful arguments against the spontaneous formation of life from a random association of non-living chemicals...

[FredZarguna]

The idealization is poor because the sun is not even close to being a black body at its surface temperature. If it were, it would not be possible for the sun's atmosphere to be so much hotter than its surface (that would, in fact, be a Second Law violation).

[dr_lew]

The idealization is poor because the sun is not even close to being a black body at its surface temperature. If it were, it would not be possible for the sun's atmosphere to be so much hotter than its surface (that would, in fact, be a Second Law violation).

A) It's an excellent idealization of the appearance of the sun, and not intended as a dynamic model of the interior.

B) None of this has anything to do with the solar system being an OPEN system ! Talk about nit picking ! I was pointing out that IF the solar system were closed, it would be uniformly hot. Then you say, oh no, much hotter than that! and the solar surface would disappear ...

So how is this supposed to support your completely untenable assertion that the solar system is thermodynamically CLOSED ????

[Tramonto]

I read a review for a book about mutations in organisms tending to be slightly harmful and only occasionally very harmful. The argument was that most mutations are harmful but not to a degree that could cause the organisms to be disfavored by natural selection. However, as the negative mutations accumulate over many generations, the organisms do in fact become weaker and more defective.

I don't remember the name of the book and I wanted to pick up a copy. Does anyone know what book this is?

thanks

[Tramonto]

How is entropy applicable to a non-closed system?

Isn't a closed system any system that is defined as such as long as the matter and energy passing into and out of the boundary is accounted for? A cell, or anything for that matter, can be evaluated as a closed system as long as the energy and molecules passing through the membrane/boundaries are accounted for.

[FredZarguna]

I agree it would be uniformly hot at equilibrium. I said so in my post. It would not be the temperature of the surface of the Sun. In fact, as I said, it would not even be close to that temperature. I'm glad we agree.

As for closed system: with respect to the question at hand, the OVERWHELMING energy of the sun's radiation is completely irrelevant to this discussion, because it does not fall on the surface of the earth, and even most of what does isn't absorbed. Or do you think that the number of photons that reaches the Andromeda Galaxy somehow impinges on a discussion of Entropy and evolution on Earth? [Hint: It does not.]

Finally, with respect to the absorption/emission of radiation question. Of course I am not talking about the Entropy of emission and absorption of single photons, each of which with a properly understood quantum mechanical definition of entropy is certainly governed by the Second Law. The radiation field of the sun gains Entropy as it goes from T(high) to T(Low) as you note. [But, Please! You aren't talking to a Creationist here] Evolutionary processes lose entropy which must come from this field. Here is an interesting paper [How much Entropy Reduction Does Evolution Require?] which based on some very liberal estimates suggests just how large that Entropy decrease could be. In trying to find it again, I pleasantly note that it's been improved [Evolution and The Second Law of Thermodynamics ] since I first read it.

You will perhaps be disappointed to note that in both this paper and Styer's original work, the total solar radiation escaping into space is not considered. Note also that it discusses an Entropy decrease; your signum is, as I pointed out, incorrect.

[Natural Law]

"They say that if you wait long enough organization can happen"

I am not revising the satements of evolutions, I am completing yours. Entropy does not apply to an open system. If you seek to expand the domain (size) of the system you must expand the duration proportionally. If you seek to make the closed system infinite (impossible) you have to make the time interval infinite also. Do the math.

[Natural Law]

"Thanks for conceding the debate... When you make a personal attack on a fellow Freeper like this, a guy that had a 33 year engineering career with HP before his retirement, you have lost the debate."

I don't care if he founded HP, wrong is wrong. Maybe he just forgot his physics and calculus. Besides, its not a debate. Truth is truth regardless of style points.

[Natural Law]

First, let's make sure that the use of the term Entropy for organization level and for energy state are not used interchangeably and is developing on this thread.

"Isn't a closed system any system that is defined as such as long as the matter and energy passing into and out of the boundary is accounted for?"

Not by definition. When either the energy or matter (potential energy) within a system changes it becomes a different system. A system is a static entity.

[metmom]

This applies to an open system if, and only if, the system boundaries are expanded sufficiently to effectively establish a larger "closed" system and if the time interval for the process is is sufficiently increased to normalize the expanded system. However, Entropy does not imply that there can be no brief moments, even in a closed system, in which the order may be increased. It only establishes that the level of organization will trend toward some minimum value over time. The few billions of years life has been on earth, in the context of the infinite life of the universe, can manifest one of those brief moments. Do the math.

Except that the universe is not infinite in time and billions of years is not a *brief moment*. Besides, the level of complexity of information carrying DNA is not just a little bit of order.

And under any circumstances, simply pouring energy into a system, open or closed, is not going to cause a decrease in entropy unless work is being done on the system. Name the source of the work.

For the level of complexity and order to have existed for so long, there must be some kind of work being done in the system, which uses energy. The kinds of spontaneous appearances of order in an random system that are likely to appear are not likely to be so complex.

[metmom]

In fact, evolution is pro entropy creation, because the creation of local order comes at the overall enhanced disorder of the rest of the universe.

Then tell us the source of the work being done.

[metmom]

It takes energy to overcome entropy.

It also takes work to overcome entropy. Energy alone isn't enough, elsewise, we wouldn't see the decay and increasing amounts of disorder that permeate our every day lives.

Besides, the second law does indeed apply to living systems. People age and bodies deteriorate, even while the organism is alive.

And once it dies, the second law kicks in pretty quickly. It just isn't working as fast while the organism is alive.

[metmom]

Amazingly, you have actually swerved into (nearly) the correct answer. The universe did indeed begin in its lowest Entropy state.

Explain what you mean, please.

[Stultis]

Energy can bring order only if there is some sort of conversion device, and the conversion device itself would be very complicated.

This is a hopelessly vague proviso. "Some sort of conversion device" could be anything, e.g. just the laws of physics.

For example the grains of sand on most beaches are highly ordered. Larger sand grains are found low on the beach, grading to progressively smaller grains up the beach. Why? Waves lose energy as they move up the beach, and the less energy in the wave the smaller the sand grains they are able to transport.

Is the order of graded sand grains created by channeling energy through "a conversion device"? Only if you call waves and gravity "a conversion device." But then, like I say, anything (or, rather, nothing but the laws of nature) can be a "conversion device."

[Stultis]

and the conversion device itself would be very complicated

Oh, and btw, the "conversion devices" which make energy available to drive biological evolution are "very complicated." Those devices are living organisms.

[broncobilly]

Good points.

[GodGunsGuts]

How Evolusionists like Cold Water Misunderstand Entropy

[GodGunsGuts]

Sounds a lot like Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome by Dr. Sanford.

All the best—GGG

[GodGunsGuts]

==And under any circumstances, simply pouring energy into a system, open or closed, is not going to cause a decrease in entropy unless work is being done on the system. Name the source of the work.

In fact, the ONLY known, empirical, reproducible cause for harnessing the sun’s energy to produce work is intelligent design!

[Stultis]

The kinds of spontaneous appearances of order in an random system that are likely to appear are not likely to be so complex.

Neither the universe, nor the earth, nor any appreciable part of the natural world, is a "random system". They are systems of law: the laws of nature. Furthermore, since the laws of nature are a single system, and ultimately connect everything -- connect all systems -- spontaneously arising order in one system, or one part of a system, can, and often does, generate order, and/or increase complexity, in other parts of the system.

Once you look around a bit it's a fairly obvious characteristic of such a system, of this world, that "spontaneous appearances of order" often start simple and then, because of these connections, get more complex, even before getting to biology.

For example convection cells spontaneously appear in a system where heat is unevenly distributed, not because anyone makes or designs them, but simply as a result of the laws of physics. Consider all that comes from that in the case of our own earth:

Assume that this planet did indeed begin as a simple molten mass. A big, hot ball will cool. But the laws of physics don't allow it to cool evenly. Heat escapes from the outside, so the outside cools more quickly while the inside remains hotter. In consequence convection cells form in the earth's interior. Because the molten material in the earth contains lots of iron, that orderly movement creates a magnetic field. That magnetic field creates a barrier around the earth which deflects the most energetic and destructive particles from the sun. This allows the earth to develop and maintain a complex atmosphere. That allows complex and orderly systems like weather to develop.

The magnetic shield also allows chemical compounds to exist on the earth's surface which would otherwise be destroyed by the energy from the solar wind. It creates complex (and beautiful) phenomena like the Northern Lights.

The convection currents in the earth's interior also move the earth's crust, driving continental drift, in consequence causing mountains and continents to rise.

All this, and much more, from the simple cooling of a big, hot ball.

[metmom]

OK, so the laws that operate the system allow for the second law to be temporarily overridden.

Where did those laws come from?