second law of thermodynamics (its an easy one)

[gf]

Hello.

I spoke to a Creationist, whom stated that the second law of thermodynamics, goes against Evolution. As the Universe decays.


Now, it dawned on me, that this is not a rare event, as most Creationist proclaim this, not at least, a certain Mr Kent Hovind. So i thought we could have a discussion about this.


The second law of thermodynamics does not claim that everything is "winding down" / decays / crumbles / or similar. What it does state is that you get entropy, and it seems that this is where we get a problem. Either most people do not know what this means, or they dont want to know what it means.

To claim that entropy equals decay, is to go from Physics to Opinion.


And this is the important part of it.
The second law of thermodynamics only states, that entropy occurs in different stages.


And this is it. If you claim, state or otherwise say in any way that it "decays", or "improves", you go from Physics, to your own opinion.



So it does not go against Evolution, it rather enhances evolution, as Evolution also, does not mean improve, but means change.



Opinion anyone ?

Perhaps you need some background information about this, but this is more or less the main thing that most Creationist seems to be confused about.

[Fisherking]

It certainly does not 'violate' it . If anything, it demosntrates that living creatures do not violate the 2LOT.

I would respectfully ask that those that respond to my posts actually read them. ------>"So we can see that living things do not in fact violate the 2nd law, nor are they excepted from or irrelevant to the 2nd law, but they actually have built-in programs (information) and energy conversion mechanisms that allow them to build up and maintain their physical structures in spite of the 2nd laws effects (which ultimately do prevail, as each organism eventually deteriorates and dies)." Five Major Evolutionist Misconceptions
about Evolution

Why are you wasting our time with arguments we've just refuted?

The 2nd law only applies to closed systems. So long as an organism is not thermodynamically isolated, it remains an open system. If it is isolated, it dies. Very simple.

TC

Tell me then, why are organisms overcoming the effects of entropy (and living)?

[Thought Criminal]

Tell me then, why are organisms overcoming the effects of entropy (and living)?

Entropy on the whole increases, but it can do so while decreasing locally. In fact, this local decrease accelerates the global increase.

The example I gave earlier is the funnel that can form when you drain a tub. If the funnel is allowed to form, then the water drains faster. In other words, the local decrease of entropy exhibited by the organization of the funnel is paid for by the global increase of entropy from the tub draining faster than it would have, otherwise. The funnel has to eat water faster than it would normally flow out by itself in order to stay alive.

This is precisely how metabolism works. In order to create the local decrease in entropy, there has to be an larger overall increase. We have to burn calories just to stay alive. For every bit of increased organization, we pay for it by digesting food, breaking it up and speeding up its increase of entropy.

TC

[Fisherking]

The subject is done and dusted unless you can show why we are dealing with a closed system. Good luck.

I can't think of an easier way to say this.
Yes, the sun shining on the earth makes the earth an open system. How does the sun shining on the earth decrease entropy on the earth? Does entropy decrease everytime to sun hits something on the earth?

[Furrowed Brow]

I can't think of an easier way to say this.
Yes, the sun shining on the earth makes the earth an open system.

Excellent!

How does the sun shining on the earth decrease entropy on the earth? Does entropy decrease everytime to sun hits something on the earth?

The 2nd law is a limiting principle. The way to think of the 2nd law is to recognize it is a principle that sets a fundamental limit to the behavior of a closed system. Sunshine introduces radiation to the Earths system. This means that over time the Earths temperature/pressure does not have to settle towards equilibrium.

[Goat]

It certainly does not 'violate' it . If anything, it demosntrates that living creatures do not violate the 2LOT.

I would respectfully ask that those that respond to my posts actually read them. ------>"So we can see that living things do not in fact violate the 2nd law, nor are they excepted from or irrelevant to the 2nd law, but they actually have built-in programs (information) and energy conversion mechanisms that allow them to build up and maintain their physical structures in spite of the 2nd laws effects (which ultimately do prevail, as each organism eventually deteriorates and dies)." Five Major Evolutionist Misconceptions
about Evolution

Why are you wasting our time with arguments we've just refuted?

The 2nd law only applies to closed systems. So long as an organism is not thermodynamically isolated, it remains an open system. If it is isolated, it dies. Very simple.

TC

Tell me then, why are organisms overcoming the effects of entropy (and living)?

Because of energy being provided by an outside source. It is known as 'the sun'. Maybe you have heard of it.

Here is something that is a 10,000 high level foot over view.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Hb ... /tree.html

[Fisherking]

This is precisely how metabolism works. In order to create the local decrease in entropy, there has to be an larger overall increase. We have to burn calories just to stay alive. For every bit of increased organization, we pay for it by digesting food, breaking it up and speeding up its increase of entropy.

Sunshine introduces radiation to the Earths system. This means that over time the Earths temperature/pressure does not have to settle towards equilibrium.

Now we are starting to get somewhere... though it's like pulling teeth.

It seems there is now an admission that entropy does indeed affect open systems, and that raw energy itself (sun) does nothing in and of itself to decrease entropy in any system--it increases it. Without a program (information) and mechanism to store and convert the raw energy, there would not even be a localized decrease in entropy. This is precisely what metabolism (DNA as the information) does in animals or photosynthesis in plants. These mechanisms along with the required program to run them allow life to temporarily overcome the effects of entropy (2nd law) and equilibrium. Non-life does not have what it takes (unless of course an intelligence built the non-life with the information and mechanism):

a program (information) to direct the growth in organized complexity
or mechanism for storing and converting the incoming energy.(T.W.)

The raw energy that makes life possible (meeting the above conditions) works to break down or do nothing to non-life that does not meet the above conditions.... the reason why life arising from non-life appears to be impossible.

No, entropy did not increase IN THE POT. You got energy from an outside source, and therefore IN THE POT, heat increased, not dissipated. The 'environment' I am specifiying is the pot, not the heating eleiment.

Outside energy was applied to the pot containing the water in the form of heat, causing an increase in entropy-for the pot and the water molecules in the pot...and anyone touching the pot.. and the room the pot was in...and the house the room was in....ect

Somehow, your comments lead me to believe that you misunderstand the 2LOT

[byofrcs]

This is precisely how metabolism works. In order to create the local decrease in entropy, there has to be an larger overall increase. We have to burn calories just to stay alive. For every bit of increased organization, we pay for it by digesting food, breaking it up and speeding up its increase of entropy.

Sunshine introduces radiation to the Earths system. This means that over time the Earths temperature/pressure does not have to settle towards equilibrium.

Now we are starting to get somewhere... though it's like pulling teeth.

It seems there is now an admission that entropy does indeed affect open systems, and that raw energy itself (sun) does nothing in and of itself to decrease entropy in any system--it increases it. Without a program (information) and mechanism to store and convert the raw energy, there would not even be a localized decrease in entropy. This is precisely what metabolism (DNA as the information) does in animals or photosynthesis in plants. These mechanisms along with the required program to run them allow life to temporarily overcome the effects of entropy (2nd law) and equilibrium. Non-life does not have what it takes (unless of course an intelligence built the non-life with the information and mechanism):

a program (information) to direct the growth in organized complexity
or mechanism for storing and converting the incoming energy.(T.W.)

The raw energy that makes life possible (meeting the above conditions) works to break down or do nothing to non-life that does not meet the above conditions.... the reason why life arising from non-life appears to be impossible.

As I had stated a few days ago, the ultimate program is very easy to understand and drives all chemistry - the humble valence electrons. Throw a bunch of atoms together and they only form in certain ways according to their bonding behaviour.

No matter what you claim about "entropy" in open or closed systems, elements like carbon combine with other elements to make organic chemicals.

So your claim that (the) "raw energy that makes life possible (meeting the above conditions) works to break down or do nothing to non-life that does not meet the above conditions.... the reason why life arising from non-life appears to be impossible. "

...is very clearly answered by the formation of organic chemicals such as amino acids and that these appear to be more organised than an arbitrary random mix of the same amount of elements.

This is an undeniable fact that was proven over 50 years ago. To deny this is to deny that the fact that the typical prebiotic experiments such as Miller-Urey and many others produce any organic compounds. It also denies that the likes of the Murchison meteorite has organic compounds in it.

Will you thus now admit that life arising from non-life appears to be possible as I have shown that chemical valence is a program that locally organises elements with a high degree of entropy ?

The compounds such as the bases for DNA/RNA are more organised than an arbitrary random mix of the same amount of elements. I will admit that the experiments to date haven't produced DNA/RNA and that the issue of chirality hasn't been addressed in these kind of experiments probably due to many missing and unknown characteristics of the prebiotic environment (e.g. polarised light to select L-handed molecules and borate to aid ribose.)

Obviously the Miller-Urey experiment could never create DNA as as far as I know didn't have essential metal cofactors in the mixture so you adding that is a strawman. Talking about DNA is doubly wrong as first you need RNA and in fact you need a ribozyme (we're getting smaller and smaller) and it is true that there are huge unknowns with where all this appears de novo.

But only 3 years ago the PAH world hypothesis was proposed and it looks compelling so lots of new stuff coming out of the pot.

No, entropy did not increase IN THE POT. You got energy from an outside source, and therefore IN THE POT, heat increased, not dissipated. The 'environment' I am specifiying is the pot, not the heating eleiment.

Outside energy was applied to the pot containing the water in the form of heat, causing an increase in entropy-for the pot and the water molecules in the pot...and anyone touching the pot.. and the room the pot was in...and the house the room was in....ect

Somehow, your comments lead me to believe that you misunderstand the 2LOT

The next step here is for you to admit that the spontaneous formation of organic chemicals is a program (information) that locally is more ordered (i.e. overcomes entropy) and that this is by your own definition, information, because it does what you say it does.

What I'll never understand is why some people risk their faith in God on some repeatable science experiment. This is like risking a love of art on not winning the lottery; it is an inevitable outcome so why gamble with that stake ?

[Thought Criminal]

It seems there is now an admission that entropy does indeed affect open systems, and that raw energy itself (sun) does nothing in and of itself to decrease entropy in any system--it increases it. Without a program (information) and mechanism to store and convert the raw energy, there would not even be a localized decrease in entropy. This is precisely what metabolism (DNA as the information) does in animals or photosynthesis in plants. These mechanisms along with the required program to run them allow life to temporarily overcome the effects of entropy (2nd law) and equilibrium. Non-life does not have what it takes (unless of course an intelligence built the non-life with the information and mechanism):

byofrcs responded to some of this, so I'll try to cover different ground.

Go back to the bathtub analogy. With the drain plugged up, entropy is pretty much constant so there's no way for a funnel to form. Once the drain is opened, there is an increase in entropy as the water drains away. A funnel forms naturally, taking advantage of this energy to speed up the overall increase of entropy further while decreasing it locally. In other words, it is essentially feeding on the increase of entropy, using it to keep itself going.

Now go back to the sun. It's like the water pouring down the drain, in that it increases entropy. Life takes advantage of this increase, creating a local decrease to support homeostasis at the price of further increasing entropy on the whole. We use the energy of the sun, directly and indirectly, to form our own bodies at the price of increasing entropy more than the sun would have on its own.

Note that, like the funnel, life is thermodynamically favored, so it forms all on its own. There's no need for some special program or whatever it is that you're talking about to come first. Metabolism isn't based on DNA; in fact, some theories of biogenesis have metabolism predating RNA/DNA, and they may well be correct. What DNA does is regulate the metabolism and channel its output towards building up cells.

A metabolism is just a chemical reaction that yields energy, and there are a number of ways to do that. Bacteria, in particular, are highly efficient metabolic engines with fairly simple DNA. Mitochondria and chloroplasts, which provide the metabolism for plants and animals are quite likely evolved from bacteria that became cellular symbiotes.

The key to understand here is that, through natural selection, a pre-biotic replicator evolves to replicate better, its offspring slowly gaining the characteristics of life. Eventually, what results is unambiguously alive. It's not an all-at-once thing, nor is there a specific moment that we can point at and say that life began.

TC

[Furrowed Brow]

It seems there is now an admission that entropy does indeed affect open systems, and that raw energy itself (sun) does nothing in and of itself to decrease entropy in any system--it increases it.

Fisherking stop.

Closed systems head towards equilibrium. Put another way they head towards maximum entropy. Sunshine means the Earth is an open system. It is an input that means the Earths system is not heading towards maximum entropy. Sunshine does not increase entropy. It is one input that ensures the 2nd law does not apply to the Earth and its biological systems. This is a non argument. Why O why do you pursue this line?

Without a program (information) and mechanism to store and convert the raw energy, there would not even be a localized decrease in entropy.

The 2nd law applies to close systems. Thats it. The earth is an open system. End of. What your point is really asking is how to we get from one state of affairs of unorganized Earth surface (rocks, water, gases) to biological diversity. This question has nothing to do with the 2nd law. As for the demand that there be a program and mechanism that took several billion years to emerge on planet Earth. That brings us back to the questions that surround abiogenists, but in answering those questions the 2nd law plays absolutely no part.

This is precisely what metabolism (DNA as the information) does in animals or photosynthesis in plants. These mechanisms along with the required program to run them allow life to temporarily overcome the effects of entropy (2nd law) and equilibrium.

No!!!!! You are doing it again. Get off the 2nd law. The Earth is an open system. It has no bearing on DNA. However, reworking your point, DNA purveys its only brand of organization because it self replicates, though it is not a perfect self replicator. This is a process that is well understood.

Non-life does not have what it takes (unless of course intelligence built the non-life with the information and mechanism):

Basically you are saying it is not possible for DNA to emerge from chemistry that does not already contain DNA. True there is a knowledge gap at present, but none of your arguments have any bearing on the subject and are utterly weightless.

PS. Had an additional thought. The emergence of life on earth required the presence of some "organized chemistry". If your argument was right then even that level of organization could not be possible on Earth.

[Beastt]

Now we are starting to get somewhere... though it's like pulling teeth.

It seems there is now an admission that entropy does indeed affect open systems, and that raw energy itself (sun) does nothing in and of itself to decrease entropy in any system--it increases it.

Perhaps it would help if you were to post the version of the second law you're utilizing. I've seen many, many different wordings. So far, all seem to address only closed systems. Here you seem to be suggesting that the second law of thermodynamics has something to say about open systems -- specifically, that an open system will not experience entropy. Yet I find no such insinuation or statement within any version of the second law. So what version is leading you to believe that the second law of thermodynamics, in any way, addresses open systems?

Without a program (information) and mechanism to store and convert the raw energy, there would not even be a localized decrease in entropy. This is precisely what metabolism (DNA as the information) does in animals or photosynthesis in plants. These mechanisms along with the required program to run them allow life to temporarily overcome the effects of entropy (2nd law) and equilibrium.

You're not, by some chance, suggesting an equivalency between entropy and the second law, are you?

Non-life does not have what it takes (unless of course an intelligence built the non-life with the information and mechanism):

That's simply not true. Are you completely unfamiliar with how thermal energy can react as a catalyst to chemical reactions? Do you not realize that the assembly of DNA is a chemical reaction? Energy input for any system can lead to an increase or decrease in entropy. But that has little to do with the second law. The second law of thermodynamics deals only with closed systems. It makes no comment on open systems. So the assertion that it can be applied to open systems is completely devoid of credibility.

I have to suggest that you've done all of this research without ever having confirmed what the second law does or does not say. And now you find it impossible to let go of the conclusions you've drawn, even when faced with the reality that the second law does not apply to the systems you're attempting to force it to address.