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 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.

Closed systems head towards equilibrium. Put another way they head towards maximum entropy.

Yes -- and I'm saying the only reason open systems do not head towards equilibrium and maximum entropy as the universe is doing is because

" contrary to the simplistic claim often parroted by evolutionists... any increase in organized complexity (i.e., decrease in entropy) invariably requires two additional factors besides an open system and an available energy supply. These are:

a “program� (information) to direct the growth in organized complexity
a mechanism for storing and converting the incoming energy"T. Wallace

Sunshine means the Earth is an open system. It is an “input� that means the Earth’s 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.

Like I said earlier, it should be easy to show how sunshine is not increasing entropy. Maybe an example would help me understand.

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. That’s it.

No it isn't, it's just a handwave evolutionist use to dismiss something that works against their view of the world.

“...there are no known violations of the second law of thermodynamics. Ordinarily the second law is stated for isolated systems, but the second law applies equally well to open systems ... there is somehow associated with the field of far-from equilibrium phenomena the notion that the second law of thermodynamics fails for such systems. It is important to make sure that this error does not perpetuate itself.� [Dr. John Ross, Harvard scientist (evolutionist), Chemical and Engineering News, vol. 58, July 7, 1980, p. 40]

I can build a house (increased organized complexity) in the same open system and leave. When I come back in 20 years I bet my house has tended towards disorder. Any raw energy (sunlight, wind, lightning, ect) the house was exposed to while I was gone did nothing to increase the organization of the house -- it didn't even maintain the organization that was already there. What principle, if not entropy, would one use to explain this extremely common phenomena (with almost everything, including the house) we observe happening all of the time? Asimov seemed to understand what I am saying:

“Another way of stating the second law then is: ‘The universe is constantly getting more disorderly!’ Viewed that way, we can see the second law all about us. We have to work hard to straighten a room, but left to itself it becomes a mess again very quickly and very easily. Even if we never enter it, it becomes dusty and musty. How difficult to maintain houses, and machinery, and our bodies in perfect working order: how easy to let them deteriorate. In fact, all we have to do is nothing, and everything deteriorates, collapses, breaks down, wears out, all by itself—and that is what the second law is all about.�
[Isaac Asimov, Smithsonian Institute Journal, June 1970, p. 6]

The vital point to be grasped here is that the presence of a system (whether organizational or mechanical) hardly guarantees continuous enhancement, but more realistically is subject to continual degradation, if it is not kept to the pre-determined standard defined in its original design. Evolutionistic thinking often ignores this principle, despite the fact that it is a profoundly and empirically established scientific fact.T. Wallace

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...
That brings us back to the questions that surround abiogenists, but in answering those questions the 2nd law plays absolutely no part.

If thermodynamics had anything to do with getting from one state of affairs to another or questions surrounding abiogenesis, I guarantee the 2nd law has something to do with it. Unless you are saying this has all taken place in a vacuum at absolute zero or something

As for the demand that there be a “program and mechanism�

It's not really a demand -- just a simple obervation.

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.

Yes!!! You are hand waving again. The second law also affects DNA!

Peter Molton has defined life as "regions of order which use energy to maintain their organization against the disruptive force of entropy."1
In Chapter 7 it has been shown that energy and/or mass flow through a system can constrain it far from equilibrium, resulting in an increase in order. Thus, it is thermodynamically possible to develop complex living forms, assuming the energy flow through the system can somehow be effective in organizing the simple chemicals into the complex arrangements associated with life.

In existing living systems, the coupling of the energy flow to the organizing "work" occurs through the metabolic motor of DNA, enzymes, etc. This is analogous to an automobile converting the chemical energy in gasoline into mechanical torque on the wheels. We can give a thermodynamic account of how life's metabolic motor works. The origin of the metabolic motor (DNA, enzymes, etc.) itself, however, is more difficult to explain thermodynamically, since a mechanism of coupling the energy flow to the organizing work is unknown for prebiological systems. Nicolis and Prigogine summarize the problem in this way:
Needless to say, these simple remarks cannot suffice to solve the problem of biological order. One would like not only to establish that the second law (dSi 0) is compatible with a decrease in overall entropy (dS < 0), but also to indicate the mechanisms responsible for the emergence and maintenance of coherent states.2
Without a doubt, the atoms and molecules which comprise living cells individually obey the laws of chemistry and physics, including the laws of thermodynamics. The enigma is the origin of so unlikely an organization of these atoms and molecules. The electronic computer provides a striking analogy to the living cell. Each component in a computer obeys the laws of electronics and mechanics. The key to the computer's marvel lies, however, in the highly unlikely organization of the parts which harness the laws of electronics and mechanics. In the computer, this organization was specially arranged by the designers and builders and continues to operate (with occasional frustrating lapses) through the periodic maintenance of service engineers.

Living systems have even greater organization.http://www.ldolphin.org/mystery/chapt8.html

Basically you are saying it is not possible for DNA to emerge from chemistry that does not already contain DNA.

Yes!! Thermodynamically, it appears impossible.

[read previous chapter if interested in the actual figures] we saw that the work necessary to polymerize DNA and protein molecules from simple biomonomers could potentially be accomplished by energy flow through the system. Still, we know that such energy flow is a necessary but not sufficient condition for polymerization of the macromolecules of life. Arranging a pile of bricks into the configuration of a house requires work. One would hardly expect to accomplish this work with dynamite, however. Not only must energy flow through the system, it must be coupled in some specific way to the work to be done. This being so, we devoted Chapter 8 to identifying various components of work in typical polymerization reactions. In reviewing those individual work components, one thing became clear. The coupling of energy flow to the specific work requirements in the formation of DNA and protein is particularly important since the required configurational entropy work of coding is substantial

A mere appeal to open system thermodynamics does little good. What must be done is to advance a workable theoretical model of how the available energy can be coupled to do the required work. The Mystery of Life's Origin:
Reassessing Current Theories

Thaxton, Bradley, and Olsen quite thoroughly show why an appeal to open system thermodynamics does little good for the evolutionist's case.

There is an impressive contrast between the considerable success in synthesizing amino acids and the consistent failure to synthesize protein and DNA. We believe the reason is the large difference in the magnitude of the configurational entropy work required. Amino acids are quite simple compared to protein, and one might reasonably expect to get some yield of amino acids, even where the chemical reactions that occur do so in a rather random fashion. The same approach will obviously be far less successful in reproducing complex protein and DNA molecules where the configurational entropy work term is a nontrivial portion of the whole. Coupling the energy flow through the system to do the chemical and thermal entropy work is much easier than doing the configurational entropy work. The uniform failure in literally thousands of experimental attempts to synthesize protein or DNA under even questionable prebiotic conditions is a monument to the difficulty in achieving a high degree of information content, or specified complexity from the undirected flow of energy through a system.

We must not forget that the total work to create a living system goes far beyond the work to create DNA and protein discussed in this chapter. As we stated before, a minimum of 20-40 proteins as well as DNA and RNA are required to make even a simple replicating system. The lack of known energy-coupling means to do the configurational entropy work required to make DNA and protein is many times more crucial in making a living system. As a result, appeals to chance for this most difficult problem still appear in the literature in spite of the fact that calculations give staggeringly low probabilities, even on the scale of 5 billion years....
... we have analyzed the problems of complexity and the origin of life from a thermodynamic point of view. Our reason for doing this is the common notion in the scientific literature today on the origin of life that an open system with energy and mass flow is a priori a sufficient explanation for the complexity of life. We have examined the validity of such an open and constrained system. We found it to be a reasonable explanation for doing the chemical and thermal entropy work, but clearly inadequate to account for the configurational entropy work of coding (not to mention the sorting and selecting work). We have noted the need for some sort of coupling mechanism. Without it, there is no way to convert the negative entropy associated with energy flow into negative entropy associated with configurational entropy and the corresponding information.The Mystery of Life's Origin:
Reassessing Current Theories

Is it reasonable to believe such a "hidden" coupling mechanism will be found in the future that can play this crucial role of a template, metabolic motor, etc., directing the flow of energy in such a way as to create new information?

Nope! There will be those who will continue to believe (faithfully) that someone will find it, contrary to all of the evidence against it

True there is a knowledge gap at present, but none of your arguments have any bearing on the subject and are utterly weightless.

Hah, you wish!

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.

I'm not sure I am making the same connection -- could you explain?

[byofrcs]

......

Fisherking, you are avoiding my question which is,

"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. "

Please answer if you agree that the spontaneous formation of organic chemicals is a program or else concede the point which means you have lost this argument.

[Thought Criminal]

......

Fisherking, you are avoiding my question which is,

"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. "

Please answer if you agree that the spontaneous formation of organic chemicals is a program or else concede the point which means you have lost this argument.

He ignores anything which doesn't help his view. That's why I've given up on him as a dishonest debater.

TC

[Furrowed Brow]

Yes -- and I'm saying the only reason open systems do not head towards equilibrium and maximum entropy as the universe is doing is because

" contrary to the simplistic claim often parroted by evolutionists... any increase in organized complexity (i.e., decrease in entropy) invariably requires two additional factors besides an open system and an available energy supply. These are:

a “program� (information) to direct the growth in organized complexity
a mechanism for storing and converting the incoming energy"T. Wallace

This claim and use of the quote from Wallace displays a fundamental misunderstanding of the second law. The law says closed systems head towards maximum entropy. That is the principle. You have admitted the Earth is an open system. The quote from Wallace and the point you are circling is how does organization arise? And to repeat the point again: the second law places no limitation upon organization arising. There is no physical principle that says this cannot happen, and the second law can not be invoked here. We can then debate Wallace’s point regarding the presence of a “program� and “mechanism� but that is a separate point because the Earth is not presently heading toward maximum entropy….whilst the sun shines.

The simplest way to put this: There is continual energy available from the sun. Thus biological organisation is not impossible. If there is biological organisation this does not disobey the 2nd law.

Like I said earlier, it should be easy to show how sunshine is not increasing entropy. Maybe an example would help me understand.

To repeat: sunshine guarantees the second law does not apply here.

The 2nd law applies to close systems. That’s it.

No it isn't, it's just a hand wave evolutionist use to dismiss something that works against their view of the world.

“...there are no known violations of the second law of thermodynamics. Ordinarily the second law is stated for isolated systems, but the second law applies equally well to open systems ... there is somehow associated with the field of far-from equilibrium phenomena the notion that the second law of thermodynamics fails for such systems. It is important to make sure that this error does not perpetuate itself.� [Dr. John Ross, Harvard scientist (evolutionist), Chemical and Engineering News, vol. 58, July 7, 1980, p. 40]

Okay Fisherking I’ve just spent 90 minutes Googling that quote. I can’t find the original but it appears to a single 28 year old edited quote taken from a letter to the editor. The Chemical and Engineering News online archive only goes back to 1998 The twenty references to Ross’s remark I did find were all (that’s every single one) on creationist websites, and they all repeat the exact same quote with the same editing. (This is a meme if ever there was one). Given creationist track record for quote mining I’m going to ask to see the whole letter without editing because there is something wrong here.

I’m not sure what Ross’ point really was but one thing is certain the 2nd law i.e. a system heads towards increasing entropy, is a law that only applies to a closed system, and the law does not apply to an open system. However, entropy and heat flow do apply to open systems, and there can be some argument over what counts as an open system. This is all I can think Ross was getting at. As I say get the full text and we can look at Ross again.

I can build a house (increased organized complexity) in the same open system and leave. When I come back in 20 years I bet my house has tended towards disorder.

I believe you are confusing entropy as a measurement of disorder with the 2nd law which dictates what direction entropy takes in a closed system. These are two related but different concepts.

Any raw energy (sunlight, wind, lightning, ect.) the house was exposed to while I was gone did nothing to increase the organization of the house -- it didn't even maintain the organization that was already there. What principle, if not entropy, would one use to explain these extremely common phenomena (with almost everything, including the house) we observe happening all of the time?

Raw energy? That be energy. I’m happy to call your crumbling house an example of entropy. But it ain’t the second law. The second law says where entropy must head…..only in a closed system.

If thermodynamics had anything to do with getting from one state of affairs to another or questions surrounding abiogenesis, I guarantee the 2nd law has something to do with it. Unless you are saying this has all taken place in a vacuum at absolute zero or something

No just an open system likes the Earth surface exposed to radiation from the sun. Radiation that means there is energy continually available to do some useful work. There is no energy available at absolute zero; absolute zero being maximal entropy for any system.

I can build a house (increased organized complexity) in the same open system and leave. When I come back in 20 years I bet my house has tended towards disorder. Any raw energy (sunlight, wind, lightning, ect.) the house was exposed to while I was gone did nothing to increase the organization of the house -- it didn't even maintain the organization that was already there. What principle, if not entropy, would one use to explain these extremely common phenomena (with almost everything, including the house) we observe happening all of the time?

You can describe your house in terms or increasing disorder so long as there is no energy added. If the 2nd law applied to the weather there would be ever deceasing wind to blow your house down. There would be ever less rain to fall on your tiled roof. The sunshine might bake your bricks and make them crack, but then if the sun keeps shining that makes more energy available for alternative organisation. So long as no energy gets inside your house then there will be increasing entropy inside. However the mold on the walls is not disorder, the fungi in the sink is not disorder, those cobwebs are not disorder, any bactera and infestations are not disorder. These are just different forms of organisation slowly replacing what was there before.

You quote Asimov

Another way of stating the second law then is: ‘The universe is constantly getting more disorderly!’ Viewed that way, we can see the second law all about us. We have to work hard to straighten a room, but left to itself it becomes a mess again very quickly and very easily. Even if we never enter it, it becomes dusty and musty. How difficult to maintain houses, and machinery, and our bodies in perfect working order: how easy to let them deteriorate. In fact, all we have to do is nothing, and everything deteriorates, collapses, breaks down, wears out, all by itself—and that is what the second law is all about.�
[Isaac Asimov, Smithsonian Institute Journal, June 1970, p. 6]

Please read the quote closely. To be true the universe is constantly getting more disorderly. This does not prevent local areas such as the surface of planets being warmed by their local star. The inside of a room, a metal machine etc are closed systems unless of course they receive an energy input from outside. Any such input guarantees an increase in useful energy. It does not guarantee there are processes in place ready to make use of that energy. However, it does mean the 2nd law – (i.e. closed systems head towards maximum entropy) does not apply. So as Asimov points out - if we do nothing i.e. there is not any energy available to do anything, then stuff degrades and heads towards maximum entropy. If we do something and use up some useful energy then entropy increases, and there is less useful energy, unless of course there is another source of energy.

You quote Wallace and this needs to be challenged.

The vital point to be grasped here is that the presence of a system (whether organizational or mechanical) hardly guarantees continuous enhancement, but more realistically is subject to continual degradation,

Yes, without an external source energy degradation is certain. However, I think you need to factor into to your understanding of the 2nd law the notion of entropy as a measure of not just disorder, but also as a measure of the available useful energy. Increasing entropy means decreasing useful energy. The principle means that to get anything done requires increasing the entropy of a system, which means a decrease in the amount of useful energy.

if it is not kept to the pre-determined standard defined in its original design.

Oaky I had to tackle this point. Biological forms are not “original designs� or in any sense “pre-determined�.

Evolutionistic thinking often ignores this principle, despite the fact that it is a profoundly and empirically established scientific fact

What biological/physical principle is Wallace invoking and “evolutionists� ignoring? That stuff degrades unless some useful energy can be found to stop it degrading. Where do you think the Earth’s biosphere is getting the majority of its energy from? That there must be a mechanism that can process available energy to form DNA is really just another way of asking how DNA?

I detect a drift in the argument. We seem to be moving from a position of the 2nd law makes life/DNA not possible, to a mechanism for utilising energy flow is required.

Yes!!! You are hand waving again. The second law also affects DNA!

I think you really need to learn how to close read the people you quote Fishy.

Without a doubt, the atoms and molecules which comprise living cells individually obey the laws of chemistry and physics, including the laws of thermodynamics.

Without a doubt. No arguments from me there. And the atoms and molecules we are talking about exist on or just beneath the earth’s surface where they receive warmth from the sun, which provides useful energy that allows for organization of those atoms into more complex organizations. There is not a known physical principle that guarantees this process, but there is no physical principle that can be invoked that says it cannot happen. The apperance of DNA is not constrained by the 2nd law; if the DNA appears on the surface of a planet warmed by another energy source.

Nope! There will be those who will continue to believe (faithfully) that someone will find it, contrary to all of the evidence against it

I don’t think at any point we have denied there is a knowledge gap and that we do not yet know how DNA arose. However this whole argument and the creationist invocation of the 2nd law have always been about whether the 2nd law makes DNA/life not possible. Which it palpably does not, and thus is a non argument As for the details of Paxtons, Bradley’s and Olsen’s argument: those arguing for evolutionary theory only invoke open system faced by claims from creationists that the the arrival of DNA disobeys the 2nd law.

[micatala]

I can build a house (increased organized complexity) in the same open system and leave. When I come back in 20 years I bet my house has tended towards disorder. Any raw energy (sunlight, wind, lightning, ect.) the house was exposed to while I was gone did nothing to increase the organization of the house -- it didn't even maintain the organization that was already there. What principle, if not entropy, would one use to explain these extremely common phenomena (with almost everything, including the house) we observe happening all of the time?

The second law can be stated as an implication as follows:

If a system is closed, then it will tend towards maximum entropy.

From what I can see, Fisherking is confusing this statement with a number of other statements. These could be stated:

1) If there is an increase in entropy, this must be the result of the second law.

2) If there is an increase in entropy in an open system, this means the second laws applies to open systems or at least open systems which experience an increase in entropy.

3) Energy cannot produce a decrease in entropy without some kind of organizing principles or program in place.

4) Energy sometimes produces or contributes to a decrease in entropy, and sometimes an increase in entropy.

None of these statements equates to the second law of thermodynamics. Statements 1 and 2 are false, based on the standard understanding of the second law. As far as I can see, 3 is an open question and depends somewhat on what we mean by a 'program.' 4 is true, but again, is irrelevant to the claims Fisherking is making regarding the second law.


I would also agree with FUrrowed Brow that Fisherking needs to provide the context for the Ross quote. Fisherking needs to substantiate that Ross' position really is as Fisherking is presenting it.

[Beastt]

It's probably not too early to assume that he has run out of points from which to argue. The sad part is that wherever he is, he's probably still convinced that he's correct and we're all wrong. It's such a rare occurrence to see one simply admit they were wrong and to walk away better informed than when they arrived.

Perhaps at least we will have served to demonstrate that while our points of argument were fully substantiated, his were exhausted. For many, that is the beginning of acceptance, though full embracement of new ideas sometimes takes decades.

[H.sapiens]

[Replying to post 1 by gf]

Here is, I believe, the end of the 2nd Law discussion: Statistical Physics of Self-Replication