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.

[gf]

Even in a closed system it would not be a valid argument. I note this, because I've heard the variant that the Entire Universe is a closed system, and since evolution is within the universe, it's in a closed system, so it can't happen. All we need is an increase in entropy here, to balance a decrease in entropy there, and the total entropy of the system is still in equilibrium.

Well, the Universe is expanding, so i would like to ask you then, Is it really a closed system? This seems to be a an absolut from the community, and i am wondering why? Where do they get that from?

I think I'm with you on this one, YEC. Gf, you whizzed this one past me a bit too quickly. I can imagine a glimmer of understanding when I think of the value of random mutagenesis...if mutations were restricted to a small number of types of DNA changes, in only a few places in the genome, there would be less diversity for selection to sort through. In that sense, the entropic tendency of molecules to become damaged/oxidized/broken is advantageous. Still, I'd welcome more of your thoughts on this point.

Well, "damaged", how do you mean? (In what way would it be "broke" is my question here).



I always use some sort of analogy to this, as i consider us humans to be a wee bit stupid (we are) Seriously: If someone looks into a sandbox (eye an inch away), he would say "this is chaos". Now, then he moves back, and suddenly sees that its a Square, pretty maintained, Sandbox. "Oh, its not chaos, its the opposite, order".

Now i see us, both scientist and laymen doing the same to almost everything. This is "not in order", or "this is bedlam" and so forth. Just because we dont understand it, or cant comprehend it. Its only human perception. And our perception does not change reality..... Agree?

[otseng]

Actually, you get a problem here.... "Entropy would be at its maximum"... And what do you mean with maximum?

BTW, this is stated in the definition of heat death - "The heat death is a possible final state of the universe, in which it has reached maximum entropy."

In any work process (transfer of heat), entropy increases in the system. The universe, as the ultimate closed system, can only have its measure of entropy increase. This is from the definition of the 2LoT. The maximum entropy value will occur when no further work is possible in the universe. No further work would be possible when there will be no temperature differences throughout the entire universe. All of the entire universe would be close to (but not equal to) absolute zero. At such a state, entropy will be at its maximum value.

Entropy seeks to get equilibrium (this does not mean perfect balance, its notlike a scale of a balance), but what sort of equilibrium it is, is neither stated, nor known. So you can only, obviously, state, that its a different kind of Entropy. As we do not know where its going, or where it has been.

And I'm not sure what you mean here. Heat seeks to achieve equilibrium, not entropy. In a closed system, entropy can only increase. There is no such concept as "equilibrium" for entropy.

[gf]

The heat death is a possible final state of the universe, in which it has reached maximum entropy.

Which would equal equilibrium in that case......

Equilibrium in this case does not mean "Equality of distribution", but the final solution. Understand ?

In any work process (transfer of heat), entropy increases in the system. The universe, as the ultimate closed system, can only have its measure of entropy increase.

This is one of the problems, this is only a assumtion. As clearly, this is not the case in reality (which disenable the previous statement).

[otseng]

The heat death is a possible final state of the universe, in which it has reached maximum entropy.

Which would equal equilibrium in that case......

Equilibrium in this case does not mean "Equality of distribution", but the final solution. Understand ?

I'm afraid I do not understand your point.

In any work process (transfer of heat), entropy increases in the system. The universe, as the ultimate closed system, can only have its measure of entropy increase.

This is one of the problems, this is only a assumtion. As clearly, this is not the case in reality (which disenable the previous statement).

Assumption? This is the second law of thermo. As stated in the wikipedia - "The second law says that the amount of random movement, i.e. the entropy, can only increase in a closed system".

Well, the Universe is expanding, so i would like to ask you then, Is it really a closed system? This seems to be a an absolut from the community, and i am wondering why? Where do they get that from?

How would an expanding universe show that the universe is not closed?

[tbpckisa]

Well, the Universe is expanding, so i would like to ask you then, Is it really a closed system? This seems to be a an absolut from the community, and i am wondering why? Where do they get that from?

A closed system is a system where nothing can enter or leave, such as energy and matter. As far as we can tell, no energy or matter is entering or leaving our universe, therefore it is a closed system. So it doesn't depend on if the universe is expanding.
This obviously doesn't apply to earth because energy and matter are coming and leaving all the time. So the interpretation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics that states that entropy will increase in a closed system is pretty useless to apply to the earth as a whole. The 2nd law of thermodynamics is most accurate in the "heat can never pass spontaneously from a colder to a hotter body" definition.

If the earth was to just become a closed system and followed that law then life wouldn't even be able to survive. There would be no sunlight, so it would be very dark, so plants and everything that depends on plants would be screwed. No energy could leave so the surface temperature of the earth would eventually get very hot, from the core's heat. Anything we could do to continue our existence would just be increasing the heat on the earth, until it got to hot for us to survive even with our technology.

And our perception does not change reality..... Agree?

Yep. Reality is how it is, no matter how we look at it.


The 2nd law of thermodynamics does not rule out evolution any more than it would rule out life. Life exists, so you can be safe to assume that the 2nd law of thermodynamics does not hinder the theory of evolution.[/quote]

[gf]

Assumption? This is the second law of thermo. As stated in the wikipedia - "The second law says that the amount of random movement, i.e. the entropy, can only increase in a closed system".

That is very simplified, i dont think you really understand the concept of it. And yes, this assumtion makes it arguable if its common sense or not.

As far as we can tell, no energy or matter is entering or leaving our universe, therefore it is a closed system. So it doesn't depend on if the universe is expanding.

How can you tell?
We have not even left our own solar system, but yet we can say that the Universe is a closed system? If it expands, whatdoes it expand to? You seem to take far to much on faith here.

[otseng]

Assumption? This is the second law of thermo. As stated in the wikipedia - "The second law says that the amount of random movement, i.e. the entropy, can only increase in a closed system".

That is very simplified, i dont think you really understand the concept of it. And yes, this assumtion makes it arguable if its common sense or not.

Then I would ask for you to present a fuller explanation. Also, what exactly are you referring to when you say assumption? What is being assumed?

[tbpckisa]

As far as we can tell, no energy or matter is entering or leaving our universe, therefore it is a closed system. So it doesn't depend on if the universe is expanding.

How can you tell?
We have not even left our own solar system, but yet we can say that the Universe is a closed system? If it expands, whatdoes it expand to? You seem to take far to much on faith here.

This is based off the laws conservation of energy and matter. There has never been an observation of anything that has disobeyed these laws. So for the universe not to be a closed system a net amount matter and energy would have to be popping out of nowhere. Expansion does not cause a net change in matter and energy. I don't think you understand what a closed system is. It doesn't mean there is some bubble around it keeping everything in, it just means that energy and matter are conserved.

There is just as much faith in saying that there will be gravity on some other planet that we have not been to, as saying our universe is a closed system. All observations point to it, there have been no exceptions.

The definition of the universe is "All matter and energy, including the earth, the galaxies, and the contents of intergalactic space, regarded as a whole."

So in order for our "universe" to be consistent with its own definition, it would have to be a closed system -- the universe is all the matter and energy in existence, so how could any energy or matter be added or subtracted. If any energy or matter were to be added or subtracted from the universe, this would violate the 1st law of thermodynamics, and not the second one.

Why do you keep talking about assumptions? It is an assumption that gravity will exist tomorrow. However, we can very very sure of it because all of our observations have led us to believe that presently the laws of physics do not change.

One thing you need to know about science is that it is tentative, they never have 100% certainty in anything, just a lot of certainty in some areas.[/b]

[otseng]

ST88 brought this up and I thought it was an interesting statement.

At the moment before the Big Bang and even a very short while afterwards, there were no physical laws as we know them. In essence, there was no time, no space, no thermodynamics, nothing. As a logical exercise, we can say that if there were no laws, then there were no laws that could be violated.

However, if there were no laws, how could anything happen? And if there were a totally different set of laws operating before the Big Bang (or even afterwards), how did those laws change?

[Jose]

the entropic tendency of molecules to become damaged/oxidized/broken is advantageous.

Well, "damaged", how do you mean? (In what way would it be "broke" is my question here).

The most common cause of mutation is DNA damage, usually by oxidation or radiation. X-rays can break the chemical bonds that hold nucleotides together, physically breaking the DNA. Oxygen, in the form of radicals like superoxide, chemically reacts with the nucleotides, turning them into different chemicals. Both of these kinds of DNA damage can be repaired, but the repair mechanisms are sloppy. The result is that mutations occur. It is because these processes of DNA damage are random, and cannot seek out specific genes to modify, that we get random mutagenesis. The randomness is essential for evolution to occur the way that it does.

As for the 2nd law and the "closed system" business, the whole argument is irrelevant. Even in a closed system, we can expend energy here to move things to there. In doing so, we increase the local entropy where we expend energy, but we decrease the local entropy where we arrange things. This is what living systems do. It's how they live. For living things, the energy ultimately comes from the sun, and is captured by photosynthesis. This is what provides the food for everything, including us. Therefore, the 2nd law argument should be used to say that life is impossible, not that evolution is impossible--which, of course, would be silly, because we see that life exists.

Evolution has little to do with the 2nd law. It's simply a necessary consequence of organisms reproducing after their kind, but with the inherent sloppiness of DNA replication, DNA damage, and DNA repair, so that mutations happen. If you have mutations, and reproduction, you will get evolution. It cannot be prevented.

...sorry...you were on a roll with the big bang...