posted
So an ID person says that evolution is full of BS because of entropy how can evolution build things up if it is the natural law of he universe to go from a high state of order to a high state of disorder? and I see this explanation in alot of place however my thought is that cannot a tree grow from a seed to a full tree?
IP: Logged |
posted
In other words, Blayne, people who use that argument don't really understand what it means. It is NOT a valid argument for ID, or even an argument against evolution.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Would the second law of thermodynamics be an argument against the formation of planetary atmosphere?
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
The universe may tend toward a high state of disorder, but entropy can locally decrease. Living systems decrease their own entropy, but increase the entropy of their surroundings.
Posts: 3546 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: Laws applying to thermodynamics do not necessarily apply to biological systems.
...or they do, but not on a level that the typical human can observe without a bunch of sciency crap going on.
Posts: 1006 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
The law referred to is that the total entropy of a closed system always increases.
First, the earth is not a closed system, so the earth can decrease in entropy all it wants.
Second, while the universe is a closed system, local decreases in entropy (such as on the earth) are perfectly fine, its only the total entropy the law applies to.
Third, you can see examples of decreasing entropy all around you, such as children being born, crystals forming, buildings being created, et cetera. It is ridiculous to say that evolution decreasing entropy violates some law when lots of things obviously and abundantly decrease their own entropy (at the expense of something else's increased entropy).
Scott: laws of thermodynamics do apply to biological systems. All the ways we know of that organisms obtain energy use other matter as entropy-sinks, increasing their entropy greatly for a small local decrease within the organism. Its why we need so much food, for instance.
edit: silly people with shorter, quicker posts Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Fugu is completely right. The earth is not a closed system. The sun is supplying it with energy. If you take the sun out of the equation, then evolution would not be possible as there is no outside source of energy.
The sun, on the other hand, is slowly dying. No laws are being violated. This scenario does not apply to ID; it only applies to people who misunderstand science and use that misunderstanding to try and prove ID.
Posts: 2445 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: Laws applying to thermodynamics do not necessarily apply to biological systems.
Wrong! The laws of thermodynamics are THE LAWS. They apply to every system that has ever been studied including biological systems.
Those who conclude that the 2nd law of thermodynamics precludes evolution, do not understand either the 2nd law of thermodynamics or molecular biology.
The 2nd law of thermodyanics says that the entropy of the universe is always increasing. That means that if order is increased in a particular subsystem of the universe (i.e. entropy decreases within that system), then the disorder (entropy) of the rest of the universe must increase by at least that amount, typically more. In practical terms that means that for the entropy of some system to increase, that system must give off waste heat to its surroundings. For example, ice is a more ordered system that liquid water. Therefore, in order to make ice from liquid water the entropy of the waters surroundings have to go up. This is accomplished by a process in which heat is transferred from the water to the surroundings irreversibly.
Living systems all give off waste heat to their surroundings so the entropy in a living system can and does decrease without violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I once saw a creationist argue that 2nd Thermo makes evolution impossible because 'there would have to be an energy source outside the Earth'. I kid you not! A few posts later he was trying to argue that the Sun "doesn't count". In fact, some creationist sites do try to make this argument, on the grounds that the Sun only provides "raw energy", while evolution increases the amount of 'information' available in the system. (I put it in scare quotes because these people never seem to want to define what information actually is, making it kind of hard to measure.) I suppose it's slightly more sophisticated than the usual assumption that the Earth is a closed system, even if it is still dead wrong.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: I once saw a creationist argue that 2nd Thermo makes evolution impossible because 'there would have to be an energy source outside the Earth'. I kid you not! A few posts later he was trying to argue that the Sun "doesn't count". In fact, some creationist sites do try to make this argument, on the grounds that the Sun only provides "raw energy", while evolution increases the amount of 'information' available in the system. (I put it in scare quotes because these people never seem to want to define what information actually is, making it kind of hard to measure.) I suppose it's slightly more sophisticated than the usual assumption that the Earth is a closed system, even if it is still dead wrong.
Thats a strange arguement to make. By definition are they not also saying the God could not create anything even ORGANIZE anything because of those 2 laws? Where does God get his energy from?
By that logic God could only "create" worlds by downgrading already existing ones. WHAT?!
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:while evolution increases the amount of 'information' available in the system
Errr...what about gene duplication? For those who don't know what that is, bits of the chromosome can get copied and added back in so that one gene (or a string of several) is on the chromosome twice. Since the organism doesn't need both copies to remain intact, the extra copy can mutate into something new. Now we have two genes where there was only one.
This is decreasing information how, exactly?
Posts: 3546 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, I increased the amount of information in bacteria genomes in high school biology using only things occurring naturally (and known to perform the same functions, just slower and not over as many cells as we did in order to be able to see the result).
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's true...I also did some genetic tinkering in high school. We gave some bacteria plasmids with a luciferase gene so they'd glow. Pretty cool for a high school lab.
Posts: 3546 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, yeah, Shig, I know. So does anyone who has thought about the subject for more than two minutes. Funnily enough, creationists rarely respond when you ask them this question. I've lost count of the number of times I've posted something like
quote:Before we discuss information further, please tell me which of these strings has more information in it :
AAAGCTAAGTTCTAC AAAGCTAAGTTCTACGGG
and how you measured it.
I've even done so on these boards. It tends to disconcert them.
quote:Thats a strange argument to make. By definition are they not also saying the God could not create anything even ORGANIZE anything because of those 2 laws? Where does God get his energy from?
Come now. I've seen it put even by otherwise rational people on Hatrack that "The Universe needs a first cause, but God doesn't, because he is the first cause." Compared to mental gymnastics like this, saying that a god provides organisation out of its own infinite supply is hardly very difficult.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
KOM: I am merely saying its stupid to rigidly subscribe to the "Laws of thermodynamics" in regards to evolution but not apply them to God if you are arguing for ID.
I still have trouble imagining that God existed before the universe. Where did he exist before the universe existed?
I suppose I shouldnt be asking YOU to explain the nature of God
Understand that at least for Mormons, we do not believe that God IS the first cause. Just as he formed us, somebody formed him.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Help! I can't open the door of my house. Every time I try to put the key in the lock, entropy breaks it down into molecules and scatters them evenly across the universe!
posted
I just want to point out one thing that so far you've all gotten wrong.
The 2nd law of thermodynamics states that in a closed system for long enough time periods, the TIME AVERAGE of the total entroypy is increasing.
Thus, on short time scales, the "law" of increasing entropy doesn't have to hold at all.
("short" and "long" are defined in probabilistic terms dependent on the system in question)
So, for instance, if you have a perfectly insulated room with a definite amount of gas in it, it's entirely possible for all the gas to collect in a tiny bit of volume in your room, even though this state has a lower entropy than having gas take up the whole room. The law of entropy says that if you wait long enough, eventually you can expect the air to take up the whole space (maximize entropy).
To put in my 2bits about the relationship with physics and God, with the assumption that God created the universe (i.e, spacetime, particles, physical laws, etc), it seems self evident that God exists independent from the Universe. Thus, one cannot expect God to be constrained by the same limitations our own universe imposes on us (for instance, the law of entropy, before vs after, the notion of cause and effect, or even, according to some, logic).
That said, any arguing about what God does with the laws of physics/universe is entirely worthless, as we're stuck with observing/experimenting in our own universe with out own logic.
Posts: 168 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Shigosei: The universe may tend toward a high state of disorder, but entropy can locally decrease. Living systems decrease their own entropy, but increase the entropy of their surroundings.
Like if you pour mercury on a flat surface- the mercury spreads out but it all beads up. Juame Miro built a mercury fountain I saw once in Barcelona... fascinating!
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
thing is, ID'ists will try to argue against evolution with science, diamonds to cut diamonds ild think.
IP: Logged |
posted
So far I've only seen ID advocates argue against evolution with pseudo-science. Additionally, even some hypothetical argument that undermines evolutionary theory doesn't necessarily add anything to the case for ID.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Like others have said, the law is only true for closed systems. When you try to make living organisms into closed systems, it usually results in death.
Posts: 2437 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I actually wrote a 24 page Philosophy paper on how natural laws, including the 2nd law of thermodynamics, proved the existence of God.
I got an A, but I knew (as did my professor) that the argument was no more compelling than the Ontological Argument, Teleogical Argument, or any others. Much less so, in fact. They're fun to think about, but largely meaningless in the real world.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
