quote:On page 21 there is an article by George R. Hill III, an emeritus member of the Quorum of Seventy. Members of the quorum of seventy are all general authorities. The quorum of seventy has equal authority with the quorum of the twelve apostles, and with the first presidency. The article by Mr. Hill illustrates the Mormon position on evolution better, I think, than most. According to Hill, evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics (untrue, by the way, and probably a lie since Hill, having a Ph.D. in chemistry, almost certainly knows better). He does not say whether or not evolution actually occurs, but says if it happens it must be directed by god.
My question is does anyone know how the law of thermodynamics does not violate evolutionary principals? My science needs touch up.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that in a closed system, entropy always remains the same or increases; it never decreases. The earth is not a closed system, so you can't apply the Second Law to it like that.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Saying evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics is akin to saying swimming violates gravity, or basic floating principles.
It's comparing apples to oranges.
-Bok
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
The law is that all process result in an increase of entropy (randmoness) in the universe. Meaning when you do anything be it run groceries, stand-up, or just take a breath, entropy in the universe increases as a result.
This law is meant on a physic's/chemistrey scale, as in after two substances react, even if they form another substance with less entropy (like CL and Na form salt) the overall universe's entropy will have increased due to the energy they released, but the law does apply to anything in the universe, it's just most things are incredibly difficult to measure.
[EDIT: Or I could just post really slowly... sigh]
Hobbes
[ May 11, 2004, 01:43 PM: Message edited by: Hobbes ]
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
Not at all! Because we have massive amounts of energy coming in all the time... The Sun!
Evolution can continue up to the energy of the Sun.
Posted by Alexa (Member # 6285) on :
So by a "closed system" we are talking about energy transfer? A bedroom no one goes into will have the law of entropy apply because there is no new energy introduced into the environment, but the earth has a continual energy source that sets it outside of the 2nd law? I think I am getting it.
[ May 11, 2004, 01:46 PM: Message edited by: Alexa ]
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
In fact I've always thought that the ability to create new starts is the key to turning the tide against universal entropy and insuring our Long Long Term survival.
We just have to survive long enough to get the ability to do it! I'm sure in 10,000 years or so we could do it.
ps- Great question Alexa!
[ May 11, 2004, 01:48 PM: Message edited by: Telperion the Silver ]
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
That's not quite true either, Telp. Technically evolution isn't a violation of the law in princible. As I said, a reaction can result in part of the unvierse becoming more ordered than it was, it's just that as a result the rest of the universe will have an increase in randomness greater than the decrease in that area. So the Earth can create a group of incredibly well ordered phenomena (which life is) only some other part of the universe will have an even greater increase in randomness than the structure that life is.
Kind of like a glass of water can spontaneously turn into ice without violating any laws, it could just happen, only it would release tremendous heat as it did so and the area around it would be become very random as a result.
Hobbes Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
I am in the process of reading this great book called "Quantum Evolution".
Basically it says that it is the natural trend of matter to become self-replicating and more complex. SO COOL!
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Twinky is spot on but to put it in less technical terms.
Things will run down (increase in entropy) if they don't have energy coming in from an outside source. If there is no energy entering or leaving your "system" then you have a closed system and no "outside source". However in this case our "system" is planet earth (or any other arbitrary planet for that matter).
We have energy bombarding the earth constantly in the form of Solar radiation. This is why plants grow, etc. our system on planet earth is not closed. If you want to defin the "system" as the entire universe, then yes eventually everything could become completely entropic and reach a temperature just above absolute zero. I have no idea how many gazillions of years it would take but it would be a very very long time to get there, far longer than the entire evolutionary history of life on earth. I also say could, because there are hypothesrs about the universe expanding and contracting back to apoint and causing itself to "big bang" over and over again and which would happen first, I don't know.
But the biggest point is, the earth is not a closed system, it has huge amounts of energy input to it from the sun. This alone means that evolution can happen on earth or any other planet that rotates around a star that gives off energy.
AJ
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
Telp, nothing can violate the second law of thermodynamics. Period. New stars forming don't violate it, any reaction in the universe will increase the entropy therein.
Alexa, the only closed system that actually exists is the universe. However, if you imagine your bedroom has having absolutley no contact with the outside world then it would count as a closed system. And evertime you hung your clothes up in the closet (thus increasing the order) the air around you would become more chaotic, and the longer you lived there the more chaotic it would be. At a certain time (very, very long time) in the future, the entire room would dissaciote and become completely random, most likely turn completely into energy.
Hobbes Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
Very interesting Hobbes...
Hawkings said once that memorizing a page of text or music or a poem or whatever was actually reversing universal entropy by a very small amount. Turn the tide against Chaos!
Who needs to worry about the Big Crunch when we might have the Big Fade to deal with!
But yes... I get the picture that even if we organize the Universe all around us, that will mean that it will get chaotic elswhere...
[ May 11, 2004, 01:56 PM: Message edited by: Telperion the Silver ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
In "A Brief History of Time" he says that memorizing something increase entropy.
Dagonee
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
increases ENTROPY? Are you sure?? *book is at home*
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I don't think the Quorum of the Seventy is on the same authority level as the Council of the Twelve and the 1st Presidency.
Hmm.
Posted by kaioshin00 (Member # 3740) on :
How is evolution related to thermodynamics in the first place?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I was under the impression that unless it's said in General Conference or else labeled outside of Conference as revelation, it's to be taken as opinion.
Added: I looked at the site, and they spelled it "priveledge." That, my friends, is why I have trouble spelling privilege. The weird spelling is a meme!
[ May 11, 2004, 02:04 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
Wait... now I have a question for you Hobbes.
I know the 2nd Law... energy cannot be created nor destroyed...
But in your example, how exactly would the air become more chaotic? If we did have a way to make stars how would that make chaos elsewhere?
Perhaps because the star would emit radiation and solar wind...throwing matter and energy back out into space... but couldn't that matter and energy just be recollected?
If all matter became ordered, for arguments sake, how would the universe deal with that? What would be left to balance the order with entropy?
[ May 11, 2004, 02:03 PM: Message edited by: Telperion the Silver ]
Posted by Snarky (Member # 4406) on :
quote:increases ENTROPY? Are you sure?? *book is at home*
Yes, Telp. You create more order in your brain, but you're burning calories to do so.
And Scott, I believe that the Quorum of the Seventy is on the same authority level as the Twelve and the First Presidency (though I'm not 100 percent sure). But either way, it's not at all relevant to Elder Hill's statement.
[ May 11, 2004, 02:04 PM: Message edited by: Snarky ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Telperion: Yes - it decreases entropy in your brain, but respiration, etc. increases the overall amount. I'm pretty sure I'm remembering it right.
My book is down at school, so I can't look for 3 months. It's toward the back of the book, though.
Please check, because until I can confirm this will drive me nuts.
Dagonee
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
But your brain is storing random energy into patterns...
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Evolution does not violate the 2nd law, but it does violate what a lot of people say about that law. A common interpetation of the 2nd law is "Things tend to degrate into chaos." This is part of what the 2nd law says, but not all of it.
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
I'll dig it out when I get back. This is such a great topic!
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:How is evolution related to thermodynamics in the first place?
Most people who state that entropy is violated by evolution aren't really making that argument. Their reasoning goes as follows:
1.) Evolution is based on random change. 2.) Random change always increases chaos. 3.) Therefore evolution cannot lead to more ordered life forms. 4.) Some of this sounds vaguely like entropy, so I'll call it that.
Now, the first 3 steps of the argument do need addressing; fortunately it's not difficult. There are two principle mechanisms behind evolution: random mutation and natural selection. In general, it is true that random changes will tend to increase disorder (think of how surprised you'd be if you poured out a bucket of sand and got a sand castle). So if evolution said, "Life forms experience random changes, and these random changes make life forms more 'advanced,'" then the objection would be valid.
But, evolution actually says that life forms undergo small changes, and those changes that help increase the chance of successful reproduction are preserved. Natural selection does two things: 1) Makes it more likely that beneficial mutations get passed on and 2) Locks in small changes so they can be built on.
The mathematics behind this are similar to stochastic processes, which are collections of states defined by the percentage chance of changing to each other possible state. If one state is such that there is a 0% chance of changing a state once that state is attained, the process will always settle to that state, no matter how small the underlying probabilities are that the system will move to that state.
If there are two or more such states, then there is a means to work out which state is more likely to be settled on.
Evolution is different in that there is no fixed number of states. But because there is bias in which states are preserved, the same type of effect.
Both of these rely on the aggregation of small chances over large samples.
Dagonee Edit: This is a much more long-winded way of saying what MPH said.
[ May 11, 2004, 02:14 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by kaioshin00 (Member # 3740) on :
When an organism "evolves" isn't it's body modified slightly from the rest of the species? And isn't this modification due to random combinations of DNA from the parents?
I may be completely wrong, but I don't see how evolution has anything to do with thermodynamics(Physics that deals with the relationships and conversions between heat and other forms of energy. )
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"I may be completely wrong, but I don't see how evolution has anything to do with thermodynamics."
It doesn't. People who use the Second Law to argue against evolution are displaying their scientific ignorance.
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
From computer games I can confidently tell you that an organism evolves every 1000 points or so.
And I've yet to see an organism or any biological system on any scale that somehow gets around using energy.
Posted by Alexa (Member # 6285) on :
Kaioshin00,
quote: How is evolution related to thermodynamics in the first place?
If you have done much lurking, you may have noticed that I take great interest in religious discussions--as I "feel" a fundamental testimony of the gospel (brought to you by Mormonism), but I "think" it is false.
I went to BYU for a short time, and in my molecular biology class they taught that evolution is a true principle in all regards except the man coming from apes part. As I was reading a self proclaimed objective yet anti-Mormon site, I came across a section on how the church deals with evolution. Some authority in the early church said it (evolution) was at odds with God's revealed word. The example that one such "lesser" authority figure used was that evolution was against the second law of thermodynamics.
The commentator on LDS-mormon.com expressed frustration that the Mormon authority taught evolution was against the 2nd law because the authority had a Phd In chemistry *or something* and should of known better.
I posted this to see how evolution did not defy the second law. The religious connection is evolution is an increase into higher order life forms and the 2nd law says things decay over time. According to "some" Mormon authority, evolution can not happen according to the 2nd law unless God is overseeing the process.
These posts have shown me quite clearly why that line of reasoning is false.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
It's not true to say evolution has nothing to do with thermodynamics. If someone could show that evolution violated the second law, it would be a pretty significant blow to the theory. The fact that life is bound by the second law places some definite limitations on it; evolution must reflect these limitations.
However, evolution follows the second law, for the reason everyone here already gave. So while it's not unrelated, it's also not a valid criticism.
Dagonee
Posted by Alexa (Member # 6285) on :
Incidently, the quote that started this thread was from page 21 of "Mormon Doctrine" by Bruce McConkie. I think Mormon Doctrine has some degree of authority on what we believe.
[ May 11, 2004, 02:34 PM: Message edited by: Alexa ]
Posted by kaioshin00 (Member # 3740) on :
quote: If you have done much lurking, you may have noticed that I take great interest in religious discussions--as I "feel" a fundamental testimony of the gospel (brought to you by Mormonism), but I "think" it is false.
Actually I havne't noticed, I'm kind of new here, even though I've been registered for a while.
quote: the 2nd law says things decay over time
I always thought the 2nd law said that processes occur spontaneously in the direction that increases the entropy of the universe.
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
Rock on Dagonee!
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Nah, it doesn't.
Mormon Doctrine is not, despite the name, official doctrine.
If it isn't in the scriptures, D&C, an official proclamation, or expressed in General Conference, it is the opinion of the person who said it.
[ May 11, 2004, 02:40 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Alexa, I know it's a concern. This is actually kind of a big point. Just like there is a huge difference between what is in the Doctrine and Covenants, what Joseph Smith said in sermons, and what other people have said Joseph Smith said, there's a difference between what is given to the church as a whole in General Conference and what is put in books when a general authority is the author.
It makes it a lot easier to plow through all the opinions out there. If it isn't actually given to the church as being from the Lord, then it's just someone else's opinion. A neat topic for discussion, but not the lynchpin of the church.
[ May 11, 2004, 03:12 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by kaioshin00 (Member # 3740) on :
Dagonee, what are you, a biologist or something?
Posted by Alexa (Member # 6285) on :
quote:I always thought the 2nd law said that processes occur spontaneously in the direction that increases the entropy of the universe.
You are right; that is why religious leaders using a misunderstanding of the 2nd law shows their ignorance.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
No, not at all. Edit: answering kaioshin00's question.
[ May 11, 2004, 02:46 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by kaioshin00 (Member # 3740) on :
quote: You are right; that is why religious leaders using a misunderstanding of the 2nd law shows their ignorance.
Religious leaders should stick with religion. And dagonee, what do you do?
Posted by Alexa (Member # 6285) on :
Telperion the Silver,
I was thinking about what you asked:
quote: If all matter became ordered, for arguments sake, how would the universe deal with that? What would be left to balance the order with entropy?’
And I started to think.....IF
quote:The law is that all process result in an increase of entropy (randomness) in the universe.
like Hobbs contends, then doesn't that mean the universe started perfectly (or near perfectly) ordered?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"doesn't that mean the universe started perfectly (or near perfectly) ordered?"
That's the theory, yeah. This is essential to the whole Big Bang thing, actually.
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
Mmmm... smooth universe
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Although I believe radio studies suggest that the universe, just moments after the Big Bang, was already kind of chunky. That's prompted someone to suggest -- and here I'm trying to recall a Discover magazine article -- that our universe exists in a multiverse of parallel realities and repeatedly bumps into other universes once its mass becomes sufficiently diffused, producing bursts of energy/mass at the "points" of dimensional contact.
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
What about space-time foam? The fact that particles are constantly popping in and out of our Universe! The implications are HUGE!
Posted by Alexa (Member # 6285) on :
I just never want to have to fight my alternate ego for all eternity in some parallel dimension. I still am having nightmares.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Entropy is not inviolate, actually. For instance, its perfectly possible for a cloud of two kinds of particles to momentarily separate into two mostly homogenous sections, it just doesn't happen very often (at all). Entropy is an aggreggate phenomenon; particular events may violate it, but in any sufficiently large aggreggate the law still applies.
Sort of like how conservation of energy only applies when viewed over a long enough period.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:And dagonee, what do you do?
I was a partner in a small IT firm specializing in web-based enterprise systems, mainly in the areas of cancer clinical trials and Navy Facilities. A little less than a year ago I left the firm. I just finished my first year of law school.
Dagonee
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
The beauty of science and astrophysics especially is that the more that we learn and the more theories are put forward, the less we are able to ascribe beliefs and actions away by means of broad, sweeping statements. It is ignorant of religious leaders to say that certain laws of science "prove" doctrinal points true or that other laws of science threaten them. It is equally ignorant for atheists to claim that scientific laws deny the existence of God or invalidate religious thought.
The more we learn, the more complex we realize our universe to be, and those who put God (or the laws of science) in what Sagan called a "little box" are denying the magnificent power of the very omniscient power they claim a belief in.
[ May 11, 2004, 04:58 PM: Message edited by: Annie ]
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
The space time foam is actually not quite as huge as it seems, at least on any short-term basis. The "foam" can only exist for less than a very tiny instant (the instant being the direct result of the implications of the Uncertainty Principle). To do otherwise would violate the conservation of energy. Right now, the only real world application it has is for the ability to detect black holes (yay Hawkings radiation!).
As for what would happen if something became (more) perfectly ordered, I would guess, as TomD and folks imply, it would affect the fabric space-time itself; which would sound very exotic and brilliant, except that's basically describing the affects of mass (essentially ordered energy) on space-time via gravity.
-- The reason I said this opinion in the quoted original post is all apples and oranges is because people are trying to apply a physics/chemistry proscriptive rule to a biological descriptive theory.
-Bok
Posted by celia60 (Member # 2039) on :
Um, agnostics or athiests?
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
Both - they're all damned to hell.
(edited)
[ May 11, 2004, 04:58 PM: Message edited by: Annie ]
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
*gigglesnarf*
Posted by UofUlawguy (Member # 5492) on :
It would be incorrect to assert that the LDS doctrine is somehow anti-evolution. Many LDS people in fact do believe/have believed in evolution to one degree or another, including at least several well-known General Authorities. (I'm thinking in particular of Elders Talmage and Widtsoe here.)
The only "official" statement on the subject that I can remember reading was a Declaration from the First Presidency in 1909, which was reprinted recently in the Feb. 2002 Ensign magazine. That Declaration, entitled The Origin of Man, merely restates the LDS position that Adam and Eve, the parents of all mankind, did not evolve from earlier mortal beings, but were specifically created by God in His image.
So, while it is probably accurate to say that LDS doctrine precludes the evolution of human beings, I believe there is nothing that rules out evolution in general.
[ May 11, 2004, 08:01 PM: Message edited by: UofUlawguy ]
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
For those interested, entropy is a property of the state of a system, and the change in entropy is the heat flow into the system divided by the temperature of that system. The second law can be stated Entropy remains constant or increases for all processes taking place in an isolated systems.
[ May 11, 2004, 10:45 PM: Message edited by: Paul Goldner ]
Posted by ak (Member # 90) on :
I'm LDS and I believe in evolution, as well as the evolution of human beings. I also believe that we are God's spirit children, and that the true story of our spiritual origins is told in the Eden story.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I think the existence of the space foam is also used to account for the release of photons in certain subatomic collisions (photons from the virtual cloud that are made real by the energy of the collision).
Posted by HollowEarth (Member # 2586) on :
quote: I always thought the 2nd law said that processes occur spontaneously in the direction that increases the entropy of the universe.
Entropically driven yes. But that can't be taken as a general rule.
Posted by fallow (Member # 6268) on :
cool questions. I have one. Do folks generally feel like they have a good handle on what science is?
fallow
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
That's the word that they put in front of fiction. Posted by fallow (Member # 6268) on :
yup they do. that meager, mangey, johnny-come-lately, type of fiction.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
"But in your example, how exactly would the air become more chaotic?"
Cuz in order to hang up clothes, ya hafta breathe to provide oxygen to power chemical reactions which provide the energy to (among many many many other things) breathe and hang up clothes. In order for a chemical reaction to occur the sum of the endproducts must have a higher entropy than the sum of the original reactants.
Overall, metabolic processes must also be exothermic, ie release energy and heat. In this case -- after many intermediate chemical reactions breaking carbon and hydrogen from sugars et al -- respiration is mostly in the form: oxygen + carbon -> carbon dioxide + energy _and_ oxygen + hydrogen -> water + energy. Metabolic processes are less than a third efficient at converting potential energy into work. So more than 2/3rds of the potential energy is converted into heat: ie randomized energy in the form of photons and/or speeding particles/molecules.
The heat also warms the body, which in turn cools off by exchanging heat with the air. So the now warmer air molecules have a higher energy, which is directly related to higher speeds. That means that the air molecules are bouncing off each other at higher speeds, which in turn means that the air molecules are more disorganized: ie have a higher entropy.
In other words, making the room appear neater by hanging up clothes means that the air (and other objects which also increase in temperature) is more than twice as messy. You just don't see the air, so ya don't see the messiness. However, since Hobbes started off with the premise that the room is a closed system -- ie it doesn't interact at all with an outside -- you will feel the room getting messier. The more you organize the visible objects in the room, the hotter the room becomes.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)