|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Thermodynamics | |||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1498 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
The law that the universe is moving from order to disorder Could you substantiate that this is indeed the second law of thermodynamics? The second law I'm familiar with says that, in a closed system, the avaliable energy to do work decreases over time. It says nothing of order and disorder.
How does the theory of evolution get around the 2nd law of thermodynamics? Evolution has no need to "get around it", in fact, evolution - or any life process - could not occur if the second law was not in effect: 1) Life chemistry is entropic. The chemistry of living things uses energy to do work, leaving less energy avaliable for work when its done. That's the second law. 2) Evolution requires imperfect replication of genetic material. An overall trend from order to disorder ensures this will be the case.
In order for biological evolution to work simple species are supposed to "evolve" and build upward, becoming more complex. Well, wait, now. Complexity and order are not the same thing. The second law says nothing about complexity. In fact, complexity and order are almost the opposite thing. Ordered systems are very, very simple. Complex systems are very disordered. A fully-constructed house may be complex, but its in a significantly less ordered state than organized piles of lumber on your lawn.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1498 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Why do complex systems have to be disordered? Because that's what order means. A dictionary is very ordered, but meaningless if read cover to cover. It's too simple. On the other hand, the words in Hamlet are disordered - nonalphabetical - and yet, it's one of the most complex works in the English language. I'm using very simple examples, but "order" and "complexity" are two very, very different things, and are often mutually exclusive.
Look at humans, we are incredibly complex beings but with order to match. I don't see the order. Humans are composed of, roughly:
quote: Now, an ordered state would be all those elements in separate jars, in a row. That's order. "Complexity" is how they're arranged in the human body, but they're pretty evenly distributed throughout your body, and so are disordered. Don't conflate "order" and "complexity." The second law says nothing about complexity.
And the complexity of our eyes alone (i bet you get this one a lot ) i beleive defy evolution. Yet, the existence of an entire continumm of eyes in the natural world, from simple to more complex, is evidence that evolution is accurate.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1498 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
I still think a house is ordered, but in the sense that all the pieces are now mixed with other pieces instead of neat little piles... That state is called "disordered." When things are all mixed up? Disorder.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1498 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
I thought JonF's post made it clear that isn't what the 2nd law is about. Sure, but it's reasonable to suggest that a general trend towards disordered configurations exists in the universe. If objects are arranging themselves randomly, we would expect them to be more likely to arrange themselves into disordered, mixed-up configurations, not orderly ones, where different states or items are separated into groups. Of course, that's not even universally true - a bag of peanuts sorts itself by size, no matter how you shake it up - as long as the bag is affected by gravity. The second law makes no reference to order. Nonetheless, with randomness in the picture, we would expect disorder. Which is exactly what we find, all over the place. Living things are very disordered.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1498 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
.well i dont beleive it is impossible but i dont like those odds. The thing about these odds, though, is that you only have to win once, and you get to try hundreds of times every second. At that rate, almost any odds becomes a certainty.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1498 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
I wish you'd address Percy's posts and not mine. I'm just quibbling with your word choice and trying to how you how your argument doesn't follow from the first principles you've chosen.
Percy's actually trying to show you what first principles are at work in the universe. You might have a good time talking to me, but if you talk more with Percy you'll actually learn something. I would think that would be your priority.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1498 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Evolution isn't a reduction in entropy, though.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1498 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Assuming my definition of the law is correct (energy can only be converted, not created or destroyed) how did the universe create itself? I can think of two rhetorical responses: 1) What makes you think that a law that operates within the universe applies to the universe? 2) What is the total net energy content of the universe? How do you know its more or less than zero?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1498 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
And about your second question, i would have thought there must have been more than zero right? Not necessarily. If all the energy here is counterposed by opposite energies there, then the universe has a net energy of zero, and so it doesn't violate the first law.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1498 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
But how did the energy "here" come about? Probably through the same quantum process that makes energy spring up out of the vacumn - pairs of opposing particles flit in and out of existence at every point in space, constantly. Each particle in the pair has non-zero energy; taken together they have net zero energy because they cancel out. You can pretty much have all the particles and energy you want so long as the sums cancel each other out in the end. Well, maybe that's an overstatement.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1498 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
I was just wondering if evolutionists did in fact have an answer for the first step in the origins of the universe. Evolution is a theory of biology; its developers and researchers are therefore biologists. The origin of the universe is a problem of cosmology. It's like you're asking a tax accountant for medical advice. Cosmic origins aren't an evolutionary field.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024