Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 49 (9181 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: joebialek123
Post Volume: Total: 918,263 Year: 5,520/9,624 Month: 545/323 Week: 42/143 Day: 4/11 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is evolution the only thing to contradict the Second law of Thermodynamics?
thestickman
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 37 (27172)
12-18-2002 7:42 AM


I heard that evolution is the only thing that contradicts the Second Law of Thermodynamics. I have had a lot of trouble getting a straight answer, so i decided to try here [wishful thinking maybe?]. Some articles say that the 2nd Law is only to do with heat transfer, while others use it more broadly in chemical and biological situations that are independant of heat. My physics teacher was no help either, but he's an idiot. So, any help available?
Ryan
------------------
'those who travel the unknown paths find the rarest flowers' -andrew someone

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by David unfamous, posted 12-18-2002 8:45 AM thestickman has replied
 Message 3 by joz, posted 12-18-2002 9:41 AM thestickman has not replied
 Message 5 by shilohproject, posted 12-20-2002 3:31 AM thestickman has not replied
 Message 20 by Brad McFall, posted 03-07-2003 10:28 AM thestickman has not replied

  
David unfamous
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 37 (27183)
12-18-2002 8:45 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by thestickman
12-18-2002 7:42 AM


Evolution does not contradict the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.
Have a read of this link on the subject:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo/probability.html
Here's an easier-to-digest version:
http://riceinfo.rice.edu/...lo/Sciacademy/riggins/thermo.htm

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by thestickman, posted 12-18-2002 7:42 AM thestickman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by thestickman, posted 12-19-2002 6:37 AM David unfamous has not replied
 Message 11 by peter borger, posted 12-21-2002 5:37 PM David unfamous has not replied

  
joz
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 37 (27197)
12-18-2002 9:41 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by thestickman
12-18-2002 7:42 AM


This is a nice analogy that Isaac Asimov used....
Think of the universe as a casino and entropy as the house edge, the earth sits down at the table with the sun, a real high roller, the sun is losing a lot (pumping out energy), the house takes its cut (Entropy increases overall) and doesn`t mind that the earth is winning a small part of what the sun loses (localised decrease in entropy), afterall its still making its profit on the house edge.....
Entropy can (in local systems) decrease, provided the entropy of the universe doesn`t, so 2LOT has absolutely no relevance to evolution....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by thestickman, posted 12-18-2002 7:42 AM thestickman has not replied

  
thestickman
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 37 (27337)
12-19-2002 6:37 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by David unfamous
12-18-2002 8:45 AM


Ok, thanks for your help, i'll check them out
ryan
------------------
'those who travel the unknown paths find the rarest flowers' -andrew someone

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by David unfamous, posted 12-18-2002 8:45 AM David unfamous has not replied

  
shilohproject
Inactive Member


Message 5 of 37 (27454)
12-20-2002 3:31 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by thestickman
12-18-2002 7:42 AM


quote:
Originally posted by thestickman:
I heard that evolution is the only thing that contradicts the Second Law of Thermodynamics. I have had a lot of trouble getting a straight answer, so i decided to try here [wishful thinking maybe?]. Some articles say that the 2nd Law is only to do with heat transfer, while others use it more broadly in chemical and biological situations that are independant of heat. My physics teacher was no help either, but he's an idiot. So, any help available?
Ryan

This is actually a fun topic.
1. The second Law of Thermodynamics only applies to a closed system, which the earth is not, since it receives heat energy from the sun; and the only evolution we're concerned about is on earth;
2. On the topic of order v. disorder, which the anti-evolutionists attempt to use the 2nd LoT to address, the correct understanding of "order" is often missed. Specifically, the more complex an organism, the less "ordered" it is, not visa versa. (A house is less "ordered" than the materials used to build the house while they are sitting in piles waiting to be put into a complicated, less "ordered," arraingment throughout the space of the house, this board here, that board there, etc.)
3. The 2nd LoT, furthermore, actually has nothing to do with biological systems at all!
4. Any "Creation Scientist" who claims otherwise is either overly desperate to make a case, simply misguided by what he/she has been told by others, or dishonest. It's as if you were told that the law of gravity determined your favorite color; they have nothing at all to do with one another! And still, it can be refuted!
Good luck in your search.
[This message has been edited by shilohproject, 12-20-2002]
[This message has been edited by Admin, 12-20-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by thestickman, posted 12-18-2002 7:42 AM thestickman has not replied

  
Conspirator
Inactive Member


Message 6 of 37 (27493)
12-20-2002 1:01 PM


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAA.....
Here's a link that explains the closed system myth that evolutionists love to use and avoid it by saying that it only applies to closed systems when it actually applies to BOTH systems.
http://trueorigins.org/steiger.asp

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by shilohproject, posted 12-20-2002 1:36 PM Conspirator has not replied
 Message 16 by derwood, posted 12-22-2002 5:02 PM Conspirator has not replied

  
shilohproject
Inactive Member


Message 7 of 37 (27494)
12-20-2002 1:36 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Conspirator
12-20-2002 1:01 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Conspirator:
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAA.....
Here's a link that explains the closed system myth that evolutionists love to use and avoid it by saying that it only applies to closed systems when it actually applies to BOTH systems.
http://trueorigins.org/steiger.asp

If you take the time to look into the actual 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, you will see that by definition it applies to closed systems. No amount of trying to expand that application by the apologists for the farce of "Creation Science" can change that reality.
Also, as a side bar, "evolutionists" did not originally describe the 2nd LoT, nor do they hold a monopoly on its simple definition and areas of application.
Any on line dictionary or encyclopedia can help you with this matter.
Thanks-

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Conspirator, posted 12-20-2002 1:01 PM Conspirator has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Percy, posted 12-21-2002 9:08 AM shilohproject has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22700
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 8 of 37 (27587)
12-21-2002 9:08 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by shilohproject
12-20-2002 1:36 PM


Conspirator is correct, 2LOT (Second Law of Thermodynamics) applies equally well to both open and closed systems. The most succinct way to state 2LOT is with regard to a closed system: the entropy of a closed system cannot decrease.
The earth is not a closed system because it receives energy from the sun. Even the earth and sun considered together are not a closed system, because both matter and energy are crossing the boundaries, in both directions, of this closed system. However, this energy and matter are so tiny with regard to the sun, certainly far less than even .1%, that they can be safely disregarded, and so you will often hear it argued by evolutionists that the total entropy of the earth/sun system is increasing, even though there are local decreases in entropy here and there on earth. This argument, while fundamentally true, avoids a massive amount of detail.
For open systems, 2LOT is usually expressed as the tendency for heat to flow toward cold, which is where the name comes from ("thermo" for heat, "dynamic" for moving). As long as evolution and abiogenesis never postulate processes which require heat to flow toward greater heat, and they don't, then they can never be said to violate 2LOT.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by shilohproject, posted 12-20-2002 1:36 PM shilohproject has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by shilohproject, posted 12-21-2002 12:38 PM Percy has replied

  
shilohproject
Inactive Member


Message 9 of 37 (27595)
12-21-2002 12:38 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Percy
12-21-2002 9:08 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Percipient:
Conspirator is correct, 2LOT (Second Law of Thermodynamics) applies equally well to both open and closed systems. The most succinct way to state 2LOT is with regard to a closed system: the entropy of a closed system cannot decrease.
--Percy

Percy-
Your analysis on the open-system applications of 2nd LoT is quite correct, but BY DEFINITION it is a closed system law:
"For any spontaneous process in an isolated (closed) system there is an increase in the value of entropy."
Again, however, there is no real value in any application of this concept for the anti-evolutionist since it has nothing at all to do any honest examination of the pros/cons of evolutionism. v. creationism. It seems simply an attempt to sound smart and scientific to the uninformed.
Shiloh-

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Percy, posted 12-21-2002 9:08 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Percy, posted 12-21-2002 1:15 PM shilohproject has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22700
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 10 of 37 (27596)
12-21-2002 1:15 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by shilohproject
12-21-2002 12:38 PM


shilohproject writes:
Percy-
Your analysis on the open-system applications of 2nd LoT is quite correct, but BY DEFINITION it is a closed system law:
"For any spontaneous process in an isolated (closed) system there is an increase in the value of entropy."
I'm afraid you're wrong about 2LOT being exclusively a closed system law. I provided the simple statement of 2LOT for open systems in the message you replied to, about heat flowing toward cold and never the reverse. While the statement of 2LOT is simplest for a closed system, it is by no means limited to closed systems. And anyway, in reality the only true closed systems is the entire universe.
The general definition of 2LOT can be looked up in many reference works. From the Scientific American Science Desk Reference: (2) it is impossible for an unaided self-acting machine to convey heat from one body to another at a higher temperature. From Almost Everyone's Guide to Science: In terms of heat - the way the law was discovered in the days of steam engines - the second law says that heat will not flow from a colder place to a hotter place of its own volition. The closed system form of the 2LOT definition is just as valid but not as general.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by shilohproject, posted 12-21-2002 12:38 PM shilohproject has not replied

  
peter borger
Member (Idle past 7783 days)
Posts: 965
From: australia
Joined: 07-05-2002


Message 11 of 37 (27604)
12-21-2002 5:37 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by David unfamous
12-18-2002 8:45 AM


Dear David,
DA: Evolution does not contradict the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.
PB: Like to discuss chirality in living systems? It beats the second law.
Best wishes,
Peter

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by David unfamous, posted 12-18-2002 8:45 AM David unfamous has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by joz, posted 12-22-2002 3:20 AM peter borger has replied

  
joz
Inactive Member


Message 12 of 37 (27634)
12-22-2002 3:20 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by peter borger
12-21-2002 5:37 PM


And there was I thinking that L-amino acid/D-sugar biochemistry was because of the weak force making L-amino acids and D sugars more stable than there counterparts....
So whats that got to do with 2LOT?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by peter borger, posted 12-21-2002 5:37 PM peter borger has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by peter borger, posted 12-22-2002 6:41 AM joz has replied

  
peter borger
Member (Idle past 7783 days)
Posts: 965
From: australia
Joined: 07-05-2002


Message 13 of 37 (27637)
12-22-2002 6:41 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by joz
12-22-2002 3:20 AM


Dera joz,
J: And there was I thinking that L-amino acid/D-sugar biochemistry was because of the weak force making L-amino acids and D sugars more stable than there counterparts....
So whats that got to do with 2LOT?
PB: Could you please elaborate a bit, so we will be able to discuss this topic in more detail.
Best wishes,
Peter

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by joz, posted 12-22-2002 3:20 AM joz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by joz, posted 12-22-2002 12:28 PM peter borger has replied

  
joz
Inactive Member


Message 14 of 37 (27651)
12-22-2002 12:28 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by peter borger
12-22-2002 6:41 AM


quote:
Originally posted by peter borger:
Dera joz,
PB: Could you please elaborate a bit, so we will be able to discuss this topic in more detail.
Best wishes,
Peter

Dear PB,
Just what it says the weak force is the only force that can tell right or left handed molecules apart, L amino acids and D sugars are more stable than their counterparts (D amino acids and L sugars) because the counterparts are not exact "mirror images" both consisting of matter as they do (the true enantiomer of a L amino acid is a D amino acid made of antimatter) because they are not true enantiomers (of L amino acids and D sugars) D amino acids and L sugars have different (less stable) energies.....
Oh and then there is the fact that beta decay is mediated by the weak force and that the emitted electrons are polarised which would selectively destroy one enantiomer over another....
So how does chirality beat 2LOT?
Joz

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by peter borger, posted 12-22-2002 6:41 AM peter borger has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by peter borger, posted 12-22-2002 4:37 PM joz has not replied

  
peter borger
Member (Idle past 7783 days)
Posts: 965
From: australia
Joined: 07-05-2002


Message 15 of 37 (27661)
12-22-2002 4:37 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by joz
12-22-2002 12:28 PM


Daer Joz,
Orig Life Evol Biosph 1995 Jun;25(1-3):191-9
Electroweak enantioselection and the origin of life.
MacDermott AJ.
School of Biological and Molecular Sciences, Oxford Brookes University, Oxford, England.
Prof MacDermott holds that:
All biomolecules are of one hand--but what determines which hand? Why is life based on L-amino acids and D-sugars rather than D-amino acids and L-sugars? We believe the symmetry-breaker could be the weak force, which causes enantiomers to differ very slightly in energy. In this paper we present our calculations of this parity-violating energy difference (PVED) for a range of important biomolecules, and in nearly all cases it is indeed the 'natural' enantiomer which is the more stable.
PB: A careful look demonstrates that NOT all of the enantiomeres of important biomoleculaes have an advantage. Besides the advantage is so futile, it wouldn't matter at the evolutoinary timescale required. So, your assertion is not completely valid. According to your scenario, the most stable enantiomeres would be expected in biomolecules.
I expect to find enantiomeres of one type --either L or D-- since it is more convenient for life. Building maccromolecules with different L and D enantiomeres increases the possible isomeres with power 2 for every distinct enantiomere. It would also require mirrorimage enzymes to build them. So, better design life with one of both.
Best wishes,
Peter

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by joz, posted 12-22-2002 12:28 PM joz has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Peter, posted 03-10-2003 5:12 AM peter borger has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024