Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,908 Year: 4,165/9,624 Month: 1,036/974 Week: 363/286 Day: 6/13 Hour: 1/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Entropy and the immutable law of death
aviator79
Junior Member (Idle past 6010 days)
Posts: 17
From: Chandler, AZ
Joined: 05-15-2007


Message 12 of 83 (423396)
09-21-2007 7:35 PM


Thermodynamic entropy IS entropy. Perhaps some people have latched onto the word to try to claim a scientific basis for why life cannot evolve. Then when someone calls them on it they say "Oh I didn't mean THERMODYNAMIC entropy, I meant some other kind of entropy." "Locigal Entropy" as you call it, is giving a name to what your intuition tells you is true. However, it has no foundation in science. In fact we see all kinds of instances where order arises from chaos. Life arising from non-life is the most obvious. But I've seen stratified rock formations and beautiful natural rock arches which are very ordered and arose where previously there was no order. To be clear, there is no universal law which states that everything everywhere must move toward disorder.

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-22-2007 2:32 PM aviator79 has replied

  
aviator79
Junior Member (Idle past 6010 days)
Posts: 17
From: Chandler, AZ
Joined: 05-15-2007


Message 30 of 83 (425908)
10-04-2007 1:44 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by Hyroglyphx
09-22-2007 2:32 PM


Re: Spontaneous generation?
quote:
Yes, of course it is. No one contends with that, least of all, me.
In this thread, a distinction was made between thermodynamic entropy (a redundant phrase) and logical entropy (a label given to a concept which is neither axiomatic nor scientific.) I was pointing out that entropy is a thermodnamic quantity, not a logical contruct.
quote:
I believe it does because of how axiomatic it is.
First of all, "logical entropy" is not axiomatic. In any event, as soon as an axiom is challenged, you cannot rely on its status as an axiom to refute the challenge. You must provide evidence for its validity.
quote:
In fact, I think that kind of is a poor name for it.
I agree. Whatever you are talking about has nothing to do with entropy.
I think other posts have beaten me to the punch about Pasteur's experiments, which would only apply to this discussion if someone were contending that the first lifeforms sprang forth from chicken broth or rotten meat. In fact abiogenesis is the leading scientific theory for the origin of life on earth. Maybe God did just throw us here, but despite a few thousand years of looking, nobody has found any evidence of that happening.
I am not confusing equilibrium with order coming from disorder. The systems I referred to are not in equilibrium when considered on large time scales. Random events over time have created ordered structures. A natural rock arch is very different from a crystal lattice. There are not fundamental physical laws which say rocks must form in that structure. Yet there it is, perfectly "created" with enough material in the correct places to support its own immense weight, seemingly violating your "axiom" of "logical entropy"
quote:
If entropy is associated with disorder, and entropy of the universe is headed towards maximum entropy, then how does the ordering process of evolution not directly contravene this law? This is the question asked by dissenters of evolution.
Entropy is often defined as a measure of disorder. This is a weak definition at best. It is a quantity which must increase in order to satisfy the first law of thermodynamics when heat is isothermally added to an thermal resevoir. Even that definition is at best incomplete. In the universe's march toward maximum entropy, ordered structures will ebb and flow out of existence. We see it all around us. Gas has condensed into stars which have associated into galaxies, which have associated into local groups of galaxies. Nebulae have consensed into solar systems with planets which fall into orbital resonances. There is a great deal of order coming from disorder. None of this violates the 2nd law of Thermodynamics.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-22-2007 2:32 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
aviator79
Junior Member (Idle past 6010 days)
Posts: 17
From: Chandler, AZ
Joined: 05-15-2007


Message 39 of 83 (428465)
10-16-2007 1:33 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by Damouse
10-11-2007 11:34 PM


Re: What are the different kinds of entropy, anyhow?
quote:
since the universe cannot lose or gain entropy
This is an easy mistake to make. When studying thermodynamics, we get so used to conserved quantities like mass and energy, that it seems natural to extend conservation principles to entropy. Entropy is not a conserved quantity. It can (and does) increase in a totally closed system.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Damouse, posted 10-11-2007 11:34 PM Damouse has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by ChemEbeaver, posted 11-09-2007 3:29 PM aviator79 has not replied

  
aviator79
Junior Member (Idle past 6010 days)
Posts: 17
From: Chandler, AZ
Joined: 05-15-2007


Message 52 of 83 (433562)
11-12-2007 2:57 PM


You are both right.
Evolutionary processes are thermodynamic in a roughly similar sense as I am a quantum dynamic system. That is, There are quantum interations going on inside me and I cannot do anything that violates quantum mechanics. Nonetheless, quantum mechanics is totally useless when trying to analyze me as I sit here and type.
Similarly, everthing which takes place during the evolution of a species must obey thermodynamic principles, but it is impossible to analyze the process from a thermodynamic perspective. It is a waste of time to even talk about entropy is a discussion about evolution. This was my point earlier in the thread. Creationists read a blurb in Popular Science and try to throw around the word "entropy" because they think it makes their argument "scientific" if they use words they don't understand.

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by Brad McFall, posted 11-12-2007 4:42 PM aviator79 has replied

  
aviator79
Junior Member (Idle past 6010 days)
Posts: 17
From: Chandler, AZ
Joined: 05-15-2007


Message 55 of 83 (433618)
11-12-2007 4:50 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by Brad McFall
11-12-2007 4:42 PM


Re: Re:Evolution and Thermo-different than Crashs'
Your line of reasoning is a bit difficult to follow. It seems perhaps you are doing research of a specific reaction or interaction which is involved in evolution?
In an appropriately narrowed problem, thermodynamic analysis could certainly be used to analyze a specific metabolic process which I know nothing about. However, in the broad stroke that the typical creationist tries to apply the concept of entropy, it is totally meaningless.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by Brad McFall, posted 11-12-2007 4:42 PM Brad McFall has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by Brad McFall, posted 11-12-2007 5:02 PM aviator79 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