2nd Law of Thermodynamics (not an evolution thread)

[emprworm]

You may discuss evolution in this thread ONLY AS IT IS RELATED TO the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Otherwise, I'll lock it cuz I'm a dictator over my own threads. :)

Acriku accuse christians in another thread of using the "2nd law of thermodynamics falsely"

evolutionists use this law falsely as well.

All the energy in the universe wont do a single thing to increase the propensity for life.

If you take a dead plant- with the exact same chemical makeup as a living plant, and increse the energy on that plant, its decay will accelerate. Its deterioration increases with an increase of energy. An increase of energy does NOT favor evolution. If you turned up the sun a few notches, and gave the world some more energy, you would soon see a dead world.

Imagine the human race standing before an infinite sea of energy:

"Energy, energy everywhere, yet not a single bite to eat".

Within days, the human race would be extinct.

The 2nd law is misused on both sides.

[sneezer3]

You beat me to it!

Anyway. how do the Christans misuse it?

[emprworm]

the 2nd law applies to a closed system, while our planet is an open system. however, our solar system is (mostly) a closed system.

[sneezer3]

My mistake. I only heard it used as the way you said in the first post.

[emprworm]

well don't get me wrong, though, i still think the 2nd law does not favor evolution...just not in the same way that some Christians say.

[Miles]

You may discuss evolution in this thread ONLY AS IT IS RELATED TO the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Otherwise, I'll lock it cuz I'm a dictator over my own threads. :)

Acriku accuse christians in another thread of using the "2nd law of thermodynamics falsely"

evolutionists use this law falsely as well.

All the energy in the universe wont do a single thing to increase the propensity for life.

If you take a dead plant- with the exact same chemical makeup as a living plant, and increse the energy on that plant, its decay will accelerate. Its deterioration increases with an increase of energy. An increase of energy does NOT favor evolution. If you turned up the sun a few notches, and gave the world some more energy, you would soon see a dead world.

Imagine the human race standing before an infinite sea of energy:

"Energy, energy everywhere, yet not a single bite to eat".

Within days, the human race would be extinct.

The 2nd law is misused on both sides.

Strawman

Energy applied to the correct chemical mixture will result in chemical compounds, thus order from seeming disorder. However the 2nd law will state that the energy put into the system must result in an increase in entropy from the energy source.

Evolutionists use this law EXACTLY as it is meant to be.

[Dunenewt]

Thermodynamics...isnt that used to explain the Holtsman reaction in Dune?

[emprworm]

"Evolutionists use this law EXACTLY as it is meant to be. "

lol! hardly. Evolutionists claim that increased entropy therefore means a system has a propensity to increase complexity and that is HOGWASH

Evolution = Propensity to increase complexity

THere is no principle in science that can account for this, yet atheists often try to use the 2nd Law to account for it.

It is a strawman, yes. So why do atheists do it?

[Edric O]

In order for entropy to decrease in one place, it must increase somewhere else by at least as much.

So in short, evolution decreases entropy on Earth, but only due to the fact that the Sun's entropy increases in the process.

[Acriku]

First off, the 2nd law of thermodynamics applies only to closed systems. Since you already agree with this, we can move on.

When you increase the energy on a dead organism, the bacteria in the dead organism has more energy to use to feed off of the organism, thus decaying more rapidly. Dormant bacteria live inside of us, and when we die some of that dormant bacteria activates and starts to decompose our body. Increase the energy, and you have a faster process of decomposition. Increase the energy on a living thing, and the processes that use energy can use more energy, thus working faster and longer. Your conclusion that if you "bump the sun up a few notches," everything would die, is a wrong conclusion due to what I have said above. The world would have more energy to use up, thus the processes that use energy would become faster and last longer, certainly consequences but a dead world is not one of them. If you go inside a cave, and live there for a long time, would you start to decompose? Of course not. And what if you come out of this cave into the sun, gathering more energy from the Sun than inside the cave, would you die? Of course not. You might die from predators outside, but certainly not from the increased sun energy input. Put on a grand scale, the world, it is not hard to come to the same conclusion.

Scientists have made experiments that include increasing the energy input. I made one for science week, where I have three plants - one plant has no energy input, one plant has one lamp, and the third has two lamps. The plant with no lamp died within 2 days, the one with one lamp grew at an average rate over two weeks, and the last plant grew faster than the second. I concluded that the more energy input, the faster the processes work.

Also, a dead plant would have a different chemical makeup than the living plant because decomposition has already started - breaking down molecules to the basic elements, such as carbon dioxide.

Energy does increase propensity for life, such as an organism needed energy to function, and uses that free energy given by the sun to function. Without that energy, the organism ceases to function and breaks down.

Infinite sea of energy is theoretically impossible, so the scenario of human beings standing before such a sea is false.

Edit: due to added posts...

lol! hardly. Evolutionists claim that increased entropy therefore means a system has a propensity to increase complexity and that is HOGWASH

Evolution = Propensity to increase complexity

THere is no principle in science that can account for this, yet atheists often try to use the 2nd Law to account for it.

It is a strawman, yes. So why do atheists do it?

Evolution does not necessarily lean towards the propensity of increased complexity. If the environment favors it, then so be it. But sometimes the simplest creatures are most fit to survive. It is whatever the environment allows to survive.

[TMA_1]

well evolutionists have a good argument against it. Mainly the fact that they believe that the universe is neverending and therefore an open system. Also, the larger something is and the stricter the natural laws are, the slower entropy will work on it. I personally believe the universe is a closed system myself, but hey, Thats just me.lol

[sneezer3]

Actully they conterdict directly. Evolution says we are geting better and always have been. the second law says everthing is decaying and geting worse. therefore evolution would be impossable over billions of years without everthing decaying and geting destoryed. Yet another reason why evolution is impossable and we can't be geting better.

[Edric O]

*bangs head against wall*

Acriku, you explain it to him... I'm too tired for this...

[emprworm]

When you increase the energy on a dead organism, the bacteria in the dead organism has more energy to use to feed off of the organism, thus decaying more rapidly.

NIce try. This one is more accurate:

chemical compounds ultimately break apart into simpler materials; they do not ultimately become more complex. Their energy is transformed into lower levels of availability for further work. The natural tendency of complex, ordered arrangements and systems is to become simpler and more disorderly with time. The bacteria degenerate the plant, and when they die increased energy increases the breakdown of those chemicals. By increasing energy you are increasing break-down and increasing the rate in which energy is transormed into lower levels of availability. This is called, by definition, "Degeneration".

Dormant bacteria live inside of us, and when we die some of that dormant bacteria activates and starts to decompose our body.

which means you are increasing the rate in which energy is transormed into lower levels of availability. Hence the definition of Degeneration

Increase the energy, and you have a faster process of decomposition.

which means which means you are increasing the rate in which energy is transormed into lower levels of availability. Hence the definition of Degeneration

ok, I wont repeat it again. :)

"Your conclusion that if you "bump the sun up a few notches," everything would die, is a wrong conclusion due to what I have said above."

Oh, but it is a right conclusion. Increased solar radiation, rapid transferrence of thermal energy into frozen waters of the antarctic...it would have a horrible consequence for life on earth. Solar energy is immensely harmful to life unless it is given in a very very NARROW range of tolerance. Increasing solar energy beyond this extremely narrow limit of tolerance, and you increase degeneration immensely.

I concluded that the more energy input, the faster the processes work.

continue to increase that energy, and make sure you write down in your book the lowering amount of times it takes for degeneration to occur.

Also, a dead plant would have a different chemical makeup than the living plant because decomposition has already started - breaking down molecules to the basic elements, such as carbon dioxide.

Compare a living plant with a dead one. Can the simple addition of energy make a completely dead plant live?

A dead plant contains the same basic structures as a living plant. It once used the Sun's energy to temporarily increase its order and grow and produce stems, leaves, roots, and flowers - all beginning from a single seed.

If there is actually a powerful Evolutionary force at work in the universe, and if the open system of Earth makes all the difference, why does the Sun's energy not make a truly dead plant become alive again (assuming a sufficient supply of water, light, and the like)? Please answer that, Acriku.

So what actually happens when a dead plant receives energy from the Sun? The internal organization in the plant decreases; it tends to decay and break apart into its simplest components. The heat of the Sun only speeds the disorganization process.

Infinite sea of energy is theoretically impossible, so the scenario of human beings standing before such a sea is false.

lol! You cannot even grasp a theoretical? Shame on you.

Imagine standing on an oxygenated planet similar to earth yet containing no life (except you) receiving light from the sun. All that energy just pouring down on you.

And?

I restate this again: The theory of evolution requires a propensity for something to go from simple --> complex. There is no principle in the universe that allows for this. Or do you know of a principle that allows for this, Acriku?

Please tell me, what is that principle then?

[Acriku]

I'm tired, too, Edric, but hey I have nothing better to do than to teach calculus to first graders...

Actully they conterdict directly. Evolution says we are geting better and always have been. the second law says everthing is decaying and geting worse. therefore evolution would be impossable over billions of years without everthing decaying and geting destoryed. Yet another reason why evolution is impossable and we can't be geting better.

Evolution is the change of the gene pool in a population of an organism (or higher, such as species). It is random, not necessarily getting better. It is just the consequent of an organism that if it favors, it probably is better. The 2nd law of thermodynamics only applies to closed systems! Ergo, this does not apply to us! The second law states that the entropy of the universe increases. As energy is used, it cannot be used again, and becomes entropy - and as long as energy is being used, entropy increases. So no, this is not a reason why evolution is impossible - you're just a little child trying to post about something you have no idea about.

chemical compounds ultimately break apart into simpler materials; they do not ultimately become more complex. Their energy is transformed into lower levels of availability for further work. The natural tendency of complex, ordered arrangements and systems is to become simpler and more disorderly with time. The bacteria degenerate the plant, and when they die increased energy increases the breakdown of those chemicals. By increasing energy you are increasing break-down and increasing the rate in which energy is transormed into lower levels of availability. This is called, by definition, "Degeneration".

Agreed, in decomposition compounds become more simple. That is, become things like the basic elements in decomposition. Could you explain "transforming energy into lower levels of availability?" Degeneration is the decline or loss of a function, is this what you mean?

Oh, but it is a right conclusion. Increased solar radiation, rapid transferrence of thermal energy into frozen waters of the antarctic...it would have a horrible consequence for life on earth. Solar energy is immensely harmful to life unless it is given in a very very NARROW range of tolerance. Increasing solar energy beyond this extremely narrow limit of tolerance, and you increase degeneration immensely.

We were talking about the open system of an organism, not the whole world. But if you want to change the subject, fine. If you increase the output of the sun significantly, sure I can see things going haywire. But you can't do that, so what is your point? You haven't made one point that goes against evolution.

Compare a living plant with a dead one. Can the simple addition of energy make a completely dead plant live?

Theoretically, no.

A dead plant contains the same basic structures as a living plant. It once used the Sun's energy to temporarily increase its order and grow and produce stems, leaves, roots, and flowers - all beginning from a single seed.

Since heat is flowing into the living plant, entropy increases - that is, disorder increases. /_S = q/T is the equation.

If there is actually a powerful Evolutionary force at work in the universe, and if the open system of Earth makes all the difference, why does the Sun's energy not make a truly dead plant become alive again (assuming a sufficient supply of water, light, and the like)? Please answer that, Acriku.

So basically, I have to teach you what dead means? When a cell's function stops functioning, it stops functioning. When an organism falls dead, it's cells decline in function. That is, degeneration. You cannot bring back that function, no sunlight or prayer or whatever. Energy can't bring it back because the cells can't use it, because they lost function and begin to break down into the basics. But, if the cell is still functioning, it can use the energy for processes that take up ATP/ADP/NAD+/NADPH/etc. Did you ever take a biology class?

I restate this again: The theory of evolution requires a propensity for something to go from simple --> complex. There is no principle in the universe that allows for this. Or do you know of a principle that allows for this, Acriku?

Please tell me, what is that principle then?

Again, the theory of evolution does not necessarily require a propensity for something to go from simple to complex - but if the environment favors it, it continues to prorecreate. It is just what has generally happened, that simple things have become more complex. But it isn't required.

[emprworm]

"That is, become things like the basic elements in decomposition. Could you explain "transforming energy into lower levels of availability?" Degeneration is the decline or loss of a function, is this what you mean?"

Degeneration is the process of energy being input into a larger system, that begins to break down. As the component parts are breaking down, they begin to use the energy and break down smaller parts. Once the second layer has broken down, the third layer begins to break down the fourth layer, and so on. Things are spiraling downward not upward.

Again, the theory of evolution does not necessarily require a propensity for something to go from simple to complex - but if the environment favors it, it continues to prorecreate. It is just what has generally happened, that simple things have become more complex. But it isn't required.

of course it does. how did you get here then? ::) ::)

It may not require it NOW, but the fact is that IT DID. Humans could not have existed had lifeforms not evolved into more complex beings. And whether or not they were "supposed to" is meaningless because you still claim they DID.

not to mention: have you lost the meaning of the word "EVOLVE?"

good grief:

Main Entry: evo

[Acriku]

For you to say that it requires the propensity to become more complex, then you must also say that mutations are not random. Say it emprworm.

[emprworm]

For you to say that it requires the propensity to become more complex, then you must also say that mutations are not random. Say it emprworm.

you are the one claiming evolution not me. And evolution as theorized is a process which has the propensitty to become more complex. It is time you tell me which scientific principle illustrates that a process can have the propensity to become more complex.

[sneezer3]

Mutations are random in the sense that they are unrelated to the fitness of the organisms. Natural selection is partly random because survival and reproduction are a matter of chance as well as fitness. On average, natural selection is not random.

[Acriku]

Natural selection is not random, i.e. not anything can be favored by the environment. But mutations are random. Empr says they aren't, that they are set on a path towards complexity. But hey, that's his problem ;) But since he didn't say mutations aren't random like I commanded, then he might just be pulling my leg on this one.

[emprworm]

Natural selection is not random, i.e. not anything can be favored by the environment. But mutations are random. Empr says they aren't, that they are set on a path towards complexity. But hey, that's his problem ;) But since he didn't say mutations aren't random like I commanded, then he might just be pulling my leg on this one.

you haven't answered my question. I already agreed mutations were random. now, I will ask this again:

the process of evolution has seen a propensity to increase in complexity. As purported by you evolutionists, mutations in simple lifeforms give way to an ever expanding scope of new information (complexity), so that over time, life becomes more diverse and/or more advanced, always increasing the net amount of information or complexity.

I know of no scientific principle that causes processes to have a propensity to increase in complexity.

what scientific principle is this?

[Acriku]

Are you saying information cannot be added, only changed? I want a complete understanding of this, before I answer.

[emprworm]

Are you saying information cannot be added, only changed? I want a complete understanding of this, before I answer.

i'm not the one defining evolution. i reject it anyway. YOU are the one saying that the evolutionary process as supposedly occured on earth was one in which life has a propensity to increase in information over time (hence increase in complexity). You do believe that human beings arose ultimately from single-celled organisms...right? Maybe you don't believe that after all. Sorry, I was under the assumption that you held the common view of evolution that all life on earth arose from single simplistic source. This would basically mean that a whole LOT of new information & complexity has been added to that original source say for the last umpteen bazillion million years? I'm sorry, I thought that you held the view that human beings are the product of hundreds of millions of years of changes to the original source of life. Of course, that would not be a lateral change...or a downward change...but a slow upward one, that took millions upon millions of years to come about.

what principle in science allows for this upward kind of process again?

[Acriku]

Are we going to debate this in two threads? By the way, I am not saying anything at the moment, only asking a question:

Are you saying information cannot be added, only changed?

[emprworm]

no i was trying to keep it related to the 2nd law. increase/decrease of order. evolution regarding that subject is ok in this thread.

it is in the other thread because i was hoping that perhaps...just PERHAPS you might answer it

but i guess no answer is forthcoming, is it Acriku?