|
| quote: | Originally posted by Seventil
It's nice to revive them every now and then.  |
If their proven logically false and physically impossible, why should they be revived for any reason other than a punch-line for a joke?
| quote: | | Are you saying that the laws of thermodynamics are not universally applicable to all processes and systems? |
Huh? Did I not state:
“The second law of thermodynamics applies universally”
| quote: | | I would hope not - and since we are on the topic, since your "evolved system with decreasing entropy" of life on earth is of course, following the laws of thermodynamics - would you care to explain how biological processes achieve and sustain the very decrease in entropy which you say is possible? |
The rest of my statement simply states that local decreases in entropy can and does occur: “that does not mean that everything everywhere is always breaking down. The second law allows local decreases in entropy offset by increases elsewhere. The second law does not say that order from disorder is impossible; in fact, as anyone can see, order from disorder happens all the time.”, since we are referring to an open system.
Occ explained the chemical properties involving 2LOT, but in addition., heat increases the energy and thereby the disorganization of molecules, and this increases entropy. But the increased energy of the molecules encourages chemical reactions, thereby storing some of the energy in chemical bonds and thus, decreasing entropy. This applies quite easily to biochemical reactions just as easily. Remember, it is only the over-all entropy of a complete, or closed system that must increase when a change occurs. In the case of interacting sub-systems of a closed system, some may gain entropy, while others may lose entropy.
And when we refer to the earth in regards to 2LOT, it is most certainly an open system (as a result of energy being obtained from the sun), not a closed one. 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 does not.
(analogy by Isaac Asimov, BTW)
| quote: | | I'll say that I can't dispute that at the moment with my limited knowledge, but I don't see how that is relevant to the theory of evolution. Can we agree, that even if the universe is expanding, the system (whether closed or open) on Earth would have a fixed volume? |
If the earth was a closed system, certainly. As I have explained, and as I’m sure Occ could explain in greater detail, the earth is not a closed system, therefore there is not a fixed volume. I’m not going to pretend to have extensive knowledge about the details of physical laws, but I doubt you’ll find too many physicists or astrophysicists that would agree that the earth is a closed system. The only real closed system on the grand scheme of things is the universe.
| quote: | Ok, a technicality - but entropy is defined as a "measure of the disorder or randomness in a closed system". Or, the steady deterioration of a system...
reference:Stenger, Victor J., 1995. The Unconscious Quantum, Amherst, NY: Prometheus. |
I believe I’d prefer Occ’s precise definition a little more, because there are some very relative terms you use in that definition (deterioration, for example). If you’re referring to a closed system, such as the universe, I’ll agree. What does that have to do with the open system on earth?
| quote: | Simply adding energy to a system doesn't cause reduced entropy. So what makes life possible within earth's biosphere? Can we agree that, besides an open system and available energy, it requires:
1. a "program" (information) to direct the growth in organized complexity
2. a mechanism for storing and converting the incoming energy
We can agree that all life has these (DNA and mechanisms) -- however -- how can you explain how life could spontaneously begin this process in the absence of the program directions and energy conversion mechanisms? Or, how a simple organism might produce the additional new program directions required for biological evolution to occur? |
Life spontaneously occurring? Are we talking about abiogenesis or evolution? You are confusing the terms again.
In regards to your requirements, allow me deal with them in reverse:
2. The mechanism was explained previously – the environment which was derived by the energy from the sun. Surely you’re not arguing that the sun does not give free energy for sustaining life to the environment? Atoms routinely convert between light energy, thermal energy, and chemical potential energy. The energy conversion mechanism is ubiquitous and quite obvious within our life cells. Again, photosynthesis, catalytic conversions, Kreb’s cycle, the Electron Transport System, etc. etc. are all examples of storing and converting energy that has been originally derived from the sun (of course when we’re talking about non-plant life, the process is a little more complicated, but it follows the basic rule of ecological food chains – plants, bugs eat plants, birds eat bugs, we eat birds, pretty elementary example but I think you get the idea). A lack of an energy conversion system would not only invalidate evolution, but would invalidate life itself.
1. The “program” is twofold: mutation process that occurs in a population, and natural selection. Both of these occurrences are readily observed in the environment – which I demonstrated by the example of polychaete worms developing a new species within a mere 40 yrs. Many more occurrences just like these are readily observable in the environment as well. Ring species is a prime example. More examples can be seen here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB910.html
I also demonstrated these occurrences being readily observed in the laboratory – the bacterial cultures was a prime example. Literally hundreds of thousands of observed instances in the lab are at your fingertips by performing a simple pubmed search.
If you have an alternative idea about a “program” that directs the growth within an organism, by all means present it with observed, supported evidence and let’s discuss.
| quote: | And I respond with...
"The “order” found in a snowflake or a crystal has nothing to do with increased information, organization or complexity, or available energy (i.e., reduced entropy). The formation of molecules or atoms into geometric patterns such as snowflakes or crystals reflects movement towards equilibrium—a lower energy level, and a more stable arrangement of the molecules or atoms into simple, uniform, repeating structures with minimal complexity, and no function. These are not examples of matter forming itself into more organized or more complex structures or systems (as postulated in evolutionist theory), even though they may certainly reflect “order” in the form of simple patterns." |
Precisely stated on definition. However what is occurring here with creationists is that they confuse the definitions of order and disorder that is specifically used in 2LOT exclusively, with the relative terms of order and disorder when referring to complex organisms. In this relative sense with complexity in organisms, we are not referring to something more ordered arises from something more disordered, giving it “more organization” through evolutionary processes. Indeed, in certain instances involving a particular evolutionary lineage, one could look at the lineage and state that things are more or less organized, but this is by no means the rule. In fact, many cases we could state the opposite – and I mentioned this by stating losing appendages as an example. Would a snake be considered “more organized” than a lizard, because it lost its limbs along the way? If so, what would be the working definition of something being “more organized”, arising from disorder to order? This is the trouble with giving such a relative term of “organization” to an evolutionary pattern, and why it is often confused by a creationist when attempting to apply the absolute term of order and disorder that only truly belongs in physical laws like the 2LOT.
With my example of the snowflake (and the other non-living examples as well) I was utilizing these relative terms of “disorder” and “order” that creationists refer to with non-living systems. That is why it is appropriate not to refer to such relative terms in either case of non-living and living systems.
| quote: | "Steiger fails to recognize the profound difference between these examples of low-energy molecular crystals and the high-energy growth process of living organisms (seeds sprouting into flowering plants and eggs developing into chicks). His equating these two very different phenomena reveals a serious misunderstanding of thermodynamics (as well as molecular biology) on his part, and he perpetuates this error in the balance of both his essays, as we shall see."
Do you disagree with that claim? |
I’m unsure what the author or Steiger is referring to here, and an examination in the full context of both their arguments would really be necessary to make any claims on my part. However on appearance it seems that Steiger is essentially arguing exactly what I argued – the absolute vs. relative terms of “order” and “disorder”, and the appropriate place for both.
| quote: | | Funny an evolutionist talking about twisting evidence to support a theory. Have fun twisting my logic and words (and other peoples) to fit your "theory" perfectly. |
As I have explained, there is no violation of 2LOT when we are referring to evolution, esp. if we are referring to 2LOT in a closed system. I don’t believe twisting words is necessary – clarification is much more vital and necessary here.
Remember, 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 never postulates processes which require heat to flow toward greater heat, and they don't, then they can never be said to violate 2LOT.
Again, I won’t claim to know everything about the technicalities of thermodynamics, let alone 2LOT but I certainly hope you do not either. But I do know that evolution does not in any way violate 2LOT, esp. when we are referring to an open system. If I am wrong about your knowledge on thermodynamics, then perhaps you could demonstrate your knowledge by answering Gallo’s test on 2LOT. From what a physicist could tell you, this is a pretty elementary test on the subject:
| quote: | Please consider the following two statements and then answer a few simple questions:
• It is impossible for any system to operate in such a way that the sole result would be an energy transfer by heat from a cooler to a hotter body.
• It is impossible for any system to operate in a thermodynamic cycle and deliver a net amount of work to its surroundings while receiving energy by heat transfer from a single thermal reservoir.
1. Please explain the relationship of the above two statements to each other.
2. Please indicate which (if either) is correct.
3. Please explain the implication of a violation of either (your choice) to the other.
4. Please define entropy.
5. Please define the concept of irreversibility. (For the sake of clarity, please illustrate with an example of the spontaneous reversal of an irreversible change. Please support your illustration with the appropriate mathematical equations)
6. Now, since thermodynamics is an exact science based on a limited number of specific mathematical concepts, please present your proofs (we are, after all, dealing with math here) that evolution would be impossible.
To simply assert that this is so in words is nothing more that a substitution of metaphor for math. It is impossible to express completely and adequately the principles of thermodynamics in words. It is also impossible to draw any conclusions or to apply thermodynamics with words. Thermodynamics IS math. The words are only to explain (incompletely) to those of us who may be lacking in sufficient math skills.
7. Something is said to be a property of a system if, and only if, its change in value between two states is independent of the process of that change. The Clausius inequality states that the integral of the heat transfer at a part of a system boundary during a given cycle divided by the absolute temperature at that part of the boundary, when the integral is performed over all parts of the boundary and over the entire cycle, is less than or equal to 0. Now, it can be demonstrated (this is a fact, by the way) that for any internally reversible process between two states of a system that the value of the integral depends on the end states only. It can be concluded, therefore, that the integral defines the change in some property of a system (an extensive property, by the way). Please name that property. |
___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...
|
