does evolution violate the laws of thermodynamics?

[alphaparticle]

 

 

I don't need to show that though. That process might even highly unlikely for other, independent reasons. An event being unlikely does not  mean it violates the second law of thermodynamics.

 

You've posted something to this effect previously and I will respond again. It's not unlikely.... IT'S IMPOSSIBLE.  I'm not asking you to show Life from Non-Life, which is Exponentially Preposterous by any Natural Process, to prove your postulate; show, JUST ONE: DNA/RNA/Functional Protein form by a "Natural Process" from nucleotides and aminos.  If what you say is true, then this is a cakewalk.

 

Sorry to intrude on this discussion (if it's still ongoing) but I just had to comment.

 

There are many examples of possible reactions that are thermodynamically feasible but do not happen for kinetic reasons, i.e. there is no feasible mechanism for the reaction under normal conditions. Thermodynamic feasibility (compliance with the 2nd Law ) is a NECESSARY but not SUFFICIENT condition for a chemical reaction to proceed. 

 

Actually the fact that functional proteins can be formed from amino acids under 'unnatural' conditions demonstrates that the same is thermodynamically possible under 'natural' ones, even without the presence of a living organism. Thermodynamic state functions such as entropy  and free energy are path independent. In living cells and laboratories enzymes catalyse the formation of proteins from amino acids. But the catalyst (enzyme) makes no thermodynamic difference to the reaction; thermodynamic feasibility depends only on the difference in free energy between the reactants and products. If a reaction proceeds with a catalyst it is by definition thermodynamically possible, with or without the catalyst. If it does not happen without a catalyst that is due to kinetic and mechanistic factors, not thermodynamics. But it is of course still possible there are other conditions that will allow the reaction to occur even in the absence of the normal catalyst

 

Yes. Thanks. I bolded the essential point that at least I have been trying to communicate to Enoch. Saying that some reaction is unlikely is not equivalent to it violating a law of thermodynamics.

[post]

the 2nd law of thermodynamics is not done justice by a statement like "everything always gets more disordered" and it's more complex than "entropy never decreases"

it applies to closed systems, and living things are not closed systems. the whole earth isn't even a closed system. we get lots of energy from the sun, for example, and radiate plenty away too. 

dunno what happened to the rest of this thread -- guess people didn't know how to talk civilly to each other, so it got deleted. 

but i felt like dragging up an old thread, for kicks ya know - why else do we still have them? - and just in case that had not been pointed out

[SavedOnebyGrace]

11 minutes ago, post said:

the 2nd law of thermodynamics is not done justice by a statement like "everything always gets more disordered" and it's more complex than "entropy never decreases"

it applies to closed systems, and living things are not closed systems. the whole earth isn't even a closed system. we get lots of energy from the sun, for example, and radiate plenty away too. 

dunno what happened to the rest of this thread -- guess people didn't know how to talk civilly to each other, so it got deleted. 

but i felt like dragging up an old thread, for kicks ya know - why else do we still have them? - and just in case that had not been pointed out

You are wrong.

The second law of thermodynamics states that the entropy of the universe always increases in the course of every spontaneous . . . change.  It does not just apply to closed systems.  Look it up.

[post]

 

13 minutes ago, Saved.One.by.Grace said:

You are wrong.

The second law of thermodynamics states that the entropy of the universe always increases in the course of every spontaneous . . . change.  It does not just apply to closed systems.  Look it up.

like i said, it's more complex than "entropy always increases."
he universe is a closed system ((we assume, physically anyway)) -- its entropy increases. a kitchen for example, is not. its entropy may decrease. you may take a bunch of ingredients and order them into a meal. you may crystallize some sugar or temper some chocolate. afterwards you may sweep up and put everything away. locally, entropy may decrease -- but with regard to the entire system -- it does not. heat is produced, for example - and dissipates into areas not part of what you call the "kitchen." 

 

[post]

18 minutes ago, Saved.One.by.Grace said:

You are wrong.

The second law of thermodynamics states that the entropy of the universe always increases in the course of every spontaneous . . . change.  It does not just apply to closed systems.  Look it up.

there are three common ways to state the 2nd law of thermo: 

• no process whose only result is transferring heat from a cool body to a warmer body is possible.
• no process whose only result is absorbing heat from a reservoir and converting it to work is possible.
• the equilibrium value of the entropy for an isolated/closed system is non-decreasing.

what you stated is like the third statement -- with the entire universe being a particular instance of an isolated system. 

is the universe at equilibrium? are living things at equilibrium? -- the Bible says the creation is waiting in expectation for the children of God to be revealed, being subject to the bondage of decay and to frustration for a time, until all things are reconciled in Christ. ((re: Romans 8:18-21))
i'm not sure that's "equilibrium" -- or that God's thermodynamics in that sense is the same as human thermodynamics, ha! dude... now i'm probably going to be thinking about spiritual equilibrium for a week.. thanks!

what do you think? 

[Enoch2021]

1 hour ago, post said:

the 2nd law of thermodynamics is not done justice by a statement like "everything always gets more disordered" and it's more complex than "entropy never decreases"it applies to closed systems, and living things are not closed systems.

 

Factually Incorrect (Again)...

 

“Another way of stating the second law then is: ‘The universe is constantly getting more disorderly!’ Viewed that way, we can see the second law all about us. We have to work hard to straighten a room, but left to itself it becomes a mess again very quickly and very easily. Even if we never enter it, it becomes dusty and musty. How difficult to maintain houses, and machinery, and our bodies in perfect working order: how easy to let them deteriorate. In fact, all we have to do is nothing, and everything deteriorates, collapses, breaks down, wears out, all by itself -- and that is what the second law is all about.” 
Isaac Asimov, PhD Biochemistry: "In the Game of Energy and Thermodynamics You Can’t Break Even," Smithsonian Institute Journal, June, 1970, p. 6.

 

So Dr Asimov describes 2LOT in context with: (a Room, Houses, Machinery, Life) and then says: "this is what the 2nd Law is all about" and "we see the second law all about us".  Is he using metaphors? 

 

Then the hammer...

 

“...there are no known violations of the second law of thermodynamics. Ordinarily the second law is stated for isolated [closed] systems, but the second law applies equally well to open systems ... there is somehow associated with the field of far-from equilibrium phenomena the notion that the second law of thermodynamics fails for such systems. It is important to make sure that this error does not perpetuate itself.”
Dr. John Ross, Harvard Scientist. Letter to the Editor, Chemical and Engineerinq News (July 7, 1980), p.40.   

 

evolutionists attempt to float their Straw Man Fallacy and say it doesn't impact their fairytale.  Well let's have them Post the Scientific Theory of evolution and we'll just see about that!! 

 

Quote

the whole earth isn't even a closed system. we get lots of energy from the sun, for example, and radiate plenty away too.

 

It's irrelevant to the Creation of Functional Sequence/Specified Complexity, In Fact, it's a Harbinger of Destruction...

 

In Biologic Systems, to build "Functional Sequence/Specified Complexity" (Cellular Structures/DNA/RNA, ect) you need a SPECIFIC Energy Converter (Mitochondria/Chloroplasts/Metabolic Pathways) and INFORMATION Program (DNA) ALREADY EXISTING FIRST so as to capture, convert, and use the Energy meaningfully.  

Moreover, Extracellular Nucleo-Bases and Amino's are DESTROYED by Sunlight as is virtually everything on the planet without the Energy Converter/Information Program .  Without the specific converter and Information Program the Sun's Energy is like a Bull in a China Shop.

 

Real world example:  Mid Summer in Texas, the sun is destructive.  It will burn the tires clean off a tractor if left in the field long enough.  And it will eventually do the same with the roof on your house and your car if not protected.  Why?  Because there is no "Pre-Existing" mechanism to capture the heat of the sun and an information program to direct its use.  Now let's put solar panels on the roof, and add an information program (computer) to capture the sun's energy and direct it to produce electricity.  Now the sun is no longer destructive.  But-----and this is important, the sun will NEVER build the solar panels or write a program to convert the heat to usable energy. 

See the "Specific" Energy Converter and Information Program in the above example?

Or do you ascribe to the Sun sending Intelligent Messages or Instructions to "Stupid" Atoms so they can build it?

 

This from 'Orthodox Liberal' is absolutely mind-numbing...

Quote

Actually the fact that functional proteins can be formed from amino acids under 'unnatural' conditions demonstrates that the same is thermodynamically possible under 'natural' ones, even without the presence of a living organism.

SHOW ONE !!! ....?

Show a 30 mer or or larger "Functional Protein" that wickered itself together from AA's (ALPHA Amino Acids...and where'd you get those??) "Naturally", Spontaneously....?  Cite Source!  You'd have Better chances of Resurrecting Alexander The Greats Horse.

And where are they wickering themselves together ??  In water??    That's a Kool Trick, "Condensation Reactions" in Water  (I'd love to see those Fairytale [ ] 's)...

"Such reactions, however, are condensation reactions, requiring the elimination of a water molecule for every peptide bond formed, and are thus unfavorable in aqueous environments both from a THERMODYNAMIC and KINETIC point of view. In addition, PEPTIDE BOND FORMATION WILL NOT OCCUR between two amino acids in their zwitterionic form, the predominate state in a bulk aqueous environment." {emphasis mine}

Griffith EC, Vaida V; In situ observation of peptide bond formation at the water-air interface; Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 08/2012; 109(39):15697-701

 

"The consequence of this well-known fact of organic chemistry is important: concentrations of amino acids will combine only in minute amounts, if they combine at all in a primeval ocean providing excess water, to form polypeptides. Any amounts of polypeptide which might be formed will be broken down into their initial components (amino acids) by the excess water. The ocean is thus practically the last place on this or any other planet where the proteins of life could be formed spontaneously from amino acids. Yet nearly all textbooks of biology teach this nonsense to support evolutionary theory and spontaneous biogenics. It requires a very great unfamiliarity with organic chemistry not to take into consideration the above-mentioned facts when proposing postulates for biogenesis…"

Professor A.E. Wilder-Smith PhD Organic Chemistry, Pharmacology

 

oy vey 

[post]

2 hours ago, Enoch2021 said:

“...there are no known violations of the second law of thermodynamics. Ordinarily the second law is stated for isolated [closed] systems, but the second law applies equally well to open systems ... there is somehow associated with the field of far-from equilibrium phenomena the notion that the second law of thermodynamics fails for such systems. It is important to make sure that this error does not perpetuate itself.”
Dr. John Ross, Harvard Scientist. Letter to the Editor, Chemical and Engineerinq News (July 7, 1980), p.40.   

please give the complete context of this quote. 
show me the entire letter -- not just a quote you mined off of an anti-evolution website -- so i know that dr. Ross's comments are not being misrepresented by a biased source with an ulterior motive. 
 

consider this counter-example: 
i calculate the entropy of a bowl of hot water at equilibrium in a hot oven; let that be S1
i put it into the freezer and let it cool.
consider only the open system consisting of the bowl of hot water. 
as we all know, the bowl of water cools until it reaches an equilibrium state with the ambient temperature inside the freezer. it freezes, and takes on a lattice structure that is far more ordered than the equilibrium state of the water when it was in the oven. 
i calculate the entropy S2 of the bowl of water again once it is at equilibrium inside the freezer, considering only the open system consisting of the water -- not the overn, not the freezer unit or its internal atmosphere, not the kitchen it is in, not the power plant sending it electricity. 
now, it should be obvious that S2 << S1. entropy has decreased. 
so please explain to us all why the 2nd law of thermodynamics has not been violated, if it applies "equally well to open systems" ? 



did i break physics, or was this quote taken out of context, or does this man not understand what he's talking about? 

explain.
and give the full context of his letter to the editor. 

so we know that you are not misrepresenting science because of bias and ulterior motives, and so we can know that what you are saying is worth hearing, and not simple unsubstantiated hearsay. 



 

[SavedOnebyGrace]

15 hours ago, post said:

 

like i said, it's more complex than "entropy always increases."
he universe is a closed system ((we assume, physically anyway)) -- its entropy increases. a kitchen for example, is not. its entropy may decrease. you may take a bunch of ingredients and order them into a meal. you may crystallize some sugar or temper some chocolate. afterwards you may sweep up and put everything away. locally, entropy may decrease -- but with regard to the entire system -- it does not. heat is produced, for example - and dissipates into areas not part of what you call the "kitchen." 

Entropy always increases.  If you define a system where entropy does not increase, you've made an error in your system definition.  Order is never the result of chaos.  It's only complex if you're trying to build a case for evolution.  In that case, you need to violate the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics in such a way that it's not readily apparent.  My studies of Classical, Applied, and Advanced Theoretical Thermodynamics, support my statement.

[kwikphilly]

Hi Guys,,,,,,

   I happened to have something I wrote down from an old Science magazine,,,,it is a cool question(I wish I sw the beginnngs of this discussion cause I'm kind of winging it here,,,)

Quote

    So what is entropy? Probably the most common answer you hear is that entropy is a kind of measure of disorder. This is misleading. Equating entropy with disorder creates unnecessary confusion in evaluating the entropy of different systems. Consider the following comparisons. Which has more entropy?
    - stack of cards in perfect order or a stack of cards in random order?
    - a Swiss watch with intricate internal workings or a sundial?
    - ten jars of water stacked neatly in a pyramid or the equivalent mass of water in the form of 10 blocks of ice flying randomly through space?
    - a living, breathing human being or a dried up corpse turning to dust?
    - the universe at the moment of the Big Bang or the universe in its present state?
If you think of entropy as disorder, then the answers to these questions may trouble you.

It did trouble me as I once had a very similar discussion with some collegues years ago when I said,,,,what does order & disorder have to do with it?-lol      So,in an odd sort of way,,,,order can come out of chaos(or random disorder,maybe that is not anything like '"chaoas",,,,,?

However,I did like the examples,,,,,,                                       With love to all,in Jesus name-Kwik

[post]

3 hours ago, Saved.One.by.Grace said:

Entropy always increases.  If you define a system where entropy does not increase, you've made an error in your system definition. 

this isn't quite right -- entropy never decreases. the change in entropy is 0 at the limiting value for a reversible process ((if a reversible process was performed frictionlessly, with no losses, entropy does not increase)). 

if you define a system where entropy decreases you've violated the second law -- you're either not talking about an isolated ((closed)) system, or if you're talking about an open system, you did not properly account for the entropy flowing into and out of the system. 
like the example i posed about a bowl of hot water placed into a freezer: the net change in the entropy of the open system consisting only of the bowl is negative - entropy of that system decreased. does this violate the 2nd law? is physics broken?  

no - physics isn't broken
((goes ahead and does Enoch's homework for him)) we've just entirely neglected the flow of entropy into and out of the closed system. when we cooled the water, we removed a lot of heat from it, which found its way into the freezer's condenser, and heated the room the freezer was in. this outflow of entropy is greater than the reduction of the entropy in the water - probably not exactly equal as although freezing water is a reversible process, i would be skeptical about a freezer claiming to operate at 100% efficiency 

so the 2nd law does apply to open systems -- but you can't neglect the flux ((inflow/outflow)) of the open system you're considering with regards to its environment. 
which is why i asked for the complete context of that quote Enoch mined, and suspect that the physicist's statement is taken out of context and stated in an incomplete way, to give a biased representation of the facts, because there is an ulterior motive at play here.  
i'd still very much like to see that entire letter to the editor that this man wrote. i looked for the quote, and found the exact version Enoch cited on about 2 dozen biased, apologist anti-evolution websites. not one of them gave context. i expect that the very next thing the man said was something about needing to account for inflow & outflow of entropy in an open system -- funny how that got left off, don't you think?