Jump to content
IGNORED

does evolution violate the laws of thermodynamics?


alphaparticle

Recommended Posts


  • Group:  Diamond Member
  • Followers:  2
  • Topic Count:  23
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  1,045
  • Content Per Day:  0.34
  • Reputation:   615
  • Days Won:  2
  • Joined:  12/09/2015
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  12/03/1976

so when a baby is conceived and gestates -- forget mutations, just a normal baby -- a lot of unorganized fluids and building blocks of flesh are arranged into a tremendously complex living organism. 

consider the open system of the womb -- entropy in the womb decreases profoundly (does it?). is the second law violated? 
does normal birth of any living creature break physics? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  0
  • Topic Count:  10
  • Topics Per Day:  0.04
  • Content Count:  4,024
  • Content Per Day:  16.70
  • Reputation:   5,187
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  07/30/2023
  • Status:  Offline

49 minutes ago, post said:


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 :laugh:

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? 

I have Enoch on Ignore so I'll leave you to discuss flux with him.  My point is and you can't work around this with words, there is no such thing as a 100% efficient process, or in other words, a perpetual motion machine.  If you believe there is, I have a bridge I'd like to sell you.  The Second Law of Thermodynamics remains intact, and cannot be violated in the real world.  The Second Law of Thermodynamics is valid on Earth, on Mars, in space, and anywhere and everywhere in the universe.  Evolutionists don't like this.  It casts serious doubt on their beloved Theory of Evolution.  Rocks don't become people.  People turn into rocks (fossils) and then dust.  Without Jesus, we have no hope of an afterlife.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  11
  • Topic Count:  19
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  3,396
  • Content Per Day:  0.91
  • Reputation:   730
  • Days Won:  4
  • Joined:  12/21/2013
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  12/26/1963

 

Quote

post:  

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. 

 

I gave you the Citation, you go get it and PROVE "Your" case counselor.  It's not my JOB to do "Your" work and Prove "Your" Case. :rolleyes:

 

And How on Earth do you know where I got it from??  You exercising those Special evo Mind Powers again?  yoda.gif

 

Anything on the Stamp on the Forehead conclusion from Dr Asimov... who echoed 2nd graders everywhere, and Dr Ross ??  I suppose you merely forgot about that, eh?  :laugh_point:

 

You charging me with "Quote Mining", eh? And....? 

Well, go ahead and SUPPORT your Baseless "bare" Assertion Fallacy?  This is tantamount to running up to a Police Officer and saying: post: "SEE that Man, He Robbed The Bank!!":

Policeman: "What Man and What Bank, SHOW !! ??":

post: "I'll go get him and force him to tell you";

Policeman: ....krrr squelch, "control, we have a situation here, contact behavioral health ".     
 

 

Quote

post:

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" ? 

:blink:

 

Incoherent Straw Man Fallacy "In TOTO":  "a lattice structure that is far more ordered than the equilibrium state of the water ".

 

 

Errr Professor...we're not talking about mere "order" with "ICE" 25r30wi.gif, we're talking about Functional Sequence/Specified Complexity!!  

 

There are 3 Types of Complexity 1) random sequence complexity (RSC), 2) ordered sequence complexity (OSC), or Functional Sequence Complexity (FSC)."

 

Random (RSC): fgskztosbclgdsk.
 
Order (OSC): hhhhhhdddddduuuuuu: Crystals, Snow Flakes, Sand Dunes, Fractals. 
 
Functional Sequence Complexity (FSC): "It Puts The Lotion in the Basket",  Sand Castles, The Genetic CODE "DNA", Barbecue Grills, Indy Cars, Hyper-NanoTech Machines and Robots (Kinesin, ATP Synthase, Flagellum, Cilia....ad nauseam) et al.

So RSC and OSC = "Nature" construct, "Shannon Information".

FSC = Intelligent Design Construct.
 
"In brief, living organisms are distinguished by their specified complexity. Crystals are usually taken as the prototypes of simple well-specified structures, because they consist of a very large number of identical molecules packed together in a uniform way. Lumps of granite or random mixtures of polymers are examples of structures that are complex but not specified. The crystals fail to qualify as living because they lack complexity; the mixtures of polymers fail to qualify because they lack specificity"
Leslie E. Orgel, The Origins of Life: Molecules and Natural Selection, pg. 189 (Chapman & Hall: London, 1973
 
"The attempts to relate the idea of order...with biological organization or specificity must be regarded as a play on words that cannot stand careful scrutiny. Informational macromolecules can code genetic messages and therefore can carry information because the sequence of bases or residues is affected very little, if at all, by [self-organizing] physicochemical factors".
H.P. Yockey; "A Calculation of Probability of Spontaneous Biogenesis by Information Theory"; Journal of Theoretical Biology 67, 1977; p. 390.

 

And then the Hammer, as if we needed it (Read this real slow "Mr. ICE" 'Phase Transitions' )...

 

“The point is that in a non-isolated [open] system there exists a possibility for formation of ordered, low-entropy structures at sufficiently low temperatures. This ordering principle is responsible for the appearance of ordered structures such as crystals as well as for the phenomena of phase transitionsUnfortunately this principle cannot explain the formation of BIOLOGICAL STRUCTURES.” 
I. Prigogine (Nobel Prize, Physics), G. Nicolis and A. Babloyants, Physics Today 25(11):23 (1972)

 

 

Quote

 

Post:


did i break physics

 

 

No, you broke the Laws of Coherency and Ground Squirrel Level Science Acumen. 

 

 

regards

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  0
  • Topic Count:  10
  • Topics Per Day:  0.04
  • Content Count:  4,024
  • Content Per Day:  16.70
  • Reputation:   5,187
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  07/30/2023
  • Status:  Offline

Intelligent design does not violate the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.  God can move freely in and out of time, can also move in and out of the universe He created and the laws that govern it.  He is not bound by it.  He initiated the First Cause in the Cause and Effect universal relationship that applies to His universe.  He spoke the universe into existence. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Diamond Member
  • Followers:  2
  • Topic Count:  23
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  1,045
  • Content Per Day:  0.34
  • Reputation:   615
  • Days Won:  2
  • Joined:  12/09/2015
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  12/03/1976

2 hours ago, Enoch2021 said:

I gave you the Citation

 


you gave the same partial quote that i can find via google on dozens of biased websites. 

as i explained, there is strong reason to believe that this quote may misrepresent what the man was saying -- and i asked you for the context. 
i gave a clear example that shows how the incomplete quote is misleading and is an invalid description of the second law. 
later, (read on - and use your comprehension skills) i did your homework for you, and explained what was missing from the example and what i expect should be found in the full context of that quote. 
the missing flux component of entropy in an open system invalidates the argument you used the quote for in the first place. 

so -- you don't have access to the full context of what you quoted, and never have, is that correct? 
you just googled, found that in one of the dozens of unabashedly non-objective sources where it has been repeated, and copy-pasted here, without context, right? 

or have you actually read the complete source of the quote, and the context of what he's saying, but are just piously refusing to share this & support your use of it? 

a simple "i just got it from somewhere i don't know the full context" would be fine, dude. 
you don't have to try to stage some grand argument. i'm not talking about evolution. i'm just talking about the second law of thermodynamics; what is valid application of it, and what is not. 

try to keep your attacks on me limited to what i'm actually talking about, OK? 
and try to substantiate whatever sources you quote. it's just common sense. thanks. 



 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Diamond Member
  • Followers:  2
  • Topic Count:  23
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  1,045
  • Content Per Day:  0.34
  • Reputation:   615
  • Days Won:  2
  • Joined:  12/09/2015
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  12/03/1976

2 hours ago, Enoch2021 said:

:blink:

 

Incoherent Straw Man Fallacy


i'm not talking about evolution. i'm talking about an incomplete quote whose context has not been provided, used in a misleading way that mischaracterizes the application of the second law. 

the rest of your post is the straw-man, the red herring, and the entirely out-of context & baseless attempt to paint me as something i'm absolutely not - a Darwinian evolutionist. 

if i didn't break physics, explain why you can't just apply the 2nd law to open systems willy-nilly -- or explain why the open system in the simple example i gave consisting only of the bowl of water having a net decrease in entropy is a proper application of the 2nd law, if you think it is. i claim it's not, and i've already explained why - and since you love to disagree, stick to the topic, and defend your position one way or the other. 



 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Diamond Member
  • Followers:  2
  • Topic Count:  23
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  1,045
  • Content Per Day:  0.34
  • Reputation:   615
  • Days Won:  2
  • Joined:  12/09/2015
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  12/03/1976

On 4/28/2016 at 1:36 PM, post said:

so when a baby is conceived and gestates -- forget mutations, just a normal baby -- a lot of unorganized fluids and building blocks of flesh are arranged into a tremendously complex living organism. 

consider the open system of the womb -- entropy in the womb decreases profoundly (does it?). is the second law violated? 
does normal birth of any living creature break physics? 



nobody wants to touch this? 

well i'll just assume it's made you all think hard :)
good!

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  11
  • Topic Count:  19
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  3,396
  • Content Per Day:  0.91
  • Reputation:   730
  • Days Won:  4
  • Joined:  12/21/2013
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  12/26/1963

12 hours ago, post said:



nobody wants to touch this? 

well i'll just assume it's made you all think hard :)
good!

It's already been 'touched', SEE everything after: "In Biologic Systems, to build "Functional Sequence/Specified Complexity...." just above here: http://www.worthychristianforums.com/topic/169903-does-evolution-violate-the-laws-of-thermodynamics/?do=findComment&comment=2363533

Perhaps others are still lol-ing @ the "ICE" example. ;)

 

regards

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Diamond Member
  • Followers:  2
  • Topic Count:  23
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  1,045
  • Content Per Day:  0.34
  • Reputation:   615
  • Days Won:  2
  • Joined:  12/09/2015
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  12/03/1976

11 hours ago, Enoch2021 said:

It's already been 'touched', SEE everything after: "In Biologic Systems, to build "Functional Sequence/Specified Complexity...." just above here: http://www.worthychristianforums.com/topic/169903-does-evolution-violate-the-laws-of-thermodynamics/?do=findComment&comment=2363533

Perhaps others are still lol-ing @ the "ICE" example. ;)

 

regards

 


perhaps they understood the ice example, while you obviously did not, since you went wildly off-topic instead of either providing the simple substantiation i asked for or informing us that it was information you just didn't have, and never answered the very basic question i posed. 

but regardless, neither your comment nor that post in any way answers this question. 

please just answer it, if you can. 

does normal gestation and birth -- by which a comparatively motley collection of organic sera become a highly organized living creature showing an astounding degree of specified complexity violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics? 
why or why not? explain.
 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  0
  • Topic Count:  10
  • Topics Per Day:  0.04
  • Content Count:  4,024
  • Content Per Day:  16.70
  • Reputation:   5,187
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  07/30/2023
  • Status:  Offline

FYI - Supposed Violations of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.

Source: http://www.eoht.info/page/Violations+of+the+second+law

In summary, the supposed violations have all been shown to be mistakes.  But evolutionists will continue the quest ad infinitum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...