does evolution violate the laws of thermodynamics?

[post]

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

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

wait - isn't it the opposite? that anti-evolutionists are the group who will continue trying to show that evolution violates ΔS ≥ 0 ? 
or are you saying evolutionists want to find evidence that that inequality can be violated because evolving by assumption violates it?

the bulk of this thread appears deleted.. i can probably guess why.. but if it was conclusively shown that evolution does violate ΔS ≥ 0, that tidbit isn't here anymore, and i'm assuming whoever showed it is in Stockholm now receiving their nobel prize, but does anyone else remember how that was proven (if indeed it was) ?

i don't by any means believe in life from nothing or  lightning + pond scum ((we know it was dust & God's breath )) or the extreme, liberal inferences about origin of species that Darwin leapt to from the small adaptive differences/changes he was able to observe. but i'm suspicious that the arguments presented for 'evolution' violating the 2nd law of thermodynamics would equally imply that normal conception & gestation ((without any beneficial mutation/change)) would also overturn the law.

that's why i'm curious to hear someone explain why normal reproduction does not violate the principle -- or if they are convinced otherwise, to explain how it does... but i'm relatively certain that it's generally accepted that the creation and development of any new, living creature doesn't defy physics. does it?

 

[Enoch2021]

30 minutes ago, post said:

...or are you saying evolutionists want to find evidence that that inequality can be violated because evolving by assumption violates it?


 

Well to properly assess if something Violates something else, You must FIRST Define Each.  SO...

The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics....?

The Scientific Theory of evolution....?

 

regards

[SavedOnebyGrace]

14 minutes ago, post said:

wait - isn't it the opposite? that anti-evolutionists are the group who will continue trying to show that evolution violates ΔS ≥ 0 ? 
or are you saying evolutionists want to find evidence that that inequality can be violated because evolving by assumption violates it?

the bulk of this thread appears deleted.. i can probably guess why.. but if it was conclusively shown that evolution does violate ΔS ≥ 0, that tidbit isn't here anymore, and i'm assuming whoever showed it is in Stockholm now receiving their nobel prize, but does anyone else remember how that was proven (if indeed it was) ?

i don't by any means believe in life from nothing or  lightning + pond scum ((we know it was dust & God's breath )) or the extreme, liberal inferences about origin of species that Darwin leapt to from the small adaptive differences/changes he was able to observe. but i'm suspicious that the arguments presented for 'evolution' violating the 2nd law of thermodynamics would equally imply that normal conception & gestation ((without any beneficial mutation/change)) would also overturn the law.

that's why i'm curious to hear someone explain why normal reproduction does not violate the principle -- or if they are convinced otherwise, to explain how it does... but i'm relatively certain that it's generally accepted that the creation and development of any new, living creature doesn't defy physics. does it?

It is evolutionists who are trying to prove the existence of violations (or exceptions) to the 2nd law of thermodynamics.  They need to do this to prove chaos leads to order, not more chaos.  Belief in evolution is akin to belief in a perpetual motion machine.  Put another way, complex mechanism break down over time to simpler forms.  Simpler forms do not make more complex forms unless a force outside of the closed container, known as the universe, intervenes.

Look at radiation.  Caesium-137 has a half life of over 30 years.  It will eventually break down into simpler forms, but it may take decades.  It is formed from the fission of Uranium-235, a more compex element (isotope).

From Wikipedia: Caesium-137 has a half-life of about 30.17 years.  About 95 percent decays by beta emission to a metastable nuclear isomer of barium: barium-137m (137mBa, Ba-137m). The remainder directly populates the ground state of barium-137, which is stable. Ba-137m has a half-life of about 153 seconds, and is responsible for all of the emissions of gamma rays in samples of caesium-137. One gram of caesium-137 has an activity of 3.215 terabecquerel.

[post]

if this is the case, then wouldn't it be fair to say that everyone is trying to prove violations of ΔS ≥ 0 ? 
because anti-evolutionists are trying also to show that evolution would be a violation. it seems to me that to do that, you have to show that a single mutation contradicts the physical law - because evolution's claim is that speciation occurs as the result of a sum of a long, gradual sequence of changes. 

i'm not sure i see the difference between reproduction with a single mutation and reproduction without a mutation in that context. the 2nd law only applies to open systems when the total sum of the transfer of entropy into and out of a thermodynamically isolated system that contains it is accounted for. if gestation without mutation is not a violation because it's an open system, and more entropy results in heat & nutrients broken down to provide energy for the development of the embryo than what is removed by the organization of matter into a living creature, then why isn't the same true for gestation that involves a small mutation? 

i mean, this is part of the argument that an "evolutionist" is going to present to dismiss this accusation. how do we respond to that? 
surely not just by quoting some contextless statement that "living organisms have specified complexity" -- that doesn't address the question at all. 


 

[SavedOnebyGrace]

Anti-evolutionists are trying to disprove violations to the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.  There's a difference.  There's no reason for one believing in ID trying to prove violations to the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.  See the difference?  Evolutionists use science when it suits there agenda.  What is there agenda?  Answer: government grants, money, fame, power, etc.

[post]

but this thread topic is "does evolution violate the second law of thermodynamics?" 

so if we just say "yes" without proving that, we're using science only when it suits our agenda, and if we need to prove it, we need to prove that the process of evolution constitutes a violation of that law. are we trying? or just saying so? 
 

anyone who could actually prove that the mechanism of evolution violates physical laws would gain a whole lot of money, grants, fame & power. 

[SavedOnebyGrace]

5 minutes ago, post said:

but this thread topic is "does evolution violate the second law of thermodynamics?" 

so if we just say "yes" without proving that, we're using science only when it suits our agenda, and if we need to prove it, we need to prove that the process of evolution constitutes a violation of that law. are we trying? or just saying so? 
 

anyone who could actually prove that the mechanism of evolution violates physical laws would gain a whole lot of money, grants, fame & power. 

The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is universal.  The Theory of Evolution is just that; a theory.  So a theory has been postulated.  They have the onus of proving it through scientific testing.  They cannot do that.  It has failed numerous times to the rigors of scientific testing.  So they end up with an unproven scientific theory ... they cannot make it more than that.  The same can be said of ID.  I accept Intelligent Design by faith, but I cannot prove it scientifically.  ID is also a theory, one I accept by faith.

Over 100 years ago, Duncan MacDougall attempted to weigh the human spirit.  Using questionable scientific methodology, he determined the human spirit weighs 21 grams.  When a human spirit leaves a living human being, is it still in this universe or outside it?  If the human spirit is outside the universe, this would be a legitimate violation of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.  The universe would not be a closed system.  But all is right with the ultimate Scientist/Engineer/Father, that is God, our Creator and our Father.  Not to lessen the importance of Jesus, our Redeemer, and The Holy Spirit, our Comforter.  Praise His Holy Name.

[Enoch2021]

1 hour ago, post said:

 

but this thread topic is "does evolution violate the second law of thermodynamics?" 
 

Yes it is.

 

Quote

so if we just say "yes" without proving that, we're using science only when it suits our agenda, and if we need to prove it, we need to prove that the process of evolution constitutes a violation of that law. are we trying? or just saying so? 

Well as mentioned previously, to properly assess/evaluate whether there are Violations between one something and another something you MUST FIRST define the somethings; Ergo...

The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics...?

The Scientific Theory of evolution...?
 

Quote

anyone who could actually prove that the mechanism of evolution violates physical laws would gain a whole lot of money, grants, fame & power. 

1.  This is merely a Conjured Anecdote and a contrived "Procedural Argument" not a "Substantive Argument".

2.  There is "No Mechanism" and there is "No evolution"....Physical Laws do not govern "Just So" Stories sir: Fairytale Imaginations Do.  

 

regards

[kwikphilly]

Hi Guys,,,,,

     So I suppose one must believe (???????) that the Theory of evolution is somehow more than just an imaginary figment of some vivid mind & then first substantiate it,,,,prove it to be "something",,,,,,,,

      Having said that,where does one go from there,,,,,,,,,I have never found any proof that any living thing has ever evolved into anything that what it is in the first place?????   Has anyone ever figured out how to apply the second law of thermodynamics to a living creature? Did I miss that much? Lol

      Ah,I saw quite a few documentaries about the attempts to "weigh" the human spirit,,,,,,,,,much more recent experiments too,is it in another dimension within this universe,,,,,,,sheesh,,,,,,

    Yep,it is alright wherever it is with Our Father,,,,,,,in violation of the 2nd Law or not !!!!!! lol      

     So,how do you apply something to nothing,,,,,,,,,,? I think even if I said ,,,Okay,,,,,,Evolution is a thing,,,,,,,,Aren't living creatures much too complex to apply the 2nd Law? What am I missing here fellas,,,,,,,,,do I need to back & read all replies?

    

[SavedOnebyGrace]

1 hour ago, kwikphilly said:

Hi Guys,,,,,

     So I suppose one must believe (???????) that the Theory of evolution is somehow more than just an imaginary figment of some vivid mind & then first substantiate it,,,,prove it to be "something",,,,,,,,

      Having said that,where does one go from there,,,,,,,,,I have never found any proof that any living thing has ever evolved into anything that what it is in the first place?????   Has anyone ever figured out how to apply the second law of thermodynamics to a living creature? Did I miss that much? Lol

      Ah,I saw quite a few documentaries about the attempts to "weigh" the human spirit,,,,,,,,,much more recent experiments too,is it in another dimension within this universe,,,,,,,sheesh,,,,,,

    Yep,it is alright wherever it is with Our Father,,,,,,,in violation of the 2nd Law or not !!!!!! lol    

     So,how do you apply something to nothing,,,,,,,,,,? I think even if I said ,,,Okay,,,,,,Evolution is a thing,,,,,,,,Aren't living creatures much too complex to apply the 2nd Law? What am I missing here fellas,,,,,,,,,do I need to back & read all replies?

One little bit of clarification first; there is more than one theory of evolution.  Everytime the "Theory of Evolution" is found lacking, it gets changed to overcome the hurdle.  So, in fact, there are many theories of evolution floating around, none of which resemble the Darwinian Theory of Evolution.  To keep the government grant money flowing to universities, this theory is in a constant state of flux.  It doesn't matter that there's no proof, the theory must be supported (like man-made global warming) to keep the flow of government money (our money) flowing to these overpriced universities.

In simple terms, the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics states that it's not possible to create a perpetual motion machine or self-sustaining process.  When you light a candle, the candle wick burns.  Heat and light are given off as the candle burns.  But it will not burn forever.  The wax will melt and eventually change states from solid, to liquid, to gas.  If no entropy is lost, this process would be 100% reversible.  But of course, it is not.  More energy would be required to bring it back to its original state.  In mechanical examples, heat is lost through friction.  In other words, there's no such thing as a free lunch.