Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Latest Physics Theories May Help Challenge Evolution
ECR/Technology Review ^ | 30 Mar 10 | EC

Posted on 03/30/2010 8:53:37 AM PDT by nysuperdoodle

The latest theories on the nature and origin of gravity are generating lots of interest from those looking to unify the various systems (Einsteinian, Newtonian, Quantum, String Theory) of looking at our universe, and bringing to the forefront the importance of the second law of thermodynamics as an organizing principle in our universe. The problem is that the second law of thermodynamics and evolution are pretty much incompatible, as EC explains...

(Excerpt) Read more at evilconservativeonline.com ...


TOPICS: Science
KEYWORDS: evolution; physics; quantum; thermodynamics
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-86 next last

1 posted on 03/30/2010 8:53:38 AM PDT by nysuperdoodle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: nysuperdoodle

> The problem is that the second law of thermodynamics and > evolution are pretty much incompatible

Imagine that.

Let’s see what loophole modern physics can provide for the evolutionist.


2 posted on 03/30/2010 8:56:18 AM PDT by Westbrook (Having more children does not divide your love, it multiplies it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nysuperdoodle
Evolution has more incompatibilities than compatibilities.
3 posted on 03/30/2010 8:58:18 AM PDT by Retired Greyhound
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nysuperdoodle
The problem is that the second law of thermodynamics and evolution are pretty much incompatible, as EC explains...

How is the flow of heat incompatible with evolution?

4 posted on 03/30/2010 9:01:42 AM PDT by Moonman62 (The issue of whether cheap labor makes America great should have been settled by the Civil War.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nysuperdoodle

No. The second law of thermodynamics and evolution are not in any way incompatible. Evolution is consistent with the 2nd law because energy is being added to the earth’s ecosystem, which allows a locally more complex system such as life to be added because the overall entropy (state of disorder) for the solar system as a whole increases. This particular aspect of science does not by itself refute evolution, but neither does it prove evolution. Evolution is consistent with other scientific theories; the question is whether the theory matches the facts.


5 posted on 03/30/2010 9:02:22 AM PDT by Pollster1 (Natural born citizen of the USA, with the birth certificate to prove it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nysuperdoodle
In simple terms, the second law is an expression of the fact that over time, ignoring the effects of self-gravity, differences in temperature, pressure, and chemical potential tend to even out in a physical system that is isolated from the outside world. Source

Thus, over time the universe should eventually become a homogenius mass of atoms - but that is not what we observe. We see that left on their own, atoms attract each other and form Nublae, stars, planets and moons. This seems to indicate that the universe seems to create order from chaos.

The same thing could be said about 'evolution'. No one would agrue that early reptiles had inferior circluatory systems compared to their modern equivalent. Each generation of sports stars exceeds records established just a few years prior. Go figure.

6 posted on 03/30/2010 9:02:58 AM PDT by Hodar (Who needs laws .... when this "feels" so right?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pollster1
Evolution is consistent with the 2nd law because energy is being added to the earth’s ecosystem, which allows a locally more complex system such as life to be added because the overall entropy (state of disorder) for the solar system as a whole increases.

Not necessarily. I can throw a bunch of watch parts into a pan and heat them on my stove, and the parts won't increase in order merely because the overall entropy of the stovetop is increasing.

For this particular evolutionist argument to work, they need to take into account that the addition of energy to the earth's ecosystem must undergo the application of organisation, which is what life does. However, it is completely inadequate to explain where that organisation came from in the first place. At best, this attempt by evolutionists to get around the thermodynamics problem for evolution does nothing more than simply point out the tautology that already-existing life uses energy to increase and expand its organisation.

7 posted on 03/30/2010 9:09:24 AM PDT by Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus (We bury Democrats face down so that when they scratch, they get closer to home.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Westbrook
This is just plain silly. Evolution and the 2nd law of thermodynamics are not incompatible. Processes considered part of thermodynamically open systems, such as biological processes that are constantly receiving, transforming and dissipating chemical energy (and even the earth itself which is constantly receiving and dissipating solar energy), can and do exhibit properties of self organization far from thermodynamic equilibrium.

No loopholes are required. An open system is different than a closed system.

You can not prove that God created everything because that would negate faith. God requires faith.

I'm not saying that evolution happened, but that you'll never be able to disprove it. Looking for the fingerprints of God is trying to set yourself up as superior to God. Good luck trying to find a fault in His perfect creation.

8 posted on 03/30/2010 9:10:14 AM PDT by Tao Yin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Pollster1
Concur. To add a philosophical bit to it, it's a fitting irony that the driving engine of all natural change also points to its ultimate demise.
9 posted on 03/30/2010 9:10:39 AM PDT by Joe Brower (Sheep have three speeds: "graze", "stampede" and "cower".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Pollster1

In order for the universe to have order, it must, by definition, be a non-contained system. Who or what is adding energy (work) to this system to give it order? I see three possibilities: 1 - it just magically happens and we should stop asking questions 2 - the Second Law of Thermodynamics is wrong. 3 - God


10 posted on 03/30/2010 9:10:48 AM PDT by nysuperdoodle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: nysuperdoodle

Not only is the 2nd law of thermodynamics not incompatible with Darwinian evolution, it’s actually a necessary component.
No entropy = no mutations = no diversity = no natural selection = no Darwinian evolution.


11 posted on 03/30/2010 9:11:07 AM PDT by goodusername
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nysuperdoodle
I'm not much of an Evolutionist but...

Dumb matter & energy breaking down to simpler forms - Entropy.

Conscious life working in an environment, making decisions to benefit it - Enthalpy.

Ridiculous argument.

12 posted on 03/30/2010 9:12:46 AM PDT by Hoosier-Daddy ("It does no good to be a super power if you have to worry what the neighbors think." BuffaloJack)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nysuperdoodle

I always thought that Evolution came from the “Big Boink!”


13 posted on 03/30/2010 9:13:07 AM PDT by Young Werther ("Quar cum ita sunt" Since these things are so!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nysuperdoodle
EC has obviously never heard of Iliya Prigogine. There are other reasons to doubt or critizise neo-Darwinism, but this is not it.
14 posted on 03/30/2010 9:13:33 AM PDT by ScaniaBoy (Part of the Right Wing Research & Attack Machine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: goodusername

It’s not yet been proven that speciation exists. This is problematic.

Arguing that things go from lower to higher organisation is contrary to the 2nd Law, unless of course you have something coming in and adding things which isn’t a part of darwinian evolution.


15 posted on 03/30/2010 9:13:45 AM PDT by BenKenobi ("we shall defend our Island, whatever the cost may be")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Westbrook
The problem is that the second law of thermodynamics and evolution are pretty much incompatible

No, the problem is that creationists don't understand thermodynamics.

16 posted on 03/30/2010 9:18:16 AM PDT by NonZeroSum
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: nysuperdoodle

When solar energy is added to the earth, the sun’s entropy increases (via fusion) by more than the added organization from life on the earth causes entropy on earth to decrease. There is no conflict here. [And, no, I don’t want to get into the mathematical definition of entropy - look it up if you’re curious and skilled with math.]


17 posted on 03/30/2010 9:18:23 AM PDT by Pollster1 (Natural born citizen of the USA, with the birth certificate to prove it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: nysuperdoodle

I thought the word went out long ago to stop using the 2nd Law argument against evolution because it just makes creationists look silly.


18 posted on 03/30/2010 9:21:54 AM PDT by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus
For this particular evolutionist argument to work, they need to take into account that the addition of energy to the earth's ecosystem must undergo the application of organisation, which is what life does. However, it is completely inadequate to explain where that organisation came from in the first place. At best, this attempt by evolutionists to get around the thermodynamics problem for evolution does nothing more than simply point out the tautology that already-existing life uses energy to increase and expand its organisation.

Are you submitting that it is impossible for life to have the ability to evolve?

19 posted on 03/30/2010 9:25:13 AM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Pollster1
Evolution is consistent with the 2nd law because energy is being added to the earth’s ecosystem, which allows a locally more complex system such as life to be added because the overall entropy (state of disorder) for the solar system as a whole increases.

No, it is inconsistent with the second law.

Entrophy is decreased only with a particular type of energy i.e. work. Random energy, in the context of biological evolution, cannot reduce entrophy, it can only increase entrophy.

Random energy


20 posted on 03/30/2010 9:27:07 AM PDT by Donald Rumsfeld Fan (Sarah Palin "the Thrilla from Wasilla")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
Are you submitting that it is impossible for life to have the ability to evolve?

You're going to need to define your term a little more precisely.

Do you mean "evolve from non-life" or "evolve from other, already-existing lifeforms"?

21 posted on 03/30/2010 9:30:14 AM PDT by Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus (We bury Democrats face down so that when they scratch, they get closer to home.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Moonman62
How is the flow of heat incompatible with evolution?

The article refers to "work" energy. Not "heat" energy.

22 posted on 03/30/2010 9:30:58 AM PDT by Donald Rumsfeld Fan (Sarah Palin "the Thrilla from Wasilla")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: nysuperdoodle
Newton's Laws are incompatible with life.

After all, bodies at rest do not remain at rest.

Q.E.D.

23 posted on 03/30/2010 9:31:54 AM PDT by Lazamataz ("We beat the Soviet Union. Then we became them." -- Lazamataz, 2005)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus

you are correct.


24 posted on 03/30/2010 9:34:00 AM PDT by Donald Rumsfeld Fan (Sarah Palin "the Thrilla from Wasilla")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus
Do you mean "evolve from non-life" or "evolve from other, already-existing lifeforms"?

That would be "evolve from other, already-existing lifeforms".

Evolution is not abiogenesis.

25 posted on 03/30/2010 9:37:25 AM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Westbrook
The problem is that the second law of thermodynamics and evolution are pretty much incompatible

That's about the dumbest thing I've ever read. Evolution and the law of "no right on red until after stop" are also incompatible.
26 posted on 03/30/2010 9:44:22 AM PDT by Filo (Darwin was right!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Donald Rumsfeld Fan

Only in the world of creationists is evolution random.


27 posted on 03/30/2010 9:45:52 AM PDT by discostu (wanted: brick, must be thick and well kept)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Tao Yin
No loopholes are required. An open system is different than a closed system.

Both a closed system and an open system's entrophy can change. But without an organizing factor it can only change (overtime) in one direction.

28 posted on 03/30/2010 9:46:12 AM PDT by Donald Rumsfeld Fan (Sarah Palin "the Thrilla from Wasilla")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: nysuperdoodle
"Latest Physics Theories May Help Challenge Evolution of String Bikinis"

(1) Gravity tends to pull down Warm Globes.

Just remember Einstein ate Fig Newtons and flew on Qantas while formulating the
(2) Second Law of Thermodynamics, which states that bodies cool down really fast after a real hot time, sometimes going into a sleepytime mode.

29 posted on 03/30/2010 9:46:17 AM PDT by bunkerhill7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Donald Rumsfeld Fan
The article refers to "work" energy. Not "heat" energy.

Where do you see that? I see the article incorrectly equating entropy with chaos.

30 posted on 03/30/2010 9:57:23 AM PDT by Moonman62 (The issue of whether cheap labor makes America great should have been settled by the Civil War.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: discostu
Only in the world of creationists is evolution random.

The "Creationists" I've talked to understand that neo Darwinism envolves both randomness (chance) and an organizing principle. (i.e.natural selection).

31 posted on 03/30/2010 10:03:49 AM PDT by Donald Rumsfeld Fan (Sarah Palin "the Thrilla from Wasilla")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Donald Rumsfeld Fan

Involves randomness is which genes combine yes. But it is NOT a random process, and every single time anybody tries to attack evolution with the word “random” all they prove is they don’t know what they’re talking about.


32 posted on 03/30/2010 10:05:27 AM PDT by discostu (wanted: brick, must be thick and well kept)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Donald Rumsfeld Fan

“The article refers to “work” energy. Not “heat” energy.”

Ahhh, since when was there a difference?

Hank


33 posted on 03/30/2010 10:06:13 AM PDT by Hank Kerchief
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: discostu

If evolution isn’t random, then it’s directed or organized. That would imply intelligence, would it not?


34 posted on 03/30/2010 10:09:33 AM PDT by nysuperdoodle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Moonman62
Where do you see that? I see the article incorrectly equating entropy with chaos.

Second Law of Thermodaynamics: In any system, entropy (chaos) is always increasing, and any decrease of entropy (chaos) inside a system requires work (intelligence) to be added to the system.

35 posted on 03/30/2010 10:10:01 AM PDT by Donald Rumsfeld Fan (Sarah Palin "the Thrilla from Wasilla")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: nysuperdoodle

No. There’s a more dynamic world than that. Just because it ain’t random doesn’t mean there’s a plan, it means we can construct what’s happening and why.


36 posted on 03/30/2010 10:13:33 AM PDT by discostu (wanted: brick, must be thick and well kept)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Pollster1
Evolution is not the addition of energy to a system, it is the addition of information. Evolutionary changes are the addition of new information which changes the organism in better ways.

Addition of uncontrolled energy (i.e. the sun) is always destructive and contributes to the breakdown of systems. It must be controlled through the information stored in the cells of plants and animals in order to make the energy constructive (usable).

37 posted on 03/30/2010 10:18:05 AM PDT by wbarmy (I decided to be a sheepdog when I saw what happens to sheep.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: discostu
Involves randomness is which genes combine yes. But it is NOT a random process, and every single time anybody tries to attack evolution with the word “random” all they prove is they don’t know what they’re talking about.

Then you reject neo Darwinism? Last time I checked that was the reigning paradigm. Chance followed by natural selection ...no?

Once selected via "natural selection" from random mutations then the life form maintains itself for a time. But eventually, both individually and as a species succumbs to the inexorable ravages of the second law.


38 posted on 03/30/2010 10:27:41 AM PDT by Donald Rumsfeld Fan (Sarah Palin "the Thrilla from Wasilla")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Donald Rumsfeld Fan

click image in post #38


39 posted on 03/30/2010 10:29:18 AM PDT by Donald Rumsfeld Fan (Sarah Palin "the Thrilla from Wasilla")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: nysuperdoodle
The problem is that the second law of thermodynamics and evolution are pretty much incompatibleThe problem is that the second law of thermodynamics and evolution are pretty much incompatible

Darwinian Evolution is an obvious crock.

But suggesting that we don't ever see signs of order arising from chaotic situations is equally fatuous. Take a look at a snowflake sometime.

ML/NJ

40 posted on 03/30/2010 10:31:20 AM PDT by ml/nj
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Donald Rumsfeld Fan

What I reject is the false choice you present. Chance in which genes combine does NOT make a random system and does NOT make random mutation. Every single time a creationist throws the “random mutation” phrase out there they lie.


41 posted on 03/30/2010 10:31:22 AM PDT by discostu (wanted: brick, must be thick and well kept)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Tao Yin

Either the Bible is True or it isn’t.

All of it.

It takes Faith to believe that.

It also takes Faith to believe in the ever changing arcturian landscape of evolutionary fairy tales.

They weren’t there.

God was.

And I believe He had it written just as He intended in Genesis.

Why do we have 7 days in a week?

Why do you wear clothes?

Genesis.


42 posted on 03/30/2010 10:41:04 AM PDT by Westbrook (Having more children does not divide your love, it multiplies it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Hank Kerchief
“The article refers to “work” energy. Not “heat” energy.” Ahhh, since when was there a difference?

You caught that. You know your physics.

However in the authors context he means directed useful mechanical energy not random energy dissipated as useless (heat). On a macro scale he makes sense.

Work = Force x mass x acceleration x distance. But work's byproducts are wasted energy, thru friction etc.

43 posted on 03/30/2010 10:43:42 AM PDT by Donald Rumsfeld Fan (Sarah Palin "the Thrilla from Wasilla")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: ml/nj
But suggesting that we don't ever see signs of order arising from chaotic situations is equally fatuous. Take a look at a snowflake sometime.

You are correct. The organizing (directing factors) in the case of the snowflake are the physical laws. In the case of biological organisn it's the DNA. (specified information).

44 posted on 03/30/2010 10:48:57 AM PDT by Donald Rumsfeld Fan (Sarah Palin "the Thrilla from Wasilla")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: discostu
Chance in which genes combine does NOT make a random system.

Im not saying that. I am saying neoDarwinism theory posits genetic random mutation followed by natural selection as the pathway of evolution.

Sort of like the word "pwned" randomly muted from the word owned and survived as a useful word on internet blogs.

45 posted on 03/30/2010 11:13:29 AM PDT by Donald Rumsfeld Fan (Sarah Palin "the Thrilla from Wasilla")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Donald Rumsfeld Fan

Which neoDarwimism? The 115 year old post dated and largely forgotten stage of evolutionary theory? Of the Creationist version that has a bunch of strawman fake theories that aren’t actually part of evolutionary theory?

There was nothing random about pwned, it’s no more random than any other part of l33t, and no more useful.


46 posted on 03/30/2010 11:18:52 AM PDT by discostu (wanted: brick, must be thick and well kept)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: discostu

google it.


47 posted on 03/30/2010 11:32:50 AM PDT by Donald Rumsfeld Fan (Sarah Palin "the Thrilla from Wasilla")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Donald Rumsfeld Fan

Ahh, almost.

“Work = Force x mass x acceleration x distance”

Let’s see

F = MA (Force = mass X acceleration)
w = FD (Work = force x distance [over which the force is applied]

so w = MAD (mass X acceleration X distance). Since MA is “force” you don’t need to have it again.

Now energy:

E = 1/2MV^2 (Energy [kenetic] = 1/2 mass X velocity squared)

A force applied to a mass accelerates it. Its velocity times the mass divided by 2 (because the final velocity is the average of initial velocity and final velocity) will equal the work done to produce that acceleration. In other words, kinetic enegy of a moving body equals the work done to produce the velocity of that body.

So work and energy are different ways of looking at the same energy, right?

Hank


48 posted on 03/30/2010 11:43:54 AM PDT by Hank Kerchief
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Hank Kerchief
So work and energy are different ways of looking at the same energy, right?

all types of energy can be expressed in the same energy unit thru conversion factors. they are equivalent but not the same.

49 posted on 03/30/2010 12:25:40 PM PDT by Donald Rumsfeld Fan (Sarah Palin "the Thrilla from Wasilla")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Donald Rumsfeld Fan
Second Law of Thermodaynamics: In any system, entropy (chaos) is always increasing, and any decrease of entropy (chaos) inside a system requires work (intelligence) to be added to the system.

First of all, the stuff inside the parenthesis isn't part of the second law of thermodynamics. And while work is mentioned specifically, by definition entropy is about heat flow. Which brings me back to my original question, what does heat flow have to do with evolution?

50 posted on 03/30/2010 12:38:44 PM PDT by Moonman62 (The issue of whether cheap labor makes America great should have been settled by the Civil War.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-86 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson