Skip to comments.Latest Physics Theories May Help Challenge Evolution
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 ...
> The problem is that the second law of thermodynamics and > evolution are pretty much incompatible
Let’s see what loophole modern physics can provide for the evolutionist.
How is the flow of heat incompatible with evolution?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
Dumb matter & energy breaking down to simpler forms - Entropy.
Conscious life working in an environment, making decisions to benefit it - Enthalpy.
I always thought that Evolution came from the “Big Boink!”
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.
No, the problem is that creationists don't understand thermodynamics.
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.]
I thought the word went out long ago to stop using the 2nd Law argument against evolution because it just makes creationists look silly.
Are you submitting that it is impossible for life to have the ability to evolve?
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.
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"?
The article refers to "work" energy. Not "heat" energy.
After all, bodies at rest do not remain at rest.
you are correct.
That would be "evolve from other, already-existing lifeforms".
Evolution is not abiogenesis.
Only in the world of creationists is evolution random.
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.
(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.
Where do you see that? I see the article incorrectly equating entropy with chaos.
The "Creationists" I've talked to understand that neo Darwinism envolves both randomness (chance) and an organizing principle. (i.e.natural selection).
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.
“The article refers to “work” energy. Not “heat” energy.”
Ahhh, since when was there a difference?
If evolution isn’t random, then it’s directed or organized. That would imply intelligence, would it not?
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.
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.
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).
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.
click image in post #38
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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).
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.
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.
“Work = Force x mass x acceleration x distance”
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.
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?
all types of energy can be expressed in the same energy unit thru conversion factors. they are equivalent but not the same.
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?