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 ...
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.
Q.E.D.
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?
Hank
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.
ML/NJ
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.