Skip to comments.Evolution as Described by the Second Law of Thermodynamics
Posted on 08/11/2008 11:22:05 AM PDT by Soliton
By viewing evolution as the motion of energy flows toward a stationary state (entropy), evolution can be explained by the second law of thermodynamics, a law which conventionally describes physical systems. In this view, a cheetah serves as an energy transfer mechanism, and beneficial mutations allow the animal to transfer more energy within its environment, helping even out the energy.
(Excerpt) Read more at physorg.com ...
I think most creationists have abandoned that line of argument.
Evolution is based upon the theory that death and mutation has ultimately resulted in the creation of man.
I’ll take Jesus my Lord, God and Savior over death and mutation 10,000 times in a row.
Not here on FR. I get it tossed at me constantly
Oh, I know. But in general I think it's the case.
But the Bible tells us that Jesus died and mutated (transfigured). Don't you believe the Bible?
That's like saying, "Gravity is based on the theory that we're all getting sucked into our planet. No thanks."
Facts are stubborn things. They don't just go away because you don't like them or their implications.
I put creme in my coffee this morning, and it changed colors...must be evolution....
Making your point is one thing; but you are borderline obsessed with this stuff.....seriously.....
If the young earthers ignore the part about 'closed system', ignoring that initial energy transfer comes from the sun.
I was under the impression that the second law of thermodynamics also spoke of a movement from order to chaos. From useful/organized energy to useless/random energy. Is that not an aspect of this theory?
“A naturalistic origin of the universe violates either the First or Second Laws of thermodynamics or both. So, is this science? Or faith?”
Roy Spencer on Intelligent Design, July 14th 2008
That is what they are discussing in the article
Well, I admit I don’t spend a lot of time reading the ID literature. It’s just an impression I’ve gathered, that those who believed the 2nd Law precludes evolution were just embarrassed too often and dropped that particular argument.
I buy that faster cheetahs beget faster cheetahs. But the logical conclusion would also be that wildebeests and antelope type species develop claws and fangs to fend off their attackers.
It has to work both ways - right?
No it doesn't. Maybe they develop faster speed and herd behavior instead. Humans didn't develop fangs to fight the sabre-tooth tiger, we developed better brains.
And they should be, but the link I just gave you is to a site run by one of the Discovery Institutes primary voices. The Discovery Institute is behind this whole ID push. They don't publish this nonsense to convert scientists. It's for the true believers to inocculate themselves agaist the truth. It's not a recruiting strategy, but a retention program.
Dang, that’s Rush’s guy. Who would have thought he was on board with this stuff?
So you thought you’d just stir the pot a bit...
I’m not sure what you are referring to.
No, I just wanted to shut up the second law deniers.
OK, I forced myself to read the article at your link. It’s a restatement of every discredited point IDers have been making for years. You’re right, it’s not meant to convince honest inquirers, just to reassure believers.
Seems like your homepage used to have something about how bad this type of discussion made FR look.
I don’t see those terms in the article.
LOL. That is one of the best takedowns of the morons I’ve ever seen.
How’s the fundraiser going?
He seemed reasonable and stuck to science. I didn't take him for an ID advocate.
LOL Gee, a brand new defintion for evolution. The author of this article begins with a faulty premise. The theory of evolution has nothing to do with 'energy flows'.
This line of reasoniing and orthodox evolution theory are not capable of forcasting change. In fact,change is not guaranteed. When it occurs it may be in a less successful direction. The cheetah may develop shorter claws and die out.
What I find most interesting is the absolute necessity, according to evolutionary theory, of extinction. Yet we have a body of law and government edicts mandating the protection of species in danger of extinction. The spurious argument given is that humans are causing the extinctions. Why is that a bad thing according to evolutionary theory. Is it not our natural duty to eradicate every species that endangers us or is not useful to us? Similarly do we not increase populations of creatures that benefit us?
In the final analysis one can not be an environmentalist and accept evolution. The two views are polar opposites.
thanks for the laugh!
This is certainly true. The notion that evolution is necessarily progressive is a myth. Humans have less acute senses of smell than our ancestors, for instance.
As to your other point, what passes for environmentalism today is hardly grounded in science, biological or otherwise.
Your name-calling does you no service. You should try reading what you and your buds write. It has all the earmarks of dogma. In addition, by simply making fun of those who you disagree with, you do not take on the very serious business at hand here.
C’mon, what are you afraid of?
Your basic argument seems to be that those who disagree with you are somehow inferior. This has nothing to do with the substance of the arguments. You talk amongst yourselves in front of everyone else as though that proves something other than that you are bereft of cogent convincing conclusive arguments.
Then you take on FR and try to make the web site owners embarrassed. These are old school socialist fascist methods. Stand up and fight in the open, like men! If you really believe in evolution, then you should be able to be the fittest that survive!
Somehow I think you have minds that are closed shut. Hello?
If you truly believe that consciousness is an accident than you cannot believe in accidents. Or, your beliefs must also be accidents, and, therefore, no better or worse than mine.
We see fossils of birds or reptiles or other animals and plants from tens to hundreds of millions of years ago, and lo and behold, they are somewhat the same as they are now (they are still birds or reptiles or plants). How is it, then, that all the species of life on earth are to have evolved in a relatively short time span (geologically speaking) from a single entity? Or is there some huge, all of the sudden appearance, of multiple species? Scientists keep telling me I'm closely related to all life forms on earth and that we all share x-number of percent of dna and genes, but it raises more questions than answers for me.
Here's why, using bacteria as a starting point. They reproduce feverishly (many thousands of generations to one human life-time), but they are still bacteria. These lowest forms of life have never shown the ability to go beyond being bacteria. Yet, we have millions of diverse species of all things, that keep turning into more of those things. We don't see lines of apes being anything but apes, well, where did the first ape come from? What about the first bird?
Not looking for a fight, just looking for logical answers to logical questions.
My argument, fwiw, is that the study of science provides us with a wonderful method of acquiring knowledge of our universe. It's a method of thinking that (1) is not incompatible with my religion, and (2) has benefited man in numerous ways.
...the “Hopeful Monster Theory”, where in one giant leap of a mutation a totally functional mutation develops that looks completely different than the parents. Which, rather coincidentally, explains the lack of abundant transitional fossil evidence.
The reason Western civiization, to this very day, gives birth to their young with the windows closed, out of fear that a mutation will be born and fly out the window.
...that's the way I heard it anyway...
Your questions, good as they are, are impossible to answer in a simple internet post. May I recommend two books that might be helpful? They are “Evolution: The Remarkable History of a Scientific Theory “ by Edward Larson and “The Making of the Fittest” by Sean Carroll. Good places to start.
“Or, more logically, you simply put creme in your coffee which lightened the color. If this is your understanding of evolution, then how can anyone take any of your arguments seriously... ever?”
It’s called sarcasm..ever heard of it?
If the 2nd law were provable, then evolution would be disprovable.
I believe in God, I beleive in creation, but I do not disbelieve in evolution. While I don't completely buy into the ID theory, I do believe that a God who is powerful enough to create, would also give us the gift of being able to adapt and overcome.
I am one who looks at the beauty of nature around me and comes to the conclusion that things are a bit too ordered to have been random.
There is a lot of structure to things, there is also a lot of chaos. What I like to see is the structured order of things reacting to chaos. My favorite example is the way nature came back from the devastation of Mt. Saint Helens.
You couldn't understand the article could you?
PX-99 Nuclear-Fired Popcorn Popper activating, sir...
Claws and fangs would be very difficult adaptations for these animals for a variety of reasons (e.g., carnivore teeth aren't great for an herbivore). But if you look at the world of herbivores, you'll note that many of them have adaptations that make them very difficult prey for carnivores. Elephants are big, rhinos are well-armored, Cape buffalo sport dangerous horns, giraffes are lethal kickers etc.
Mmm! Kettle korn!
The “smart guys” that made that graphic misspelled “plate tectonics”. DUUUUUUUURRRRRRRRRRRRR
...yaks just plain taste bad...
Yeah, like people read the article.
Anyway the 2nd Law of thermodynamics applies to closed systems and is really irrelevant to life on earth, whose development is almost entirely dependent on enormous and relatively stable imports of energy from the sun. If one redrew the system boundaries to include the sun, then maybe one could talk about entropy vs. life. The linked article is basically pop pseudoscience.
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.