Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Evolution as Described by the Second Law of Thermodynamics
Physorg.com ^ | August 11, 2008 | Lisa Zyga

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 ...


TOPICS: Science
KEYWORDS: boring; cantthink; clueless; crevo; evolution; humor; irrational; junkscience; makebelieve; noonecares; obsession; patrickhenryreturns; thermodynamics; whatajoke; yawn; zzzzzzzzz
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-74 next last
To: jalisco555
Thank you.

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.

41 posted on 08/11/2008 12:53:23 PM PDT by IYAS9YAS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: DungeonMaster
If the 2nd law were provable, then evolution would be disprovable.

You couldn't understand the article could you?

42 posted on 08/11/2008 12:56:19 PM PDT by Soliton (> 100)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Soliton

PX-99 Nuclear-Fired Popcorn Popper activating, sir...


43 posted on 08/11/2008 1:06:34 PM PDT by B-Chan (Catholic. Monarchist. Texan. Any questions?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: B-Chan
Have some of mine while your energy source reaches critical mass:


44 posted on 08/11/2008 1:10:04 PM PDT by MHGinTN (Believing they cannot be deceived, they cannot be convinced when they are deceived.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: jonno
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.

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.

45 posted on 08/11/2008 1:14:19 PM PDT by Citizen Blade ("Please... I go through everyone's trash." The Question)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN

Mmm! Kettle korn!


46 posted on 08/11/2008 1:15:17 PM PDT by B-Chan (Catholic. Monarchist. Texan. Any questions?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: LesbianThespianGymnasticMidget

The “smart guys” that made that graphic misspelled “plate tectonics”. DUUUUUUUURRRRRRRRRRRRR


47 posted on 08/11/2008 1:16:12 PM PDT by B-Chan (Catholic. Monarchist. Texan. Any questions?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Citizen Blade
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...

...yaks just plain taste bad...

48 posted on 08/11/2008 1:18:02 PM PDT by B-Chan (Catholic. Monarchist. Texan. Any questions?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Soliton

Yeah, like people read the article.


49 posted on 08/11/2008 1:39:19 PM PDT by DungeonMaster (My son just joined the Navy!!!!!!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Soliton
I find the evolution of a highly complex organism like a cheetah to be a very poor example of entropy. Entropy would be enhanced more if cheetahs and their prey all were converted into trillions of bacteria.

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.

50 posted on 08/11/2008 2:19:43 PM PDT by hellbender
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hellbender
The linked article is basically pop pseudoscience

Submit your research to The Proceedings of the Royal Society for peer review then. They did:

Kaila, Ville R. I. and Annila, Arto. “Natural selection for least action.” Proceedings of The Royal Society A. doi:10.1098/rspa.2008.0178.

51 posted on 08/11/2008 2:34:59 PM PDT by Soliton (> 100)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: manapua

I’ll ignore your base humor and crudeness.

As for your argument, what you’ve described is a belief, nothing more. Again, it must have been an accidental belief as well, if you ascribe to evolutionary philosphy, another accidental abstraction.


52 posted on 08/11/2008 2:58:16 PM PDT by sleepy_hollow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Soliton

It’s not that hard to get junk science published. Just look at all the garbage “supporting” Anthropogenic Global Warming.


53 posted on 08/11/2008 4:08:01 PM PDT by hellbender
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: LesbianThespianGymnasticMidget

That’s funny! True and Funny! Sadly true and yet ironically funny.


54 posted on 08/11/2008 4:36:53 PM PDT by Caramelgal (Just a lump of organized protoplasm - braying at the stars :),)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Soliton

oh yeah, thanks.


55 posted on 08/11/2008 5:26:15 PM PDT by shineon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Soliton

That doesn’t explain why there are still monkeys


56 posted on 08/11/2008 5:35:40 PM PDT by Oztrich Boy (So there you have it : Eliza Dushku has made my naughty list for the year)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oztrich Boy

1. Humans and other apes are descended from a common ancestor whose population split to become two (and more) lineages. The question is rather like asking, “If many Americans and Australians are descended from Europeans, why are there still Europeans around?” Creationists themselves recognize the invalidity of this claim (AIG n.d.).

Links:
Foley, Jim. 2002. Fossil hominids: Frequently asked questions http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/faqs.html#apes
References:

1. AIG, n.d. Arguments we think creationists should NOT use. http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/faq/dont_use.asp#apes

Further Reading:
Darwin, C., 1872. The Origin of Species, London: Senate, chap. 4. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/origin/chapter4.html

Source: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC150.html


57 posted on 08/11/2008 6:06:16 PM PDT by Deinococcus radiodurans
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: sleepy_hollow

Actually, what I was talking about is based on observation.


58 posted on 08/11/2008 6:11:34 PM PDT by manapua
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Alter Kaker

The facts are that Sarah was way past the age of bearing children.
The Truth is she had Isaac.
The facts are that David was too small to take on Goliath
The Truth is that he defeated him with five smooth stones.
The facts are that Mary was a virgin and therefore unable to bear a child.
The Truth is she bore Jesus Christ the Son of God
The facts are there was no place for the Hebrews to go as they fled Egypt
The Truth is that the Red Sea parted and they went on dry ground.


59 posted on 08/11/2008 8:06:18 PM PDT by shineon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Soliton
Don't reveal your ignorance, which is different from that of Creationist ID'ers.

Read up on the Three Laws and critique the article you posted. Then get back to me.

Cheers!

60 posted on 08/11/2008 8:07:11 PM PDT by grey_whiskers (The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-74 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
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

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