Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Fido969
As a matter of fact, you’d think entropy would prevent it.

Debunked.

Entropy and Life

To argue that evolution is inconsistent with the second law of thermodynamics it is usually stated that evolution is a continual process of achieving higher order and design, which is against the second law. This is an argument based on casual definition of terms, rather than on quantification of order, design, and entropy. I hope that by this point it is reasonably clear that this argument actually has little if anything to do with the second law of thermodynamics. How would one propose to measure the relative order or design increase that would accompany any evolutionary step? What number represents the difference between standing erect and walking on all fours, between having only day vision and between having also developed night vision...? If we cannot answer such questions, then arguments about order and design will fall outside the realm of science.

To determine whether anything about the chemical processes of life violates the second law of thermodynamics requires looking at all the process on an individual basis. If there is no violation in the absorption of sunlight, or in any subsequent reactions, then there cannot be any violation of the second law as the net sum of such reactions (see the previous section on scaling). I am not personally aware of any such individual spots where the second law is violated. In fact, the second law is about as close as science comes to having sacrosanct laws. Any violations of this law that were discovered anywhere, no matter how small they were, would be very big news... I'm sure I would have heard of it.

More in the link above...

6 posted on 05/08/2007 10:28:59 PM PDT by CarrotAndStick (The articles posted by me needn't necessarily reflect my opinion.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies ]


To: CarrotAndStick; Fido969
Not debunked.

If life were subject to the kind of random change that evolution would require (and it is clearly not), it would have destroyed itself long ago. An accidental increase in useful information is denied by the second law, and all those loony dissertations that attempt to 'debunk' this fact are illogical nonsequiters that endlessly play with words to the point of destroying language as effectively as evolution would destroy life.

17 posted on 05/09/2007 7:27:39 AM PDT by editor-surveyor (Turning the general election into a second Democrat primary is not a winning strategy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies ]

To: CarrotAndStick
I don’t buy it. The plain fact is we are taking random clumps of particles and turning them into very intricate, complex systems.
20 posted on 05/09/2007 7:41:13 AM PDT by Fido969 ("The hardest thing in the world to understand is income tax." - Albert Einstein)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


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