Physicist: In very short: nope.
The second law of thermodynamics is sometimes (too succinctly) stated as “disorder increases over time”. That statement seems to hold true, what with mountains wearing down, machines breaking, and the inevitable, crushing march of time. But living things seem to be an exception. Plants can turn dirt (disordered) into more plants (order), and on a larger scale life has evolved from individual cells (fairly ordered) to big complicated critters (very ordered).
However, there are a couple things missing from the statement “disorder increases over time”, such as a solid definition of “disorder” (it’s entropy) and the often-dropped stipulation that the second law of thermodynamics only applies to closed systems.
Creatures, both in the context of growing and reproducing, and in the context of evolution are definitely not closed systems. Doing all of that certainly involves an increase in order, but at the expense of a much greater increase in disorder elsewhere. Specifically, we eat food which, with all of its carbohydrates and proteins, is fairly ordered, and produce lots of heat, sweat, and… whatnot. Food, and air, and whatnot are what make living things “open systems”.
Whatnot.
If a creature could take, say, a kilogram of non-living, highly disordered material and turn it into a kilogram of highly ordered creature, then that would certainly be a big violation of the second law of thermodynamics. However, people (for example) consume along the lines of about 30 to 50 tons of food during the course of a lifetime. Some of that goes into building a fine and foxy body, but most of it goes into powering that body and fighting degradation (blood and skin and really everything wears out and needs to be replaced). So, about 0.15% (give or take) of that food matter is used to build a body, and 99.85% is used for power and to fight the entropy drop involved in body construction and temporarily holding back the horrifying ravages of time.
When compared to the entropy involved with turning food into the many, many bodies that make up a species, evolution is barely an afterthought. In fact, the entropy (as used/defined in thermodynamics) of most animals (by weight) is all about the same. A person and a mountain lion have about the same entropy as each other, simply because we weigh about the same.
The big exception is photosynthesizing plants. They really can turn a kilogram of inert, high-disorder dirt, air, and water into a kilogram of low-disorder plant matter. But, again, they’re working with a bigger system than just the “plant/dirt/air/water system”.
There’s a huge increase in entropy between the incoming sunlight and the outgoing heat that’s radiated away from the Earth.
Sunlight is a bunch of high-energy photons coming from one direction, which involves relatively little entropy. A little later that energy is re-radiated from the Earth as heat, which is the same amount energy spread over substantially more photons and involves a lot more entropy (relatively). This huge increase in entropy, between the incoming sunlight and the outgoing heat, is the “entropy sink” that makes all life on Earth possible (with just a handful of exceptions). In particular, green plants take a tiny amount of the sunlight that hits the Earth and turns some of the energy into sugars and other useful plant-ey material. It all eventually turns into heat and radiates away, but instead of doing it all at once it does it through a few links in the food chain.
You can think of this huge sunlight-to-re-radiated-heat increase in entropy like water going over a waterfall, and life as being like a hydro-electric dam. It all ends up at the bottom of the falls, but sometimes it can do some interesting stuff (life and other useful mechanical work) on the way.
Only a small percentage of a plant comes from dirt. The whole point is that they take carbon out of the atmosphere.
You wrote that “99.85% [of the energy we “consume”/degrade] is used for power and to fight the entropy drop involved in body construction and temporarily holding back the horrifying ravages of time.” Can you say where that statistic comes from?
One of the distinctive features of living entities is the way they (we) store and use energy functionally–in ways that non-biological entities don’t. For example, biological organisms use energy to move themselves against an energy field, e.g,. uphill. Or we use energy to write and speak, i.e., to produce sounds and symbols for the purpose of communicating–again, which isn’t seen among non-biological entities.
Are there statistics about the proportion of energy that biological organisms use in this functional manner? By functional I mean something other than just maintaining the machine, i.e., different from just fighting entropy. This may be a difficult line to draw. I would include building a house/nest/burrow/dam as functional but translating DNA into proteins as fighting entropy. (I’d include sex on the functional side.)
“Plants can turn dirt (disordered) into more plants (order)”
Wouldn’t it be more accurate (and more interesting) to say that plants turn water and air into more plants? If I remember correctly, soil nutrients only provide a very small part of a plant’s mass.
Wow, that was a huge brain-fart on my part. Fixed!
Continuing on the theme of this post, there is a good article HERE explaining that, in the search for extraterrestrial life, we should be looking in places where there is a steep entropy gradient, as this provides the necessary chaos-into-order conditions to create and evolve life.
Life and evolution are processes that seem to require the input of low entropy (order) and the output and disposal of high entropy (disorder).
And now for something completely different: I am not myself a believer, atheist or agnostic (I am in a fourth category that does not encompass any of these three), but I came across a fascinating account of a young woman who had a near death experience — the usual NDE story that you hear: died for some minutes on the operating table, but brought back to life by her doctors a while later. Bear with me on this, because it relates to entropy gradients.
While this woman was dead, she had a typical near death experience: communicated with deceased relatives and saw the white light that is frequently reported in NDEs. Being a curious soul, she asked her relatives whether that white light was God. A relative replied, and said: “No, that white light is not God; the light is the breath of God; God lives by breathing in our memories, and breathing out nothing”.
Immediately on reading this odd statement, it occurred to me that what she described was a God who is living creature dependent on an entropy gradient for life, just like us. Why? Because human memories are specific states of information (a memory is a definite arrangement of bits, in information theory terms), and information theory will tell you that a specific state of information has a higher state of order (lower entropy) that a state of no information (randomness or nothing).
So although his woman had no scientific knowledge, the way she described God’s respiration was perfectly consistent with what thermodynamics tells us about energy flow: God obtains energy to live by “breathing in” low entropy information (human memories), and “breathing out” of high entropy information (randomness or nothing).
I know that all this sounds like terrible pseudoscience, and of course it certainly cannot be classed as any empirical evidence; but mention it as I was so astounded by the way that, as she described it, God is a creature like us, that needs energy, and lives on an entropy gradient.
G it is a very interesting story, a deeply theological one. From a Christian theology perspective, do not forget that by Genesis, the entropy was maximum in the beginning (the seas and the earth were one.) Genesis as creation decreased the entropy by bringing order. We should not confuse information entropy with physical. Information entropy assumes order at least from the receiver. From the story you recite, memories do not seem to disappear (the relatives remember the NDE witness and the witness herself is drawn to memories.) Therefore, this “energy” is not consumed but rather persisted. One can say that our memories under the light of God’s breath are the eternal paradise or hell. The eternity comes from the immutability of the memory. Just some thoughts, even though we take this article in a totally different direction.
Let’s not forget the sunlight itself is produced at the cost of huge amounts of entropy in the sun.
Question: Is life going to die out eventually as a result of the entropy pollution it produces? Should we worry about it after going green and reusable?
Just a casual observation. the whole open/closed system of thermodynamics is flawed. The only time it is an ‘open’ system is if ‘life’ is present; otherwise, it is a closed system.
Space-Time dimensions have their own attributes which are measured and affect each other, hence why they are considered dimensions. I propose that life is another of those dimensions which affects space-time, a 5th dimension (or 11th dimension) in which the 2nd Law of thermodynamics does not apply to. The physics of life (should it be a dimension) would interact with the other dimensions, and in the case of ‘Life’ force it’s special forces into them such as disorder brought into order, or in the case of sentient life, extreme disorder brought into extreme order.
John Archibald Wheeler, a renown physicist, proposed in a self-aware universe in which life is intrinsic to the universe’s design, bringing forth sentient life, which further produces order to the universe by simple observation by this sentient. There are leagues of physicists who have similar theories, and quantum physics actually supports such.
So I propose LIFE is it’s own dimension, with it’s own special physics which can be seen to affect the space-time continuum and hence why the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics does not apply.
I’m a little confused. I thought that the physics text books regard the “closed system” as theoretical and not actually existing in the universe, although some have proposed that the entire universe might be considered a closed system – that is if there does not exist a multiverse. In other words, there is a constant and continuous interaction between stuff in the universe, especially from the quantum physics view point, but from the more classical view points as well. So that ultimately no thing within the cosmos is isolated from all else.
Also, @Mehrdad citing the increase in entropy within a star in the creation of light, wouldn’t the nuclear fusion reactions that occur within the star be regarded as a decrease in entropy (hydrogen atoms fused to make helium… and so on)?
If the total energy of the universe was decreasing, does that mean a child born 5,000 years ago would be more energetic than a child born today?
What do you know about this, really? Do you have any special tools to measure the complexity-level of the entire universe, at specific points in time (say, before the existence of life compared to right now)?
If not, then you cannot answer this question. But you can say that you believe, that life cannot violate the second law of thermodynamics – which can’t really come as a surprise to anyone, seeing as you are a formally educated physicist.
Triple High Fives to Anthony from me. Everyone else had great input also so a high five for each of you. So I was reading and I couldn’t grasp how the 2nd law was basically amended in relation to life there to make it all almost fit the explanation. It didn’t flow right for me, something had me cringing for fear that it just wasn’t correct. Because I think agreeing with the question makes much more sense than changing the law and going the route you did. It just feels more right. We can’t just theorize missing information to add onto the 2nd LAW of thermodynamics and say oh well now life and evolution are in line. Basically you’ve helped me to agree with the question with your disagreement of it. You’ve said besides life entropy is correct. With life, entropy, the 2nd law, are also correct BUT not as things are stated currently. I think you said they left a couple things out which you told us about with the rest of the explanation. So if entropy is decreased order over time then you can’t fit life, especially human life snuggly into that equation. Because thoughts from when I was a baby or child to now have definitely not increased in disorder, neither has my body. Now depending on how long I live that may change direction again. But that doesn’t extinguish life just because I’m gone. Hopefully I’ve done my part so that human life becomes less and less disorder for more and more people. That’s why some of us plant trees, knowing the shade from them will be enjoyed one day, not by us but by a someone probably not even in existence yet. I find that amazing, the fact that I’m gone, yet an action I did will have a benefit and definitely not fall in line with the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Another crazy thing is that I can to this day still feel the love of people who don’t walk the earth anymore, but never felt hate or anger from someone who’s passed on. Just a thought. But you are an inspiration and great teacher Mr. Physicist. Thanks. You could be right. Just this scenario didn’t feel like it was to me is all. I’m out like Baby Ruth trying to steal second. Hah. Just made that up on the fly.
Why doesn’t iced coffee defy the Second Law of Thermodynamics? Ok, I know nothing does or can – but having just poured some hot coffee over a big mug full of ice cubes, then stirred it (admittedly an external source of energy expended, but that should work at both sides of the equation: the hot and cold side no?). The hot coffee got cold instead of the ice melting and the coffee remaining warm.
Is ice coffee a form of dark matter/dark energy? Seriously, just wondering what the everyday physics explanation is, given that a typical popularization for non-scientists like myself as to how the 2nd law works is that energy doesn’t go from hot to cold without an equivalent expenditure of energy somewhere else intervening in the process. Though, those of us who drink it know that if there WERE one thing that might be able to resist the second law of thermodynamics, it would be iced coffee.
Iced coffee certainly does not violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics. When you pour hot coffee on ice which we can assume is at 0 degrees C, the ice most certainly does gradually melt (even with no stirring) and dilutes the coffee in the process. The melting process requires the absorption of heat energy from the surroundings but any remaining ice stays at 0 degrees until it too turns to water. The heat required to melt the ice comes from the hot coffee and as this heat is taken from the coffee, its temperature decreases. Eventually the coffee reaches a temperature of 0 degrees and this hopefully happens before all of the ice has melted. Now the ice and cold coffee will stay at a temperature of 0 degrees until all of the remaining ice has melted. The heat needed to melt this remaining ice must come from outside the cup (eg. from your hot little hands). If you quickly drink the cold diluted coffee, you will notice that the amount of ice left in your cup is less than the amount you started with. The 2nd law of thermodynamics says that the entropy (amount of disorder) of a closed system can only increase as various interactions occur within that system. Even though the slow molecules of cold coffee have less entropy than the faster molecules of hot coffee, the liquid form of water at its melting point (with its randomly moving molecules) represents more entropy (disorder) than the solid form of water (with its ordered array of molecules) at that same temperature. The increase in entropy due the melting of the ice exceeds the decrease in entropy due to the temperature decrease of the coffee. Therefore, there is a net increase in the entropy of the contents of your cup and the 2nd law of thermodynamics has not been violated!
So the plasma of creation cooled and coalesced and eventually formed into galaxies, but somehow all the intricacies we see are less orderly than that soup at the beginning? Sorry, but I lack the necessary faith in science to accept that.
@Mark My Word. I don’t mean to be rude, but the whole, “I don’t have enough faith to be a [fill in the blank atheist/evolutionist/whatever]” almost always actually means,”I don’t have enough understanding…”
The key is that the entropy as a whole increases, but that doesn’t mean that entropy can’t decrease in parts of the system. The article gave the example of plants. If we take the sun/earth system as an ‘entropy system’ (not technically closed, but close enough for illustrative purposes), the entropy of the entire system increases, while it decreases in little pockets when plants grow.
To: Mark My Word. If someone says they “lack the necessary faith in science” to accept its various concepts, explanations, theories, etc. (all based on evidence, reproducibility, experimental controls, and unbiased peer review), it seems somewhat hypocritical to me that they would also not lack the necessary faith to believe in supernatural concepts, powers, explanations, beings, etc. (where no acceptable evidence, reproducibility, experimental control, or unbiased peer review exists)! As a wise person once said “the good thing about science is that it’s generally true whether you believe in it or not”.
Render to Physics’ the things that are Physics’, and to God the things that are God’s.
There is no question that all physical life on earth depends upon entropy increasing physical processes for physical survival. Even Jesus quit fasting after a month.
However, we may be spiritually “knowledgable/aware” of the world beyond our own physical existence. Some would say this awareness is nothing more than an illusionary trick, but I think that is like saying that software is nothing more than the hardware platform it runs upon.
The ultimate convergence point of evolution would be an infinitely high ratio of knowlegde/awareness to physical baggage, to be able to reliably control the unfolding of history by the mere gentle tweaking of a few quantum scale events.
See you in Nirvana!
About the only really dumb article that I’ve seen “the Physicist” write. Like most (if not all MODERN scientists) he appears to be an atheist despite the overwhelmingly logical and evidentiary (scientific) proofs of God. ALL the great ORIGINATING scientists (Newton, Einstein, etc, etc.) were theists of some sort (Christian or Jewish). In fact, the scientific “revolution” sprang from the Renaissance and the onset of Protestant theology. It is impossible for the “dis” entropy (“information,” according to Claude Shannon, the father of the “Information age” in his 1948 publication “A mathematical theory of communication”) encoded in DNA to have self-assembled according to the 2nd law of thermodynamics without the input of an enormous amount of intelligently directed energy in, yes, a closed system!! What about consciousness?!! Living organisms may not be a “closed system” once they EXIST, but how did they comje into existence?! It’s so intuitively obvious a child figures it out before he’s ever been to either a science class OR church!! “The fool says in his heart- ‘there is no God.'” A lot of scientists are fools because THEY want to be “God” (all-knowing) and/or narcissistically resent the competition! I had more respect for “the Physicist” before I read this article. Oh well, he’s still quite brilliant and has a keen use of words, a talent for explanation, and a great sense of humor (not to mention being quite generous in providing these forums free of charge!).
Stuart Shepherd, since I’m confident you’re not like the typical evangelical who quote-mines without ever actually reading source material, perhaps you could tell us what Shannon’s view of the creationist explanation is–you know… since the theological views of scientists are so compelling to you.
BTW, Einstein was not a theist, but at most a Deist. Newton was a heretic, according to modern Christians, so unless you’re an anti-trinitarian alchemist I suspect you’ll want to pick and choose how important his theological views are to you depending on the specific belief (those that you agree with you’ll find especially compelling no doubt, while his crackpot and/or heretical beliefs will be completely unimportant). Besides, that people who grew up in an overwhelmingly religious culture and didn’t drop it immediately–especially pre Darwin, is not a surprise at all.
Stuart, I think my last comment came across more snarky than I intended. Without arguing, I’d like to ask some questions based on your comment.
EVIDENCE
1. You say the logical proof is overwhelming. Could you recount some of that proof?
2. Can you explain why most philosophers have abandoned attempts at “proving” God’s existence, and instead have switched to defending the claim that it’s “not irrational” to believe in God? Why would professional philosophers, who are also theists, say they cannot “prove” God if the logical proof is so overwhelming?
3. You say the evidentiary proof is overwhelming. Could you recount some of that proof?
RENAISSANCE + REFORMATION = SCIENCE
4. You claim, “the scientific ‘revolution’ sprang from the Renaissance and the onset of Protestant theology.” Do you have a source to back this up?
5. Are you claiming the Protestant reformation came hand-in-hand with the Renaissance? How do you explain the fact that the Renaissance preceded the Reformation by about 100 years. Why do you suppose history textbooks say the Renaissance was a catalyst of the Reformation?
6. Is there evidence to suggest that the Reformation *caused* the scientific revolution, rather than the two being correlated events?
EARLY THEOLOGICAL SCIENTISTS
7. You seem to be making much of it, but what is the significance of early scientists being overwhelmingly theistic? What lesson or message should we draw from that fact?
8. Should we draw a similar (but opposite) lesson/message from the fact that modern scientists are mostly *not* theists?
9. If not, why are the theological leanings of early scientist important, but the theological leanings of modern scientists unimportant?
SHANNON & INFORMATION & 2LOT
10. Have you read Shannon’s famous publication?
11. Are you aware of his conclusions re: creationism?
12. If so, how do you reconcile using his work/statements so selectively? When he talks about creationism, does Shannon suddenly stop being an expert on Information Theory?
13. Are you aware that entropy is not the same as information, and that Shannon did not use one to mean the other? (I think you probably know this, but it’s not clear to me, given your statements.)
14. Given that Shannon Information is probabilistic, how does one compute the probability of an event about which they have no details?
15. Could you give an example of a calculation of Shannon Information when one lacks any solid probability distributions–or even any reliable guesstimates?
CONSCIOUSNESS & ABIOGENESIS
16. You ask, “What about consciousness?!!” and how life first came into being. What conclusion are we expected to reach as a result of not understanding these phenomena yet? Do these questions amount to saying, “If we don’t know exactly how it happened, then God did it”?
INTUITION
17. Do you think it’s likely that children are greatly influenced by their parents and culture before they ever go to class or church?
18. On the other hand, do you think it’s likely (or even possible) for children to *not* be influenced by them?
19. Do you think “intuition” is *at all* a reliable method of scientific discovery?
MAD SCIENTISTS
20. Can you give me a list of scientists who have said they want to be God?
21. Do you have any evidence to support this list?
22. Outside of a couple of passages in Romans, is there any reason to think people who don’t believe in something want to be that non-existent something?
23. There are millions of scientists around the world who do not believe in God, and you say many of those reject God because they want to be God. Can you give an explanation for the rest of non-believing scientists who don’t believe in God but do *not* want to be God?
24. How do you tell the difference between these groups if the God-wannabes don’t identify themselves?
Hi, i have a question, i have been meaning to ask everyone, but am not eble to online or dont get an answer…………. so living beings are open systems, right? We exchange materials and energy from surroundings so the law of entropy does not apply to us…….,….. but earth too is an open system, it recieves light from sun and yives back radiations, it recieves material in the form of meteors etc. ………….. and our solar system too is an open system in the same sense, recieving cosmic radiation and giving it back……….. so what wd are saying is 2nd law does not apply to our entire solar system????? On anything????? Right???? Because it is all an open system………… please do answer, no one seems to be able to answer me, i need this answer………
@tooba
Physics is full of “ideal laws” and approximations. For example, we typically describe the way the Earth orbits the Sun as though there were no other planets. This works amazingly well, but on those occasions when we need to be more precise we do include the affect of the other planets.
Similarly, we often describe things as “isolated systems” when they don’t interact with their environment very well; insulated things, contained gases, stuff happening over very short time periods, that sort of thing. They’re not perfectly isolated, but they’re close enough that we can apply the 2nd law and get accurate results (we determine whether or not those predicted results are accurate by testing them). When we need to be more precise we either find a better way to isolate the system, or take into account how it’s interacting with it’s environment.
The second law rarely applies perfectly, but it often applies really, really well.
So does that mean earth is considered a closed system or open system? It is all the time basking in sunlight……….
@tooba
Energy flows freely to and from the surface of the Earth all the time: it’s a decidedly open system.
Ok great, so that means the 2nd law should not apply all the time to earth…….. like they give the example of a decaying building over time, etc. is not literal then, just for explaining purpose, is that so????????? Plus i need to ask, food is living being too right…….. its is made up of living cells and has all their properties, lets say a whole raw carrot, with all its roots and leaves………..since living beings are open systems, the decay of that carrot is also not affected by 2nd law????????
Actually the reason for asking is that these are extremely common cited examples in every article………. even the decaying of food is mentioned as example of 2nd law…………. but here in the article you are saying living beings are exempt from it, also all other open systems, like lakes, mountains, buildings, rivers etc. That ofcourse interact very very openly with not only their surrounding on earth but also recieve direct energy input from sun………. since these are not stuff happening over very short periods of time or almost isolated like you said in first answer……. thhese also are exempt from the law???????? Have there been made any calculations or experiments to prove this point???? Or in experience they did end up giving the right values applying 2nd law for these systems as well??????
tooba, I’m not a Physicist, but I’ll take a crack at an answer and someone can correct me if I get something wrong.
One thing to keep in mind is that 2LOT doesn’t just say “things decay” such that if something is not decaying (a plant growing, for example) it is violating 2LOT. There are many ways to think of it, but basically 2LOT says an *entire system* will tend toward higher entropy, or disorder; it does not say that every single part of the system will decay. 2LOT says that if we add up all the parts of a system that become less ordered (positive entropy), and add up all the parts of the system that become more ordered (negative entropy), that the positive entropy number will be greater than the negative entropy number.
So when a carrot grows in the ground, it is not violating 2LOT, we just have to realize that it is part of a larger system. It is a part of the system where entropy is decreasing, but other parts of the system are experiencing even larger increases in entropy.
Ok, i get that part…… but dear my question is this article as well as many other i have read say 2nd law does jot apply to a carrot because its an open system….,,,, now you are explaining how 2nd law applies to it, so does it apply to a carrot or a river (or any open system) or not ?????? It was very clearly mentioned above that 2nd law does not apply to any open system, but any open system includes the entire earth, excluding closed systems with in ofcourse…………
Sorry I wasn’t clear. I wasn’t saying 2LOT applies to an open system like a carrot. I would refer back to The Physicist’s response of March 12, where he explains that even for some open systems we can approximate 2LOT. Even if it doesn’t apply in the strictest sense, we can still apply it in a loose sense.
What we find when people try to say evolution of simple life forms into more complex (ordered) life forms is impossible because of 2LOT, is that they’re taking the very strict application of 2LOT and applying it to open systems where only a very loose application of 2LOT would apply–if at all.
When we’re first starting out learning about 2LOT, it’s probably safest to just keep reminding ourselves that 2LOT doesn’t apply to open systems.
Thankyou, i m not from aphysics background, so i kinda need to ask questions that may seem simplistic at times,………. what you are saying is kinda making sense to me a bit, because there have been researches, one example i recieved from RalphDaveWestfall at another thread that explain how 2nd law can be applied to living systems
“In the context of biomechanical systems, Kugler and Turvey [7] suggest that self-organization can be reconciled with second-law tendencies if a system includes multiple coupled levels of dynamic activity. Purposeful, self-organizing behavior occurs at the macro level. By itself, such behavior would be contrary to the second law. However, the system includes a micro level whose dynamics generate increasing disorder. Thus the system as a whole is increasingly disordered over time. Crucially, the behavior of elements at the macro level is coupled to the micro level dynamics.
Entropy and Self-Organization in Multi-Agent Systems
H. Van Dyke Parunak and Sven Brueckner
Proceedings of the International Conference on Autonomous Agents (Agents 2001), 124-130
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.103.2869&rep=rep1&type=pdf”
Its all coming together now, those who say 2lot can not be applied, mean it can not be applied in a strict sense……… like how its supposed to be applied, thats kinda a not its job but it can be used for that purpose also to some extent…………………..thankyou……..
@ Non Credenti
So your statement;
“So when a carrot grows in the ground, it is not violating 2LOT, we just have to realize that it is part of a larger system. It is a part of the system where entropy is decreasing, but other parts of the system are experiencing even larger increases in entropy.”
Can also be applied to evolution, saying that 2lot does not and can not be applied to living systems is simplistic in sense, 2lot can be applied to living beings, hence on evolution as well…….. only it doesnt violate the 2lot considering the process ended up in increased entropy somewhere else in the universe…………… m i right????
On the Earth’s surface and biosphere, whether a system follows the 2nd law of thermodynamics and thus increases in disorder over time, or whether a system contradicts the 2nd law and thus evolves to greater order over time, I think will depend on the specific energy-work pathways that the solar energy from the Sun follows.
Here I will use the term energy-work pathways to denote the pathways in which energy performs work in the system (ie, moves things using force), as opposed to just heating the system (ie, raising the temperature but not moving anything).
So for example: water in a stream flowing past a water mill and turning the paddle wheel is doing work by moving the wheel, so that is a energy work pathway for the water. But water in a stream just flowing into a ditch and then overflowing on the other side is not moving anything apart from itself, so the water is not doing any work, and so the ditch is not an energy-work pathway for the water.
As The Physicist detailed in the article, light from the Sun falling on the Earth is lower in entropy than the infrared light re-radiated from Earth back into space. So although the amount of energy of re-radiated into space equals the energy received from the Sun (ie, there is no net gain of energy on the Earth), there is a net gain in order (ie, negative entropy) on the Earth as this solar energy flows into and then back out of the Earth’s biosphere as infrared light.
However, I believe that only systems which can directly or indirectly harness this solar energy to perform work can tap into its supply of negative entropy, and thereby contradict the 2nd law.
The system of photosynthesis in plants, which is directly driven by light energy from the Sun, is able to tap into this solar energy and thus benefit from this negative entropy which increases order. And any creature in the food chain will also indirectly tap into this solar energy and benefit from its negative entropy, as the food chain ultimately originates in plant material. And any creature breathing oxygen created through photosynthesis can indirectly tap into this solar energy and negative entropy.
However, a stone or a lump of rock on the Earth’s surface, even though bathed in this sunlight and even though taking part in the re-radiation of infrared energy back into space, will not be able to use this solar energy to do work, and so will not be able to extract and make use of the negative entropy.
With rocks and stones, the atoms are solidly fixed in place in a crystalline structure, and so cannot be moved or repositioned to any significant degree by the energy of sunlight, and thus cannot be reorganized into a higher state of order by the negative entropy that is available in the sunlight / infrared re-radiation energy flow. The rock may be heated by the sunlight energy, but no more than that.
To extract and make use of the negative entropy available in such flowing energy, and thereby contradict the 2nd law, I would think that a system has to have elements (eg: atoms, molecules, pistons or levers) that are mobile or lose enough to be moved and repositioned (ultimately into a state of higher order) by the levels of energy available.
If there is not enough energy available to move and reposition the elements of a system, that energy will not be able to do work in the system, and I would think that the system will not then be able to extract and make use of the negative entropy in the energy.
One might imagine that these energy-work pathways running through the Earth’s biosphere are analogous to the many streams of water you find in a river delta. The solar energy may flow through and do work in certain systems in the biosphere, thereby providing the negative entropy that allows the 2nd law to be breached; but the solar energy will not be able to do work (ie, reposition system elements) in other areas of the biosphere, because in these other areas, the elements of the system are not movable.
So where this energy work pathway does not flow, the 2nd law may be maintained; but where the energy-work pathways flows, the 2nd law will be contradicted.
Even in the human body I think this may be the case: certain parts of biochemistry may be able to contradict the 2nd law, whereas other parts may remain subject to it.
I hope this analysis is correct. It’s been quite a few decades since my first degree in physics, and I am just having a stab at an explanation here. If anyone sees any flaws in this, please post.
tooba, if I’m understanding you correctly, that seems essentially correct.
G’s answer says almost the same thing………. thankyou to all of you and non-credenti 🙂
Pingback: Q: After the heat death of the universe will anything ever happen again? | Ask a Mathematician / Ask a Physicist
Of course evolution (a primitive form of bacteria evolving into every species that existed) is impossible because of the entropy.
I don’t know why physicists have an issue with telling people the truth.
Trees and plants grow, but they grow only because they have pre-set complex nanomachine mechanisms in them that use energy and resources to grow.
Evolution says that these extremely complex pre-set mechanisms “evolved” in a world where entropy is increasing.
This of course is quite impossible using normal conventional physics.
The reason why farmers and gardeners have issues growing plants and why food production is a global issue is because plants don’t grow magically. They need sunlight, water, and minerals to grow.
Evolutionists claim that the reason why all the fossils disappeared is because of the entropy on Earth in open systems but then claim that entropy doesn’t apply to evolution because the Earth is not an isolated system, but if entropy didn’t apply the fossils should be preserved perfectly ROFL.
If it’s really true that we evolved from an ape-like ancestor that means that ape-like ancestor at one point must have had an extremely high population size over millions of years (like more 20 billion), if not this would mean that the ancestor would’ve went extinct before it could evolve.
Entropy does increase in open systems as well, we know this from engineering.
The Sun’s energy would increase entropy unless there were pre-set mechanisms that used the Sun’s energy to decrease entropy, so it doesn’t work for evolution.
To “itsnobody”: Physicists do not have an issue with telling people the truth – their entire careers are spent attempting to reveal truths about our world and the universe surrounding us and sharing those truths with their fellow humans. The process of evolution on this planet does not violate the second (entropy) law of thermodynamics. The reason that almost 100% of the world’s physicists and other scientists (ie. the people who actually understand evolution and the laws of thermodynamics) accept the concept of evolution is because it very logically and elegantly explains the amazing biological diversity that exists on this 4.6 billion year old planet and does not violate any laws of science in the process! And, over the past 150 years, a plethora of evidence has come to light that supports Darwin’s ideas on natural selection and the origin of species. For the main part, the only reason that some people do not accept evolution like they do other scientific principles is because it is at odds with the story of creation presented in the Genesis chapter of the bible. This is not a logical reason for rejecting evolution because, besides being a real stretch of the imagination, the bible’s creation story, unlike evolution, violates almost all the laws of science and is not supported by any evidence whatsoever!
@Frank Ferris
I don’t know what you’re talking about…physicists have no issue with claiming that evolution is impossible on every other Earth-like planet in the universe…lol it’s also impossible on Earth too.
I’ve spoken to many physicists who have told me they don’t know how evolution based on normal conventional physics is really possible (going from a primitive form of bacteria to all species that ever existed), but they can’t say that because they could get kicked out or fired since evolution is protected like a religious belief.
I’m not talking about the Bible, I’m merely treating evolution the same as any other scientific theory rather than protecting evolution as a religious belief.
I don’t know if Creationism or ID is false, I just know that evolution as we know it is false.
If someone were to criticize evolution in the same way that people are allowed to criticize every other scientific theory evolution would just be viewed as a joke, not even real science.
An evolutionist for instance told me that gravity was debatable but evolution was not even though we have billions of experiments on how gravity works and even though almost everything in evolution has never been experimentally verified as accurate, lol.
All of the evolutionists I’ve spoken to believe in “free-will”, 79% of evolutionary biologists believe in free-will even though the scientific evidence telling us that there’s no free-will is like a billion times more concrete than the evidence supporting evolution, lol.
Even worse, “free-will” believers usually attack determinism, but non-determinism and disorder falsifies evolution, lol.
A tiny bit of disorder means evolution is impossible.
It shows you the real anti-science mentality of evolutionists, to believe that every other idea, hypothesis, and theory is open to criticism and scrutiny except for evolution.
It’s rational to assume that stories that contradict physics that have never been experimentally verified as real are false, this includes evolution.
Whatever happened in the past wasn’t a primitive form of bacteria evolving into every species including humans, lol. I can be 100% certain.
@itsnobody
I have a problem saying that evolution is impossible.
Are you sure you’re not thinking of something like “physicists think that other planets (in our solar system) are inhospitable to life”?
Criticism is an extremely important part of the scientific process, in every field. There’s no issue with criticizing evolution it’s just that, after a century and change, those criticisms generally haven’t panned out (although, when they do it benefits and refines the science). Eventually all of the folk who use and apply evolution in practice get tired of baseless arguments and stop listening and/or get frustrated. It’s like trying to tell the rocket scientists at JPL that the world is flat; they know it isn’t, and they’re generally to busy to correct everyone who disagrees. Moreover, they’re disinclined to hire people who believe that the world is flat or that we’ve never launched rockets into space. Not because of some massive conspiracy, but because they want people who know what they’re doing.
@Itsnobody
You make a number of really telling statements, but I think just two of them say a great deal.
1. “Evolutionists claim that the reason why all the fossils disappeared is because of the entropy on Earth in open systems but then claim that entropy doesn’t apply to evolution because the Earth is not an isolated system, but if entropy didn’t apply the fossils should be preserved perfectly…”
Nobody claims that entropy doesn’t apply in an open system; they say 2LOT doesn’t apply in an open system. There is nothing about 2LOT that says fossils couldn’t erode. Your objection seems to be based on the erroneous idea that “entropy” and “2LOT” mean the same thing. You’re using the terms interchangeably, but one is a phenomenon, the other an observation about the direction of that phenomenon.
2. “A tiny bit of disorder means evolution is impossible.”
This statement seems to stem from thinking that 2LOT says every part of a system will experience increased entropy. It doesn’t. 2LOT says that the system will generally experience an overall increase in entropy. Since there is absolutely no problem with evolution taking place in a system where parts of it experience decreased entropy (while entropy increases in the system as a whole), 2LOT has no bearing on the possibility or impossibility of evolution.
@The Physicist but it is like a massive conspiracy, that’s why for every other theory, idea, or hypothesis in science you’re allowed to doubt it, criticize, and question it like with free-will, General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, gravity, time, and other things that have heavy experimental verification but you’re not allowed to do the same with evolution.
If someone says something like:
– “I don’t believe in General Relativity or think that there’s something wrong with it”
– “I don’t believe in Quantum Mechanics or think that there’s something wrong with it”
– “I don’t believe in evidence telling us that there’s no free-will or think that there’s something wrong with it”
The media would have no issue with that, but if you were to say the same about evolution you would get attacked.
What would evolution be viewed as if it was treated the same as any other scientific theory rather than given special protection like a religious belief?
Almost all of the “evidence” evolutionists point out is imaginations and speculations (things not experimentally verified as accurate), it’s just like someone imagining a perpetual motion machine diagram working in their minds, it’s just in their imagination.
The media has no issue with people who come up with junk ideas supporting free-will (not knowing that non-determinism and disorder falsifies evolution), but if someone were to criticize evolution in the same way they would get heavily attacked.
Evolution has very few real-world applications…so I’m not sure what you’re talking about with people who use and apply evolution, lol.
It’s better to pre-assume that evolution is false in every engineering field, including genetic engineering and bioengineering.
Genetic engineering shows us that species have built-in mechanisms to prevent gene changes, not matching into the evolutionists’ imaginations.
Bioengineering shows us that the laws of physics apply to cells and bacteria as well, entropy applies that’s why bioengineers can’t use bacteria to create a perpetual motion machine.
Once again we see that the imaginations of evolutionists are wrong just like physics predicts.
Physics and engineering would predict 3 possibilities for species: Remaining the same, becoming weaker, or becoming extinct.
Just the same as with any other machine, definitely not evolving into increased complexity.
The only form of evolution ever experimentally verified as real is species becoming weaker or decreasing in complexity overtime, I agree with evolutionary biologists on that form of evolution.
I also agree with evolutionary biologists on extinction being much more likely than evolution.
Like evolutionists point out the micro-evolution of fruit flies and say that the flies became weaker and natural selection favored that weakness, but it’s still weaker.
If fruit fly grows extra wings it becomes too heavy to fly, it becomes weaker.
But if bacteria really evolved into all species including humans then you would have to show the magic supernatural increase in complexity that evolutionists believe in, which no one has.
Evolutionists often claim that if you deny evolution you must believe in the supernatural but in reality believing that the entropy decrease from a primitive form of bacteria to all species on Earth occurred is equivalent to believing in magic or the supernatural!
Believing that evolution is impossible is a natural explanation.
Just like how if I’m riding my bicycle physics and engineering would predict that overtime my bicycle would: Remain the same, become weaker, or breakdown.
If I were to say that overtime after riding my bicycle somehow it had an overall increased in complexity and became faster, more efficient, etc…that would be supernatural or magical (evolution).
Physics also applies the same with self-replicating nanomachines, they would remain the same, become weaker, or become extinct.
When one part increases in complexity other parts decrease in complexity, there’s no overall increase in complexity.
Engineering shows us that the more complex a machine is the more likely it is to breakdown, but evolutionists believe that things just somehow repeatedly increase in complexity.
Evolutionists imagine that things go from less complex to more complex over time.
Physics and engineering predicts that extremely complex ordered things must have started off that way and then deteriorate down and decrease in complexity overtime.
This means that many primitive forms of life are probably deteriorations of more complex life that was already there, and this is exactly what research has confirmed that ancient forms of life are more complex than previously thought.
Like for instance with the evolution of the flagellum, evolutionists imagine that the flagellum must have evolved form the T3SS protein, but research shows the ancestor of eukaryotes already had a complex flagellum apparatus.
This means that the T3SS protein is probably a deterioration of the flagellum that was already there, not the other way around as evolutionists imagine.
Things start off as complex and then deteriorate downwards.
All claims of genetic increases in complexity fit into these categories:
– Imaginations and speculations (things not experimentally verified as real)
– Weaknesses or decreases in complexity labeled as increases in complexity
– Increases in complexity caused by non-genetic factors unrelated to evolution
For instance humans are taller now than they were a hundred years ago, but this is caused by non-genetic factors (mainly nutrition) and is unrelated to evolution, we know this from genetic studies.
South Koreans are taller than North Koreans even though they are genetically the same because North Korea has one of the highest hunger rates in the entire world.
This means many fossils are probably misidentifications since non-genetic factors can have big effects in reality.
The idea from evolutionists is that two genetically short people (with both dominant and recessive short genes) can have a genetically healthy tall child (who’s tall from genetic factors), things just evolve and you get something from nothing.
Physicists have no issue with saying that evolution is impossible on every other Earth-like planet in the entire universe!
If we were to point out an Earth-like planet with oceans and an atmosphere just like ours physicists would say that the entropy decrease for evolution can’t happen on that planet and laugh at the junk science fiction ideas of evolutionists about the “Sun’s energy” and “it’s not an isolated system”…but then when applying this reasoning to Earth they can’t say the same stuff because they would get attacked, kicked out, or fired.
The stuff evolutionists are talking about with “the Sun’s energy” and “it’s an open system” is just fantasy and imagination, science fiction ideas.
Of course the 2LOT applies in open systems, bioengineering and every field of engineering proves it.
Engines are open systems.
When you have an entire theory based off nothing more than imaginations and speculations, it not even a real scientific theory, it’s a real science fiction story.
Eventually evolution will fall down and be falsified.
@Non Credenti
“Nobody claims that entropy doesn’t apply in an open system; they say 2LOT doesn’t apply in an open system. There is nothing about 2LOT that says fossils couldn’t erode. Your objection seems to be based on the erroneous idea that “entropy” and “2LOT” mean the same thing. You’re using the terms interchangeably, but one is a phenomenon, the other an observation about the direction of that phenomenon.”
– Well you’re just using semantics, 2LOT and entropy are directly related, evolutionists claim that since the Earth is not an isolated system entropy won’t necessarily increase, but never apply this reasoning to the fossils deteriorating or anything else in reality.
Evolutionists claim that even though the Earth is not an isolated system things still deteriorate on Earth in open systems, that’s why all the fossils disappeared.
If it’s really true that we evolved from an ape-like ancestor then through millions of years there must have been extremely high population of our ancestors (like more than 20 billion), but evolutionists claim these fossils disappeared and deteriorated.
An extremely high population is necessary otherwise it would’ve meant that our so-called ancestors would’ve went extinct before they could have evolved or couldn’t have had the gene changes necessary to have evolved into humans.
Every field of engineering (including bioengineering) proves that the 2LOT does indeed apply in open systems, so I don’t know what evolutionists are talking about.
“This statement seems to stem from thinking that 2LOT says every part of a system will experience increased entropy. It doesn’t. 2LOT says that the system will generally experience an overall increase in entropy. Since there is absolutely no problem with evolution taking place in a system where parts of it experience decreased entropy (while entropy increases in the system as a whole), 2LOT has no bearing on the possibility or impossibility of evolution.”
– I disagree, the 2LOT is probably the biggest issue for evolutionists.
A tiny bit of disorder means that bacteria couldn’t have evolved into all species on Earth including humans, it would be impossible.
Physics predicts that overtime species become extinct, the type of evolution possible is becoming weaker.
Evolutionists have invented wild science fiction ideas to escape entropy, talking about how “it’s an open system” and “the Sun’s energy” which is just fantasy and imagination.
The Sun’s energy energy would increase entropy unless they were pre-set complex mechanisms that used the Sun’s energy to decrease entropy.
It doesn’t matter if a system is open or closed entropy will increase unless there’s something that makes entropy decrease.
Bioengineering basically falsifies evolution clearly showing us that entropy does apply to cells and bacteria.
The reason why coming up with a DNA hard drive is so difficult is because there’s more entropy with living systems. They don’t match into the evolutionists imaginations of starting off as simple and increasing in complexity, they match into physics and engineering, starting off as complex and then deteriorating downwards.
The issues and problems with evolution are much bigger than the issues and problems with almost every other scientific theory!
I just don’t know how anyone can believe in evolution based on the evidence.
When you have an entire theory based off imaginations and speculations that contradicts physics, of course I think it’s false!
From engineering you know that you can imagine all types of things that wouldn’t work in reality, but since almost everything in evolution is impossible to experimentally verify as accurate evolutionists can keep their fictional imaginations.
What evolutionary biologists want is physics (which has been experimentally verified as extremely accurate by engineers billions of times) to be modified to match into the imaginations and speculations of evolutionists that have never been experimentally verified as accurate, lol.
@itsnobody
How can a person grow to full size from a tiny collection of cells, if entropy can’t be locally decreased? Or put another way, how can there be more people alive today than there were a generation ago? Would you say that’s a decrease in entropy?
There really is a lot of very direct experimentation and conclusive evidence that shows that evolution is a thing. This is a discussion that you might appreciate, between someone who doesn’t believe in evolution (which is fine) and one of the scientists who have demonstrated it experimentally (which is also fine). A discussion of the experiment itself can be found here.
To be clear: this is not the only example, just a good one.
@itsnobody
Usually I find people who argue against evolution often are not able to understand its theory and mechanisms.
Are you one of these people? Are you a critic of evolution, but unable to comprehend its mechanisms? If you understand the mechanisms of evolution, please explain them your own words, to demonstrate that you do actually grasp the theory, even if you don’t agree with it.
And by the way, when you said “evolution has very few real-world applications…so I’m not sure what you’re talking about with people who use and apply evolution” that’s not true. The rapid evolution of microorganisms is observed to take place all the time, and this has real world consequences. Researchers for example study and track the genetic changes in HIV, and these evolutionary changes to HIV happen in a timescale of decades.
Because microorganisms replicate so fast, they can evolve in very rapid timescales of decades, rather than the thousands of years it takes for large animal species to evolve.
Development of antibiotic resistance in bacteria is another example of rapid microorganism evolution, and something we need to tackle, otherwise we will lose the medical benefits of antibiotics.
So microorganism evolution definitely has real word applications.
Animals do also observably evolve in certain aspects in rapid timescales of decades. An area in which there is very fast evolution in animals is the area of snake venom and the resistance to that venom by prey. There is an evolutionary arms race going on between snakes and their prey, with the prey animals constantly developing resistance to venom in a timescale of decades, and then the snakes evolving new variations of venoms to try to overcome this resistance, and maintain their ability to kill the prey by the venom.
This evolutionary arms race has real world application, since the evolution of snake venom means that our pharmaceutical anti-venoms may no longer be effective after a few decades, due to evolutionary changes in the snake venom. Which means that when you are bitten by a snake, the anti-venom given to you in a hospital may not longer be effective, unless the anti-venoms are updated to account for the latest evolutionary changes.
Anyway, I am waiting to hear your explanation in your own words of the mechanisms by which evolution operates, to prove that you understand it.
To”itsnobody”: You speak very confidently about physics, engineering, genetics, fossils, cells, bacteria, energy, entropy, the 2LOT, bioengineering, open vs. closed systems, and other scientific topics. You also spend a great deal of time describing how the theory of evolution is absolute fictional nonsense because there is zero evidence to support it, it contradicts the laws of physics, and it is based on the imagination and speculation of evolutionists who don’t have a clue what they are talking about. You also imply that you discuss your ideas with physicists, biologists, and engineers on a regular basis. Could you please tell us what level of education you yourself have attained (and in what field of science) that allows you to speak so “knowledgeably” and confidently on these topics? Also, if you think evolution is bogus, I am curious to know what your explanation is for all the various forms of complex life on this planet.
@The Physicist
“How can a person grow to full size from a tiny collection of cells, if entropy can’t be locally decreased? Or put another way, how can there be more people alive today than there were a generation ago? Would you say that’s a decrease in entropy?”
– There are many reasons…the main reason is that there are pre-set complex mechanisms that use energy that makes a person grow.
Congenital anomaly deaths and infant mortality were and still are among the leading killers….why is that? Because a tiny bit of disorder means that babies would die instead of grow.
Congenital anomalies resulted in around 632,000 deaths in the US in just one year 2013!
The evolutionist idea is that these pre-set complex mechanisms “evolved”…but infant mortality and congenital anomaly deaths show us that a tiny bit of disorder breaks this process contradicting the imaginations of evolutionists (just as physics predicts).
How can these pre-set complex mechanisms evolve in a world of entropy and disorder? They can’t.
” A discussion of the experiment itself can be found here.”
– Oh the popular “E. coli long-term evolution experiment”…the problem is this experiment confirms physics which contradicts evolution.
All 12 populations decreased in fitness (became weaker), that’s the only form of evolution that physics says is possible…becoming weaker.
If the experiment would’ve shown just 1 stronger population with an overall increase in complexity (like bigger, with a higher life expectancy, etc…) then that would’ve been something, but it didn’t.
When one part increases in complexity, other parts decrease in complexity, there’s no overall increase in complexity.
There was no genetic increase in complexity, just like physics predicts.
The E. coli remained the same, became weaker, or became extinct, just like physics and engineering tells us.
@G
“Usually I find people who argue against evolution often are not able to understand its theory and mechanisms.
Are you one of these people? Are you a critic of evolution, but unable to comprehend its mechanisms? If you understand the mechanisms of evolution, please explain them your own words, to demonstrate that you do actually grasp the theory, even if you don’t agree with it.”
– Usually I find that people who criticize evolution are heavily attacked since evolution is protected like a religious idea rather than treated the same as any other scientific theory.
Apparently you’re allowed to be unscientific and publish all types of unscientific junk in peer-reviewed journals if you aren’t criticizing evolution.
You aren’t allowed to criticize evolution with valid criticisms.
Like for instance, 79% of evolutionary biologists believe in free-will even though the scientific evidence telling us that there’s no free-will is literally a million times more concrete than the evidence supporting evolution, ROFL!
Even worse, most free-will believers attack determinism, but non-determinism falsifies evolution, ROFL!
It shows you how biologists in general don’t really understand much about science. I’ve argued with my friends over free-will (they accept the extremely weak evidence on evolution, but deny the extremely strong evidence telling us that there’s no free-will).
I really doubt that there are any evolutionists who value evidence or go by evidence.
I don’t see anyone getting attacked, or kicked, or fired for believing in free-will, do you?
James Tour, Professor of Chemistry, one of the most cited chemists was heavily attacked for criticizing evolution, even though his criticisms were valid and true.
In chemistry we see that chemical reactions are in disorder…nothing like the order and complexity found in the simplest forms of bacteria.
So what’s the big deal with criticizing evolution? It’s a theory, not a religious belief, it’s supposed to be open to criticism and scrutiny.
“And by the way, when you said “evolution has very few real-world applications…so I’m not sure what you’re talking about with people who use and apply evolution” that’s not true. The rapid evolution of microorganisms is observed to take place all the time, and this has real world consequences. Researchers for example study and track the genetic changes in HIV, and these evolutionary changes to HIV happen in a timescale of decades.”
– Uh oh…
Life Expectancy in the year 1961:
– China (an atheist country): 43
– Switzerland (the 1st or 2nd most religious Western country): 71
– United States (religious country): 70
– UK (religious country): 70
So much for evolution and it’s real-world applications. Back in the 1960s people didn’t accept evolution
Pre-assuming that evolution is false is more useful in almost every condition like:
– Growing plants, pre-assume that it works like a machine and needs certain minerals to grow
– Breeding animals
– Medicine
– Genetic engineering
– Bioengineering
Pre-assuming what physics and engineering tells us that species are on the track towards extinction and need specific mechanisms to live is much better than pre-assuming evolution.
“Development of antibiotic resistance in bacteria is another example of rapid microorganism evolution, and something we need to tackle, otherwise we will lose the medical benefits of antibiotics.”
– You’re just talking about the form of evolution where species become weaker, even then believing in evolution wouldn’t help you much.
What we need to focus on is how to keep humans healthy regardless of how things evolve or even if they evolved!
I’ve personally attempted to find treatments and cures and I didn’t find anything in evolution useful for anything at all!
“This evolutionary arms race has real world application, since the evolution of snake venom means that our pharmaceutical anti-venoms may no longer be effective after a few decades, due to evolutionary changes in the snake venom. Which means that when you are bitten by a snake, the anti-venom given to you in a hospital may not longer be effective, unless the anti-venoms are updated to account for the latest evolutionary changes.”
– But believing in evolution doesn’t help you much, you still have to focus on making humans healthy regardless of how or if they evolved.
Evolution has virtually zero real-world applications.
“Anyway, I am waiting to hear your explanation in your own words of the mechanisms by which evolution operates, to prove that you understand it.”
– Well it’s pretty easy to understand, a primitive form of bacteria evolved into all species overtime, overtime small gene changes occurred, natural selection favored the species that survived, there are certain mechanisms by which gene changes occur, etc…
So based on modern physics evolution is basically falsified.
@Frank Ferris
“To”itsnobody”: You speak very confidently about physics, engineering, genetics, fossils, cells, bacteria, energy, entropy, the 2LOT, bioengineering, open vs. closed systems, and other scientific topics. You also spend a great deal of time describing how the theory of evolution is absolute fictional nonsense because there is zero evidence to support it, it contradicts the laws of physics, and it is based on the imagination and speculation of evolutionists who don’t have a clue what they are talking about. You also imply that you discuss your ideas with physicists, biologists, and engineers on a regular basis. Could you please tell us what level of education you yourself have attained (and in what field of science) that allows you to speak so “knowledgeably” and confidently on these topics? Also, if you think evolution is bogus, I am curious to know what your explanation is for all the various forms of complex life on this planet.”
– I have a degree in an Engineering field, but I initially believed in evolution in high school, not because of the evidence, but because people said so.
Then I realized that people were allowed to question and criticize other theories and hypotheses in science that were much more concrete and solid than evolution without an issue, so I decided to question evolution in the same way and concluded that evolution is just junk.
I also realized that biologists aren’t really that intelligent and almost all of their “evidence” is imaginations and speculations, rather than things experimentally verified as true.
I use a form of empiricism to determine the truth, from a strict empiricist point of view only conclusions drawn from repeatable experiments and direct observations are to be regarded as the closest things to the “truth”.
By that measure evolution is among the weakest theory in modern science, not even a real theory, just a real science fiction story.
If someone were to question evolution in the same way that people question free-will, General Relativity or Quantum Mechanics what would you really think of it?
I don’t see any engineers in any engineering field going with the crackpot evolutionist idea of “it’s an open system the 2LOT doesn’t apply”.
As usual whenever you discuss evolution, evolutionists just change the subject towards authority and incredulity rather than discussing actual evidence since they know how weak the evidence is.
What happens overtime to species is that they remain the same, become weaker, or become extinct, just like physics and engineering tells us.
Almost every species is on the track towards extinction, not evolution.
I don’t see any explosions decreasing entropy, do you?
The Sun shines and creates patterns? Of course I don’t believe in evolution.
Evolution – not possible on any other Earth-like planet, not possible on Earth either.
@tooba & others who might still be confused about “when” or “where” the 2nd law applies.
Simple rule: It Always Applies – Total Entropy is always increasing.
But it applies only when you look at the WHOLE system (aka the universe), you can’t only look at one tiny sugar molecule inside the carrot and exclude the byproduct of that chemical reaction. That’s the important bit people are forgetting about when they think they have tricked the 2nd law.
Every chemical reaction in that carrot increases the total entropy of the universe. It’s not at all an issue that in some tiny bits of the carrot the entropy level decreased – because it is still the case that the total entropy of the whole system increases.
It’s really that simple (at least from a laypersons point of view).
I think your best bet for understanding entropy is to think of it as “Energy No Longer Available To Do Work”. The concept of ‘disorder’ is fairly technical and complex.
The best approximation I can give you is that if you consider all the states of a system and all the ways it can get into those states you’ll find that there are vastly (and by vastly I mean numbers larger than you can even really conceptualize, on the order of 10^120) more ‘disordered’ states than there are ‘ordered’ states so as the system moves through from state to state you are vastly more likely to find yourself in more ‘disordered’ states over time and it’s very unlikely you’ll make your way back to a rare ‘ordered’ state. And if you try to use that energy to do work to arrange the states in a more ‘ordered’ fashion, you just make it worse somewhere else in the system.
You don’t need a living system for this either — an Air Conditioner is also an entropy transfer device. Water freezing in the winter also moves to a lower entropy state – but if you look at the entropy of the water *and* the air which is warmed by the freezing water (remember that energy from the liquid water has to go somewhere), you’ll find the total entropy is still increased.
Hopefully these examples show that there is nothing magic about the concept of a *localized* reduction in entropy – the total entropy still increases.