Evolution

[libalchris]

Your understanding of thermodynamics is so warped and convoluted I don't know it will ever be possible for you to understand.

I'll state this as simply as possible, the second law of thermodynamics, dealing with the spontaneous change in entropy, ONLY APPLIES IN A CLOSED SYSTEM. If the system is no longer closed (say, adding energy to the earth due to the sun) the whole law no longer applies, and can have nothing to say on changes in entropy.

---

Also, sciencelovesgod, your ramble on how "random energy" never produces organization can be shown to be bs from pure observation. If it were true, then a lot of other things shouldn't be occurring because there are a lot of cases where random processes increase organization.

why would you assume the universe is an open system?

We aren't talking about the universe. We're talking about the earth. And the earth is not a closed system. Try to keep up.

[ScienceLovesGod]

why would you assume the universe is an open system?

We aren't talking about the universe. We're talking about the earth. And the earth is not a closed system. Try to keep up.

But that was the basis of my question, that if the universe is heading for doom based on the inevitable process of entropy, and the universe is "creating" creatures (based on evolution) with physical bodies (energy conversion devices) that are accumulating less and less entropy, then how can this be?

The closest attempt to answer this question was when a scientist tried to prove how sub-systems (evolution on earth) can lose entropy while "inside" the larger system (the universe, which is a closed system because the overall entropy is increasing.) But that's very contradictory, applying the second law of thermodynamics in order to prove evolution, but attempting to disprove claims from creationists because apparently we are applying the second law to evolution and we shouldn't be doing that because it cannot be applied.

[genkaus]

But that was the basis of my question, that if the universe is heading for doom based on the inevitable process of entropy, and the universe is "creating" creatures (based on evolution) with physical bodies (energy conversion devices) that are accumulating less and less entropy, then how can this be?

The closest attempt to answer this question was when a scientist tried to prove how sub-systems (evolution on earth) can lose entropy while "inside" the larger system (the universe, which is a closed system because the overall entropy is increasing.) But that's very contradictory, applying the second law of thermodynamics in order to prove evolution, but attempting to disprove claims from creationists because apparently we are applying the second law to evolution and we shouldn't be doing that because it cannot be applied.

Closest attempt? That is the fucking answer.

As to your accusation, the "evolutionists" aren't the ones who bring up the second law of thermodynamics. They know that it is not applicable and cannot be used to prove or disprove evolution. The reason it is not applicable is the very same reason you gave here. It is the creationists who consistently bring up this failed argument to "disprove" evolution and the scientists are simply setting them straight.

Once again, for clarity. The second law of thermodynamics does not prove evolution. That the entropy in sub-systems can decrease does not prove that it necessarily does decrease or increase or stays the same. Therefore, application of the second law towards either proof or disproof of evolution is incorrect. Which is why, the creationist claim that the second law of thermodynamics disproves evolution is wrong.

[libalchris]

But that was the basis of my question, that if the universe is heading for doom based on the inevitable process of entropy, and the universe is "creating" creatures (based on evolution) with physical bodies (energy conversion devices) that are accumulating less and less entropy, then how can this be?

The closest attempt to answer this question was when a scientist tried to prove how sub-systems (evolution on earth) can lose entropy while "inside" the larger system (the universe, which is a closed system because the overall entropy is increasing.) But that's very contradictory, applying the second law of thermodynamics in order to prove evolution, but attempting to disprove claims from creationists because apparently we are applying the second law to evolution and we shouldn't be doing that because it cannot be applied.

Entropy has to increase as a whole in the universe, but it can decrease on a smaller scale (Think of it like this. Heat from the sun is being lost as a result of 2nd law of thermodynamics, however we can use some of the heat as it's being lost (through solar panels) as work to reduce entropy on a smaller scale (like powering a refrigerator.)) Any time order ever increases, it is an example of that principle.

And, I don't know what you're talking about, nobody has attempted to use the second law of thermodynamics in order to prove evolution

[Whateverist]

Sciencelovesgod just made my very exclusive ignore club. (Say hello to Drich.) Incapable of using or recognizing reason while brazenly shouting his ignorance to the four corners. Hopeless, annoying and now ignored.

[ScienceLovesGod]

But that was the basis of my question, that if the universe is heading for doom based on the inevitable process of entropy, and the universe is "creating" creatures (based on evolution) with physical bodies (energy conversion devices) that are accumulating less and less entropy, then how can this be?

The closest attempt to answer this question was when a scientist tried to prove how sub-systems (evolution on earth) can lose entropy while "inside" the larger system (the universe, which is a closed system because the overall entropy is increasing.) But that's very contradictory, applying the second law of thermodynamics in order to prove evolution, but attempting to disprove claims from creationists because apparently we are applying the second law to evolution and we shouldn't be doing that because it cannot be applied.

Closest attempt? That is the fucking answer.

As to your accusation, the "evolutionists" aren't the ones who bring up the second law of thermodynamics. They know that it is not applicable and cannot be used to prove or disprove evolution. The reason it is not applicable is the very same reason you gave here. It is the creationists who consistently bring up this failed argument to "disprove" evolution and the scientists are simply setting them straight.

Once again, for clarity. The second law of thermodynamics does not prove evolution. That the entropy in sub-systems can decrease does not prove that it necessarily does decrease or increase or stays the same. Therefore, application of the second law towards either proof or disproof of evolution is incorrect. Which is why, the creationist claim that the second law of thermodynamics disproves evolution is wrong.

I see what point you are trying to make, but you can't just throw out a very crucial law of physics because evolutionists think evolution does not, somehow, need it. I chose to state this "answer" as an attempt for a very good reason, simply because it still does not explain anything. And neither does your "answer". There is a very good reason why the second law is to be applied: the mutation of DNA, in which requires energy for the mutation to take place. And where there is energy, there is the second law, which needs to be applied, regardless of whether you think physics has nothing to do with evolution.

[Cyberman]

As I understand it, any local decrease in entropy (as on the Earth) as the Sun's energy is used by organic systems is more than matched by an increase in the entropy of the Sun itself. The total entropy of the Universe as a whole must increase, leading eventually to heat death; but from the point of view of organisms with lifespans of the blink of an eye relative to the Universe, it's the closest to a free lunch we can get away with.

---

But just for the sake of discussion let's say we accept that evolution flies in the face of physics. What's your alternative?

[libalchris]

I see what point you are trying to make, but you can't just throw out a very crucial law of physics because evolutionists think evolution does not, somehow, need it. I chose to state this "answer" as an attempt for a very good reason, simply because it still does not explain anything. And neither does your "answer". There is a very good reason why the second law is to be applied: the mutation of DNA, in which requires energy for the mutation to take place. And where there is energy, there is the second law, which needs to be applied, regardless of whether you think physics has nothing to do with evolution.

Now I just really don't know what you're talking about. Seriously who taught you physics? Because Nicholas Carnot is rolling in his grave right now.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. Local entropy can decrease in a system as long as the total entropy of the system increases. If it couldn't, it would be possible for entropy to EVER decrease. Don't believe me? Go grab a drink out of your refrigerator.

[Drich]

Sciencelovesgod just made my very exclusive ignore club. (Say hello to Drich.) Incapable of using or recognizing reason while brazenly shouting his ignorance to the four corners. Hopeless, annoying and now ignored.

If memory serves our last conversation ended with you telling me that you were putting me on your ignore list.

[Taqiyya Mockingbird]

[quote='Taqiyya Mockingbird' pid='291198' dateline='1338167872']
Fuckin creotards...

http://www.weirdcrap.com/scholarly/debunk.html

Common Creationist Claims: DEBUNKED!
This document is intended as a sort of FAQ (Frequently Asked Question) resource. Those who have argued with creationists know that there is a small body of quotes that keep getting repeated (primarily because there are a few prominent creationist figures who are quoted over and over again by creationist publications) over, and over, and over again. I have compiled a bunch of them together in an attempt to respond to them. Because of time constraints, I probably won't be able to add more than a couple at a time. However, anyone who wants to contribute to the list may EMAIL me with some. Just fill the Subject field of your Email with "Creationist Claims Submission" so I can rush it in. I even encourage Creationists to submit questions and claims for me to answer. It's a free net, right? (1) "The Second Law of Thermodynamics proves that evolution is impossible"
This is the most common creationist claim about science and evolution. The people who make this claim, often do not know what the Laws of Thermodynamics are about, much less how to apply them. Just to be fair, I thought I'd get a verbatum description of these laws from a commonly available source, an encyclopedia. Here it is:

Thermodynamics as taken from The Concise Columbia Encyclopedia, licensed from Columbia University Press. Copyright c 1991 by Columbia University Press. All rights reserved

thermodynamics, branch of science concerned with the nature of HEAT and its conversion into other forms of ENERGY. Heat is a form of energy associated with the positions and motion of the molecules of a body. The total energy that a body contains as a result of the positions and the motions of its molecules is called its internal energy.

The first law of thermodynamics states that in any process the change in a system's internal energy is equal to the heat absorbed from the environment minus the WORK done on the environment. This law is a general form of the law of conservation of energy.

The second law of thermodynamics states that in a system the ENTROPY cannot decrease for any spontaneous process. A consequence of this law is that an engine can deliver work only when heat is transferred from a hot reservoir to a cold reservoir or heat sink.

The third law of thermodynamics states that all bodies at absolute zero would have the same entropy; this state is defined as having zero entropy.

Now, given this description, let me say that these laws can be loosely applied to nature, specifically to the life of any organism, or to an entire ecosystem. As it relates to a biological organism, we can substitute "heat" or "Energy" with "Food", "Air", and "water". Essentially, a creature that does not get enough energy in the forms of food, water, and oxygen, will decay and die, due to entropy. As it relates to a whole ecosystem, heat can be left unsubstituted, as heat from the Sun is the cheif driving force behind all life on earth. We know that the environment rarely decays and dies -- it merely changes it's state.

Now evolution is not a mechanical system, nor is it an ecosystem -- evolution is not driven by heat exchange. To say that the second law applies to evolution is like saying that the second law applies to the act of thinking or to genetic variation. It doesn't and cannot.

Creationists are using a scientific principle of physical systems in a PHILOSOPHICAL manner, which is a misapplication of the Laws of Thermodynamics. Would we not be foolish if we applied the rules of football to baseball?

Go away.

---

"Now evolution is not a mechanical system, nor is it an ecosystem -- evolution is not driven by heat exchange." Ah, but it is driven by heat exchange, or energy exchange. If the mutation of DNA requires energy in order for the DNA to physically mutate, then energy has taken place on a molecular level. So you see, the second law of thermodynamics must be applied.

Demonstrating conclusively that you don't know what the fuck you are talking about and you are desperate to say anything to appear as if you did. No one is fooled.