Second Law of Thermodynamics, and Evolution *GASP!!*

[DanTMWTMP]

EDIT:
thanks to Dullard (!!!), Garth, Browntown, sao123, Gibsons, silverpig, Decartes, interchange, 3NF for your clarifications/discussion. Learn something new or refresh something that should've been learned years ago every day eh?

and the rest w/ humor posts, thx for that too. i'm glad this thread isn't some flame-infested trolling thread. I learned quite a bit, w/ some lol's along the way.

---

It was just a candid discussion about how to get girls, and then the topic of church came up (because it's one of the places to meet girls)...and that led to..wtf evolution. rofl.

DISCLAIMER: I DO NOT know a lot. I sucked in chemistry, but at least i know some to get the gist of it. You guys can correct me, and I will humbly agree and state that i stand corrected. This was my first ever discussion regarding this matter. Just read below.



She said:
due to entropy and 2nd law of thermodynamics, evolution goes against this fundamental law. Evolution goes from disorderly to orderly (orderly complex), which goes against the overall 2nd law.


i go:
ok STOP RIGHT THERE about disorderly/orderly...FIRST OFF, you got your wording wrong. (lol, i say the next part w/o any other backing other than from what I remember from my engineering physics classes). NOWHERE does in the definition of the 2nd law states that in a closed system, things go from order (cold molecules, low entropy) to "DISORDER." DISORDER is the WRONG WORD. Entropy is just a number; or the "probability" that the state of all the molecules in space will be at a certain state at any given time. The higher the entropy, the higher we do go away from our KNOWLEDGE OF KNOWING WHAT POSITION EVERY SINGLE molecule is in at that moment in time. Therefore, it's just a quota of sort of what we do not know. The higher the entropy (heated molecules, lower knowledge of the state of the molecules at a given time), the more that we don't know. it's NOT DISORDER.


To compare a misworded law (and then overgeneralize it) to the grand scale of evolution does not make sense, and should not be compared.

If you want to discredit evolution, then find me a peer-reviewed paper that has almost NO REBUTTLES that absolutely discredits it with emperical evidence.

For me, Evolution is just a theory, and nothing more. Evolution states that organisms evolved based off of many mutations and were tested against the elements. Micro-evo exists in bacteria. Can it be applied to macro? I have no clue. i don't care. It is not too much fact for me, but I would like to believe that some form of evolution did actually take place, but as to how EXACTLY it took place, I do not know. I don't care that I do not know, and I do not want to start believing in any half-assed theory from creationists or listen to die-hard evolutionists who put it as fact.

(on topic of entropy) Randomness and probability exists because we still do not know that much. Everything is left to "chance" because we cannot possibly know what will happen next. We can do away with if if we had a way to process every single bit of matter down to its most fundamental forms in the entire universe..and predicts what happens next in the next state of time... until then, the definition of entropy stays; a number documenting on how much we do not know in that point in time. Please do not ever ever bring up the subject of entropy, 2nd law, and compare it with evolution.

Of course, we can go on about how every single reaction that takes place in cell division and RNA-splitting and whtaever else that happens in a cell that may lead to mutations that in turn may lead to evolving still follows the 2nd law. IT's LAW. lol. If someone found that a cold object can heat up its adjacent object, then ..i think the universe will be destroyed.


(that's what i said, more or less. blahblahblah...I know that I'm painfully wrong in a lot of aspects of the 2nd law, as it was not my area of study; but I believe I know enough of it to know that it cannot be applied to the grand scheme of evolution.)

So she probably just ignored what i said, and sticks to her order/disorder argument, and how i got the definition wrong, that I should retake chemistry (she was chem-something major, while i was EE)..since she was a chem-whatever major, she has more credibility in the matter.
Well, probably she does. As far as I know, she may be right. if she is, and ATOT says she is, then I will humbly accept my incorrectness.

Please help me refine my understanding of 2nd law and entropy to provide a sufficient counter..so that next time i wouldn't be ripped apart because i wasn't a chem major .

Teach me.



Cliffs:
girl goes evolution = no go because it violates 2nd law of thermodynamics..more entropy means more disorder. It can't go from disorder to order. It's LAW.

i go --> more entropy != disorder, but rather more entropy = more knowledge of the situation that we do not know. that's not disorder. we may get to know more in the far future..but as of now, entropy is just a number to look @ to see how much we don't know about the state of stuff in that given time. (i think!??!?! lol maybe that's why i didn't get great grades in physics )

therefore, overgeneralized misworded 2nd law cannot be applied to the argument against evolution.

girl then says --> i was EE, and she was chem major, so she has more credibility than i do. I must take more chem classes and physics101 to just understand this simple concept.

I have no rebuttel..i lose argument; supposedly.

 

[Descartes]

This is such an old argument from the creationists. I'd look here for more discussion.

 

[lozina]

Prime example of what not to talk about to get girls, thanks.

 

[DanTMWTMP]

Originally posted by: Descartes
This is such an old argument from the creationists. I'd look here for more discussion.

*head explodes* dang, i donno if i can just bust out equations on the fly and stuff to fully describe what that means. i should review the notes i wrote from yesteryears from college.

or..just link her that page, in which then she will link me to a page that is an advocate of the comparison/argument of how evolution goes against the 2nd law.

bah i already lost the battle. I'm just goign to never bring it up w/ her ever again.

 

[3NF]

We were genetically engineered by aliens. To think that we are the product of random genetic mutations over time that became the norm due to natural selection doesn't work for me. We were intelligently designed by a more "advanced" being. Call it God, call it Aliens, call it whatever you want.

I have to agree with the girl. The theory of evolution does seem to lie in direct contradiction to the law of entropy.

 

[Demon-Xanth]

Using evolution and the 2nd law of thermodynamics together like that is like saying a plane must fly at 70MPH because that's what the speed limits on the roads are.

 

[Lonyo]

Originally posted by: Demon-Xanth
Using evolution and the 2nd law of thermodynamics together like that is like saying a plane must fly at 70MPH because that's what the speed limits on the roads are.

But the only way it would take off is if a cat on a treadmill goes wrong and lands butter side up because it's got psychosis from too much second hand weed smoke that made it fart methane and cause global warming.

 

[DanTMWTMP]

Originally posted by: 3NF
We were genetically engineered by aliens. To think that we are the product of random genetic mutations over time that became the norm due to natural selection doesn't work for me. We were intelligently designed by a more "advanced" being. Call it God, call it Aliens, call it whatever you want.

I have to agree with the girl. The theory of evolution does seem to lie in direct contradiction to the law of entropy.

and what is this contradiction?

BTW, there is no law of entropy. Entropy is just a number; a definition. Anyways, the 2nd law of thermo states that a higher entropy means higher probability of states of molecules. how does this higher probability, or to put it in philosophical terms, "higher state of having no information" have anything to do with contradicting evolution?

please teach me this.

 

[RapidSnail]

What? There seems to be something wrong with your assessment. Increased entropy does lead to increased disorder of which greater uncertainty is a product. Ice, for example, has a low entropy, and has a highly ordered crystallic structure which makes it much easier to pinpoint the position of its molecules; however, as the ice begins to melt and then boil steam, the entropy, or disorder of the system, increases which results in a lower probability of accurately describing the position of any given molecule.

 

[Amused]

Two words:

The sun.

 

[DaShen]

meh... it is more about open and closed systems.

 

[DanTMWTMP]

Originally posted by: RapidSnail
What? There seems to be something wrong with your assessment. Increased entropy does lead to increased disorder of which greater uncertainty is a product. Ice, for example, has a low entropy, and has a highly ordered crystallic structure; however, as the ice begins to melt and then boil steam, the entropy, or disorder of the system, increases which results in a lower probability of accurately describing the position of any given molecule.

i was taught by my professors that "disorder" is a misnomer, and it should be understood as something that, as you say it, going away from the knowledge of describing the position of any given molecule. That's not disorder. That's just having less chance of knowing where the position of the molecule is. She used this "disorder" argument to say that evolution is going into "ORDERLY" complicated organisms. tell me what i didn't understand in my statment.

in a sense, she's mis-using the law of 2nd thermodynamics to further her cause and belief that evolution cannot possibly have happened.

 

[DaShen]

Originally posted by: Amused
Two words:

The sun.

Bingo

 

[dullard]

1) Give up on the entropy != disorder part. They are basically the exact same concept. You are wrong.

2) She was wrong that things cannot go from disorder to order. If I throw a deck of cards all around the room (disorder), can you pick them up, sort them, and put them back in the box (order)? Yes? Then things can go from disorder to order. Bingo, her 2nd law evolution argument is already disproven.

3) But the 2nd law says they can't go from disorder to order? Well that is only half of the 2nd law. The 2nd law ACTUALLY says they can't go from disorder to order UNLESS something else does goes from order to disorder. She got the 2nd law only half correct. That is pretty bad for a chem major.

4) Doing work is a form of going from order to disorder. For example, in your card picking up exercise, you do work. If you do work, you require fuel. You burn a nice orderly chemical (lets say you ate a sugar cube) and create heat, lots of water, carbon dioxide, etc and spread those all over the place.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Several reasons why this objection is impotent.

1.) The earth is not an isolated system.

2.) The 2LoT does not prohibit localized decreases in entropy as long as the global rate of entropy change is positive. Look up Ilya Prigogine and his Nobel prize-winning work with dissipative structures.

3.) The 2LoT deals with energy, not order. Bernard convection is a prime counterexample to such a silly claim.

 

[3NF]

Originally posted by: DanTMWTMP

Originally posted by: 3NF
We were genetically engineered by aliens. To think that we are the product of random genetic mutations over time that became the norm due to natural selection doesn't work for me. We were intelligently designed by a more "advanced" being. Call it God, call it Aliens, call it whatever you want.

I have to agree with the girl. The theory of evolution does seem to lie in direct contradiction to the law of entropy.

and what is this contradiction?

BTW, there is no law of entropy. Entropy is just a number; a definition. Anyways, the 2nd law of thermo states that a higher entropy means higher probability of states of molecules. how does this higher probability, or to put it in philosophical terms, "higher state of having no information" have anything to do with contradicting evolution?

please teach me this.

The way I understood the 2nd law was the a system will tend to go from an organized state to a disorganized state. To go the other way takes work. Maybe that isn't correct. Evolution suggests that life started from inanimate matter and spontaneously evolved into more advanced and complex biological structures. To me it sounds like that would take work Maybe it's a bad argument.

 

[interchange]

Originally posted by: dullard
1) Give up on the entropy != disorder part. They are basically the exact same concept. You are wrong.

2) She was wrong that things cannot go from disorder to order. If I throw a deck of cards all around the room (disorder), can you pick them up, sort them, and put them back in the box (order)? Yes? Then things can go from disorder to order. Bingo, her 2nd law evolution argument is already disproven.

3) But the 2nd law says they can't go from disorder to order? Well that is only half of the 2nd law. The 2nd law ACTUALLY says they can't go from disorder to order UNLESS something else does goes from order to disorder. She got the 2nd law only half correct. That is pretty bad for a chem major.

4) Doing work is a form of going from order to disorder. For example, in your card picking up exercise, you burn a nice orderly chemical (lets say you ate a sugar cube) and create heat, lots of water, carbon dioxide, etc and spread those all over the place.

Listen to this poster. And there are several examples of systems (e.g. chemical reactions) which spontaneously become more ordered. However, the enthalpy change must be enough to overcome the entropy change in this order. delta(G) = delta(H) - T*delta(S). Temperature also plays a role in the entropy factor.

 

[DanTMWTMP]

Originally posted by: dullard
1) Give up on the entropy != disorder part. They are basically the exact same concept. You are wrong.

2) She was wrong that things cannot go from disorder to order. If I throw a deck of cards all around the room (disorder), can you pick them up, sort them, and put them back in the box (order)? Yes? Then things can go from disorder to order. Bingo, her 2nd law evolution argument is already disproven.

3) But the 2nd law says they can't go from disorder to order? Well that is only half of the 2nd law. The 2nd law ACTUALLY says they can't go from disorder to order UNLESS something else does goes from order to disorder. She got the 2nd law only half correct. That is pretty bad for a chem major.

4) Doing work is a form of going from order to disorder. For example, in your card picking up exercise, you burn a nice orderly chemical (lets say you ate a sugar cube) and create heat, lots of water, carbon dioxide, etc and spread those all over the place.

ah ok. ya conceptually i can see why it is disorder. Just that I remember my professor was stressing that "disorder" can be a misnomer to describe entropy, that a better way to look into it was ..(well, as what I've stated in OP).

I guess what I should've said to her was that disorder shouldn't be used in the context of disproving evolution?
i donno .

what would you have said? or rather, what would you have said to sway a nuetral 3rd party who's overseeing the discussion. (since it's impossible to sway the person one is talking against).


EDIT: hmm

Originally posted by: Garth
Several reasons why this objection is impotent.

1.) The earth is not an isolated system.

2.) The 2LoT does not prohibit localized decreases in entropy as long as the global rate of entropy change is positive. Look up Ilya Prigogine and his Nobel prize-winning work with dissipative structures.

3.) The 2LoT deals with energy, not order. Bernard convection is a prime counterexample to such a silly claim.

energy. so a possible counterargument should start from an explanation of energy. how would one explain Bernard convection in layman terms?

 

[Gibsons]

Here's a restatement of the second law: Entropy within a closed system cannot decrease.

A key point here is a "closed system." You can decrease entropy in a system if you do work on it/add energy to it. The system is not "closed" if this can happen. A molecule is not a closed system, nor is a cell, an animal, a plant or the Earth.

Ask your friend to give you an example of a closed system. Unless she says "the universe" she's probably wrong...

If that's not good enough I can give you examples of well known chemical reactions that would violate her version of the second law.

 

[mercanucaribe]

OP, if you don't think evolution is fact, how do you think life developed and advanced on this planet? I'd like to hear what you think the other possibilities are.

 

[3NF]

Originally posted by: mercanucaribe
OP, if you don't think evolution is fact, how do you think life developed and advanced on this planet? I'd like to hear what you think the other possibilities are.

We were genetically engineered by aliens.

http://www.intelligentdesignbook.com/

I want to have sex with little green alien women because variety is the spice of life and having sex with the same thing over and over is the real reason for impotence.

 

[Gibsons]

Originally posted by: mercanucaribe
OP, if you don't think evolution is fact, how do you think life developed and advanced on this planet? I'd like to hear what you think the other possibilities are.

Are you asking about abiogenesis or evolution? Different things.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: DanTMWTMP

Originally posted by: Garth
Several reasons why this objection is impotent.

1.) The earth is not an isolated system.

2.) The 2LoT does not prohibit localized decreases in entropy as long as the global rate of entropy change is positive. Look up Ilya Prigogine and his Nobel prize-winning work with dissipative structures.

3.) The 2LoT deals with energy, not order. Bernard convection is a prime counterexample to such a silly claim.

energy. so a possible counterargument should start from an explanation of energy. how would one explain Bernard convection in layman terms?

Basically, as a viscous liquid is heated, the energy is dissipated (i.e. entropy increases) and convection cells form spontaneously (i.e. order increases).

 

[dullard]

<- Dullard got his BS in chemical engineering, MS in chemical engineering and PhD in engineering (PhD focus on math modelling and chemical engineering).

Originally posted by: DanTMWTMP
ah ok. ya conceptually i can see why it is disorder. Just that I remember my professor was stressing that "disorder" can be a misnomer to describe entropy, that a better way to look into it was ..(well, as what I've stated in OP).

What you've stated in the OP has grains of truth, buried in piles of garbage, covered in a cloud of mystery, and surrounded by poor wording that few people could ever understand. So, I really can't tell if what you describe is a good definition at all.

Entropy and disorder are not the exact same concept, but they are pretty darn close. Entropy is a measurement of disorder. Entropy is the way you count the level of disorder. You were correct that entropy is a number, a counting system. But what does it count? It counts the level of disorder.

That said, many people are confused by the terms "order" and "disorder". See your friends obvious false use of entropy to disprove evolution as an example. Thus, there is a trend to stop teaching entropy as disorder. Read here. Your professors probably were trying to teach using the new method of avoiding those confusing words. That doesn't mean that entropy doesn't measure disorder. It just means that they are trying to teach it in a way that won't be confused.

I guess what I should've said to her was that disorder shouldn't be used in the context of disproving evolution?

Yep. It shouldn't be used, because she is only using half of the 2nd law. If you include the whole law, then you can see how she was wrong. Things CAN and DO go from disorder to order all the time.

what would you have said? or rather, what would you have said to sway a nuetral 3rd party who's overseeing the discussion. (since it's impossible to sway the person one is talking against).

I'd give the card example.

 

[DanTMWTMP]

Originally posted by: mercanucaribe
OP, if you don't think evolution is fact, how do you think life developed and advanced on this planet? I'd like to hear what you think the other possibilities are.

i want to believe that it is fact in some form. Of course I contradict myself by saying that i can't believe in the whole theory since part of evolution says that it is based off of randomness and probability (which i said earlier that all that means is that we just don't know or have the capacity to know what will happen next at that given time point, so we just conveniently call it probability).

But ya, as i said, I want to believe in evolution, but to me, the whole thing isn't fact...yet.

my views are agnostic, but veers towards evolution w/ a possibility that something behind the scenes does take place to "guide" it in a sense. I don't completely believe in this view, but it's something that i'm comfortable with, but I am open to any other views/theories. If i find something that fits better than that, then i'll replace my current view w/ it.


that's all.

Originally posted by: dullard
<- Dullard got his BS in chemical engineering, MS in chemical engineering and PhD in engineering (PhD focus on math modelling and chemical engineering).

Originally posted by: DanTMWTMP
ah ok. ya conceptually i can see why it is disorder. Just that I remember my professor was stressing that "disorder" can be a misnomer to describe entropy, that a better way to look into it was ..(well, as what I've stated in OP).

What you've stated in the OP has grains of truth, buried in piles of garbage, covered in a cloud of mystery, and surrounded by poor wording that few people could ever understand. So, I really can't tell if what you describe is a good definition at all.

Entropy and disorder are not the exact same concept, but they are pretty darn close. Entropy is a measurement of disorder. Entropy is the way you count the level of disorder. You were correct that entropy is a number, a counting system. But what does it count? It counts the level of disorder.

That said, many people are confused by the terms "order" and "disorder". See your friends obvious false use of entropy to disprove evolution as an example. Thus, there is a trend to stop teaching entropy as disorder. Read here. Your professors probably were trying to teach using the new method of avoiding those confusing words. That doesn't mean that entropy doesn't measure disorder. It just means that they are trying to teach it in a way that won't be confused.

I guess what I should've said to her was that disorder shouldn't be used in the context of disproving evolution?

Yep. It shouldn't be used, because she is only using half of the 2nd law. If you include the whole law, then you can see how she was wrong. Things CAN and DO go from disorder to order all the time.

what would you have said? or rather, what would you have said to sway a nuetral 3rd party who's overseeing the discussion. (since it's impossible to sway the person one is talking against).

I'd give the card example.

sweet. thanks much! I'm reading into this now, and damn, I should've paid more attention in class while i was in college. I was too shallow in my OP, and can't edit it to save face..or rather, i'm too lazy to edit all that text lol.

I'm resourceful enough to read and explain the 2nd half...so that'll take me awhile (as i'm bored @ work, i'll read more into it lol). of course, layman explanations in this thread will be helpful and be good sidenotes as i read into the insane technicallity (in my view at least) of sites that explain this.

To those who contributed thus far, you guys have been very helpful so far. you know who you are. .