fragmentsofdreams said:
Speaking as a physics major minoring in biology, there are no conflicts between physics and evolution.
The second law of thermodynamics allows for increased complexity. Otherwise, a single cell could never develop into a human being.
Uhm, I've studied Physics quite a bit, and the Second Law of Thermodynamics is a tough one to reconcile with evoltution...
Let's get down to business here (this will be long, but I hope informative).
The most popular evolutionary argument about Thermodynamics being a proof for, not against evolution (yawn) can be summed up here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html#thermo
Here's a much better response to that than I have the time to write myself, though I agree with about everything in here:
http://www.trueorigin.org/isakrbtl.asp
_________________________________________________________________
Evolution Violates the
2nd Law of Thermodynamics
Isaak begins this section with a typically dismissive declaration: This shows more a misconception about thermodynamics than about evolution. But we soon shall see who misunderstands both thermodynamics and evolution...
Defining the Law
Isaaks definition of the second law of thermodynamics begins with: No process is possible in which the sole result is the transfer of energy from a cooler to a hotter body. He then tells us that confusion arises when the 2nd law is phrased as: The entropy of a closed system cannot decrease. Anyone familiar with the 2nd law will recognize that both statements are true, and that the second statement is commonly used of the two axioms in defining the 2nd law as it pertains to Classical Thermodynamicsyet for Isaak, it seems to cause some confusion.
To define our terms, in Classical Thermodynamics the term entropy is the measure of the amount of energy unavailable for work in a physical system. Left to itself over time, any such system will end with less available energy (i.e., a higher measure of, or increase in, entropy) than when it started, according to the 2nd law. In this classic form, the 2nd law applies specifically to probability of distribution with regard to heat and energy relationships of physical systems, and as such, the entropy involved may be described specifically as thermal entropy.
Similarly, the generalized 2nd law applies the same entropy principle to information systems in such a way that, left to itself over time, the information conveyed by an information-communicating system will end more distorted and less complete than when it began (again, a higher measure of, or increase in, entropyin this case informational entropy), and likewise, applied to Statistics, left to itself over time, the order or regularity of a system will be less than when it began (and again, a higher measure of, or increase in, entropyin this case statistical entropy).
The vital point to be grasped here is that the presence of a system (whether organizational or mechanical) hardly guarantees continuous enhancement, but more realistically is subject to continual degradation, if it is not kept to the pre-determined standard defined in its original design. Evolutionistic thinking often ignores this principle, despite the fact that it is a profoundly and empirically established scientific fact.
Isaak tells us that creationists misinterpret the 2nd law to say that things invariably progress from order to disorder. I know of no creationist who has published this misinterpretation, and Isaak neglects to document the creationists to whom he would credit this quotation. However, it is commonly understood by not only by creationists, but by all scientists familiar with thermodynamics, that systems or processes left to themselves invariably tend to move from order to disorder. Consider what Isaac Asimov (a highly respected evolutionist, and ardent anti-creationist) has to say:
Another way of stating the second law then is: The universe is constantly getting more disorderly! Viewed that way, we can see the second law all about us. We have to work hard to straighten a room, but left to itself it becomes a mess again very quickly and very easily. Even if we never enter it, it becomes dusty and musty. How difficult to maintain houses, and machinery, and our bodies in perfect working order: how easy to let them deteriorate. In fact, all we have to do is nothing, and everything deteriorates, collapses, breaks down, wears out, all by itselfand that is what the second law is all about.
[Isaac Asimov, Smithsonian Institute Journal, June 1970, p. 6]
Thus we observe a virulent anti-creationist stating essentially what Isaak claims is a creationist misinterpretation of the 2nd law. Lest there be any doubts, a typical college-level chemistry text book (which doesnt concern itself with matters of origins and therefore may be considered reasonably neutral on the subject) says:
Scientists use the term entropy to describe the amount of randomness in a system. The larger the entropy of a system, the less order or more randomness the system has. We could say that the direction of change in diffusion or evaporation is toward a state of higher entropy.
[D. Callewaert & J. Genya, Basic Chemistry, New York, Worth Publishers, 1980, p. 157]
It should be clear that the 2nd law of thermodynamics does indeed require that a natural process or system, left to itself, increases in entropy, or randomness, and therefore decreases in order, andas Asimov put itdeteriorates, collapses, breaks down, wears out, all by itself. Please dont let the fact escape your notice that Asimov applies this law to the universe which pretty much assures us that its application is ... universal (applying to all processes and systems).
Open vs. Closed Systems
Next, Isaak arrives at the heart of his argument, invoking what has really become a classicand very misleadingevolutionist tactic: He tells us that the creationists error is that they neglect the fact that life is not a closed system.
The basis of his claim is the fact that while the 2nd law is inviolate in an isolated system (i.e., a system in which neither energy nor matter enter nor leave the systemoften erroneously called closed system), an apparent violation of the law can exist in an open system (i.e., a system to which new energy or matter may be added). Isaak tells us life [is] irrelevant to the 2nd law, and so is evidently convinced that every living systems is an exception to the 2nd law.
Now, the entire universe is generally considered by evolutionists to be a closed (isolated) system, so the 2nd law dictates that within the universe, entropy is increasing. In other words, things are tending to breaking down, becoming less organized, less complex, more random on a universal scale. This trend (as described by Asimov above) is a scientifically observed phenomenoni.e., fact, not theory.
However, here on earth, the popular evolutionary line of reasoning goes, we have an exception, because we live in an open system: The sun provides more than enough energy to drive things, Isaak says. And indeed, solar energy is added to the open sub-system of the earth continuously. But simply adding raw energy to a system doesnt automatically cause reduced entropy (i.e., increased organized complexity, build-up rather than break-down). If this were true, no scientist would object to the elimination of the ozone, since more raw solar energy would only mean a welcome increase in organized complexity (a hastening of the alleged evolutionary process, as it were) in the world as we know it.
No, we know that raw solar energy alone does not decrease entropy. In fact, by itself, it increases entropy, speeding up the natural processes that cause break-down, disorder, and disorganization on earth (consider, for example, your cars paint job, a wooden fence, or a decomposing animal carcass, first with and then without the addition of solar radiation).
Speaking of the applicability of 2nd law to both closed (isolated) and open systems in general, Harvard scientist Dr. John Ross (not a creationist) affirms:
...there are no known violations of the second law of thermodynamics. Ordinarily the second law is stated for isolated systems, but the second law applies equally well to open systems ... there is somehow associated with the field of far-from equilibrium phenomena the notion that the second law of thermodynamics fails for such systems. It is important to make sure that this error does not perpetuate itself. [Dr. John Ross, Harvard scientist (evolutionist), Chemical and Engineering News, vol. 58, July 7, 1980, p. 40]
So, if the 2nd law is universal (as any scientifically defined law must be, and as Ross here confirms), what is it that makes life possible within the earths biosphere, appearing to violate (or in Isaaks words, be irrelevant to) the 2nd law of thermodynamics?
Raw Energy is Not Enough
The fact is, contrary to the simplistic claim often parroted by evolutionists like Isaak, any increase in organized complexity (i.e., decrease in entropy) invariably requires two additional factors besides an open system and an available energy supply. These are:
- a program (information) to direct the growth in organized complexity
- a mechanism for storing and converting the incoming energy.
The earths living systems have both of these essential elements. Each living organisms DNA contains all the code (the program or information) needed to direct the process of building (or organizing) the organism up from seed or cell to a fully functional, mature specimen, complete with all the necessary instructions for maintaining and repairing each of its complex, organized, and integrated component systems. This process continues throughout the life of the organism, essentially building-up and maintaining the organisms physical structure faster than natural processes (as governed by the 2nd law) can break it down.
Living systems also have the second essential componenttheir own built-in mechanisms for effectively converting and storing the incoming energy. Plants use photosynthesis to convert the suns energy into usable, storable forms (e.g., proteins), while animals use metabolism to further convert and use the stored, usable, energy from the organisms which compose their diets.
So we can see that living things do not in fact violate the 2nd law, nor are they excepted from or irrelevant to the 2nd law, but they actually have built-in programs (information) and energy conversion mechanisms that allow them to build up and maintain their physical structures in spite of the 2nd laws effects (which ultimately do prevail, as each organism eventually deteriorates and dies). Every living organism itself is a highly complex and organized creation, able to live within the earths open system biosphere (the only place in the universe known to man that supports life), by means of a unique, inherent program (information, DNA), plus an inherent energy conversion & storage mechanism (photosynthesis, metabolism).
<Continued next post>