ELWAR writes:
First, it confuses quantity of energy with conversion of energy.Naturally there exists enough energy to fuel an imagine evolutionary process, but that was never the point. The point is how does the sun's energy sustain evolution.The mere availability of energy can't automatically insure the development of orderly structural growth. Some kind of directional program mechanism is necessary to transform energy into the energy required to reproduce increased organization from dead-matter into living-matter. For example, a pile of lumber, bricks, nails, and tools will not evolved into a building although it's receiving energy from the Sun. A building is less complex than a living cells decorated with genetic information. Second, there exist no such thing as a closed system. Thus, your argument has been proven to be meaningless since all other systems are also open. I suggest that you study more on the thermodynamic laws of nature because their has never been any weight in those old evolutionary arguments.
Just a bit of advice. You should be aware of who you are discussing a point with instead of assuming a deficiency on the part of your opponent. I stopped having to prove my proficiency in physics after attaining my current position. The following references not only address the notion of "closed" thermodynamic systems (which may include the universe as a whole given certain contraints) but also skims the possibility of thermodynamic laws providing a motive "agent" for evolutionary processes.
EVOLUTION OF BASIC AND APPLIED THERMODYNAMICS
CHANU J
RECHERCHE AEROSPATIALE
(3): 165-172 1994
Classical thermodynamics cannot accurately describe natural processes.Investigation of the latter mush resort to a nonequilibrium theory.
Irrespective of reversibility or irreversibility, thermodynamics deals with material systems which consist of a very large number of elementary entities possessing
internal energy. According to the second law of thermodynamics, as expressed by Clausius, any isolated macroscopic system ceases to undergo change when the
entropy reaches its maximum. The system has then reached an equilibrium state corresponding to the state of maximum particulate disorder. However, real systems are not isolated systems; their boundaries let through energy (closed systems) or energy and matter (open systems). When the physical characteristics of the system and those of the environment are closely related, the changes are
reversible and are amenable to classical thermodynamics, but when these characteristics are very different the exchanges which take place are abrupt and irreversible; classical thermodynamics no longer applies. The system may, however be assumed to consist of a very large number of small subsystems in internal thermodynamic equilibrium, but not in equilibrium with each other. Entropy production (energy dissipation) depends on the transfer of heat, matter, quantity of motion and on the transfer due to chemical reactions.
Near equilibrium, in the linear domain, the progress of change depends on a potential whose minimum value acts as an attractor. The system has no historical ''dimension''. Away from equilibrium on the other hand, the progress of charge no longer depends on a potential. The history of the system has to be taken into account. Nonequilibrium stationary states can be stable or unstable, the limiting case being that of marginal stability (e.g. Poincare's boundary cycles). The study of the stability of solutions makes use of Lyapunov's functions. Internal fluctuations are of great importance in the vicinity of the instability regions. A distinction is made between the phase transitions at equilibrium which end in microstructures, and nonequilibrium phase transitions. In the latter the crossing of thresholds constitutes an abrupt transition, giving rise to the formation of heterogeneities which break the symmetries to form dissipative structures (Prigogine) which are macrostructures.
THERMODYNAMICS AND BIOLOGICAL EVOLUTION - A MOTIVE
FORCE OF EVOLUTION
GLADYSHEV GP
JOURNAL OF BIOLOGICAL PHYSICS
20 (1-4): 213-222 1994
The author of the present paper hopes that the thermodynamic nature of biological evolution will be perceived in the nearest future. He suggests a macrothermodynamic model that takes into account the fact that in the course of ontogenesis, philogenesis and the appropriate stages of the general biological evolution the biosystems are enriched by energy-intensive chemical substances,which force water out of these systems.
Entropy and cosmology
Zucker MH
PHYSICS ESSAYS
12 (1): 92-105 MAR 1999
This paper is a critical analysis and reassessment of entropic functioning as it applies to the question of whether the ultimate fate of the universe will be
determined in the future to be "open" (expanding forever to expire in a big chill), "closed" (collapsing to a big crunch), or "flat" (balanced forever between the two).
The second law of thermodynamics declares that entropy can only increase-and that this principle extends, inevitably, to the universe as a whole. This paper takes the position that this extension is an unwarranted projection based neither on experience nor fact-an extrapolation that ignores the powerful effect of gravitational force acting within a closed system.
Since it was originally presented by Clausius, the thermodynamic concept of entropy has been redefined in terms of "order" and "disorder"-order being equated
with a low degree of entropy and disorder with a high degree. This revised terminology, more subjective than precise, has generated considerable confusion in cosmology in several critical instances. For example-the chaotic fireball of the big bang, interpreted by Stephen Hawking as a state of disorder (high entropy), is infinitely hot and, thermally, represents zero entropy (order). Hawking, apparently focusing on the disorderly "chaotic" aspect, equated it with a high degree of entropy-overlooking the fact that the universe is a thermodynamic system and that the key factor in evaluating the big-bang phenomenon is the infinitely high temperature of the early universe, which can only be equated with zero entropy. This analysis resolves this confusion and reestablishes entropy as a cosmological function integrally linked to temperature.
The paper goes on to show that, while all subsystems contained within the universe require external sources of energization to have their temperatures raised, this requirement does not apply to the universe as a whole. The universe is the only system that, by itself can raise its own temperature and thus, by itself: reverse entropy. The vast encompassing gravitational forces that the universe has at its disposal, forces that dominate the phase of contraction, provide the compacting, compressive mechanism that regenerates heat in an expanded, cooled universe
and decreases entropy. And this phenomenon takes place without diminishing or depleting the finite amount of mass/energy with which the universe began.
The fact that the universe can reverse the entropic process leads to possibilities previously ignored when assessing which of the three models (open, closed, or
flat) most probably represents the future of the universe. After analyzing the models, the conclusion reached here is that the open model is only an expanded version of the closed model and therefore is not open, and the closed model will never collapse to a big crunch and, therefore, is not closed. Which leaves a modified flat model, oscillating forever between limited phases of expansion and
contraction (a universe in "dynamic equilibrium") as the only feasible choice.
