The Big Bang Theory

[Joe_Sixpack]

For the heck of it - I will clear up a few things, just in case there are an lurkers:

"And we would probably disagree with the definition of ‘nothing.’ The particles that physicists observe springing forth come from a vacuum consisting of three spatial dimensions and a fourth dimension called time with energy present. This is certainly not nothing. True nothingness is a void not comprehendible to human cognizance."

Elementary particles do not according to the Standard Model have volume, so they do not have 3 spatial dimensions. Nor does it even make sense to say that particle has a temporal dimension - it may exist in a temporal dimension, but it is not a quality of the particle itself.

Many people like to think of particles as little "balls" - this is a useful analog sometimes, but it not really that close to what they really are. Problem is that they are so alien to human experience that words on't exist to truly describe them. Best I can do is to call them wholes in the vacuum.

"JEP: Kind of agreed, but only from my soap box. I believe our main contention on virtual particles might be their cause and origin. Some particle physicists would have us believe that these particles are springing from nothing. They just seem to poof into and out of, existence. But I don’t believe this to be true. Hawking states that these particles spring from energy. "

You are misrepresenting Hawking here, but not intentionally - it just gets confusing. Virtual particles spring from fluctuations of the local vacuum energy which is best described a rolling sea of potentials (both positive and negative). The Vacuum energy, however, sums to zero - meaning that a spike in one place of positive energy has a corresponding (or several lesser) spike of negative energy. Thus, there is still zero energy causing particles to spring into existence. Of course, these particles exist within the boundraries of uncertainty - so they themselves never truly "exist," yet their effects do.

 

[Jeptha]

“JEP IN A PREVIOUS POST: "That WOULD violate the first law of thermodynamics just as complex macroevolution would have violated the second law of thermodynamics. "

JOE: NO IT WOULDN'T as I have explained several times. A fluctuation of the vacuum can produce matter and energy for vanishingly short periods of time”

JEP: Fine. I agree. So are you saying that our universe is matter/energy of a vanishingly short period of time?? This must be what you’re saying since you are implying that the universe was created by virtual fluctuation. How could I deduce anything other than this from your argument?

“- in fact it can produce positive net energy of amounts that vary inversely with their "lifespans." This "borrowing" effect is observed through the actions of virtual particles and quantum teleportation. Now, if the net energy "borrowed" is exactly zero, then the it can exist for an infinite amount of time”

JEP: With all due respect, this is simply hyperbole. Sheeze…with this assertion why do we need gasoline for our cars or oil to power our electrical generators. We can just ‘borrow’ this energy from the net energy of the universe and all will be well. *creationist trying to pull physicist back down to earth by the seat of his pants* You seem to be suggesting that there are some sort of wires hooked up to a virtual fluctuation where it sucks out energy to stay alive from somewhere else in the universe. If this is true, then you will be able to borrow this energy and create the gold from lead that so many alchemists have tried in the past. Glad to become buddies with you.

“your arrogance to think that you can refute their work so easily is astonishing.”

JEP: I didn’t say it was easy, but I think you’ll see it can be done.

”Further macroevolution does not violate the 2nd Law - didn't you say you know something about science? What, did you think all those scientists just decided to ignore that law too?”

JEP: Well, certainly Darwin did and I suspect that many Secular Humanist scientists are doing so today; especially in academia. So you think the SLOT argument on macro is stupid?? Warning: If you choose to discuss this with the dum kreationist you are going to end up looking really silly right here in front of God and everyone else. You may not want to go there because the truth will come out.

”Why did I engage in a discussion with someone so deluded by creationist propaganda to think that the ToE violated the 2nd Law - that is the dumbest and most easily refuted argument the creationists ever bring up. Ugg!”

JEP: Don’t know, but refute it. SLOT applies to everything in the universe EXCEPT complex macroevolution. Hmmm… I ain’t buying it.

 

[Jeptha]

“For the heck of it - I will clear up a few things, just in case there are an lurkers:”

JEP: Oh, there are lurkers and you are in the spotlight, Doc. We’ll see how long you last with an IDist.

”Elementary particles do not according to the Standard Model have volume, so they do not have 3 spatial dimensions. Nor does it even make sense to say that particle has a temporal dimension - it may exist in a temporal dimension, but it is not a quality of the particle itself.”

JEP: You’ve misunderstood me. I’m not describing the particles themselves; I’m describing this nothingness they are supposedly ‘springing’ from.

You are misrepresenting Hawking here, but not intentionally - it just gets confusing. Virtual particles spring from fluctuations of the local vacuum energy”

JEP: I simply said that virtual particles spring from energy. If you prefer to call it ‘Vacuum Energy’ this will work as well. The point is that they do not spring from nothingness and there is no way they could have played a role in the inception of our universe.

Peace, and good luck in our debates. I really do like and respect you, but I tend to debate aggressively. Especially when I can land someone at (or near??) the PhD level. God bless!

 

[Joe_Sixpack]

The SLOT argument is boring because it seems I have to respond to it with detailed descriptions of the 2nd Law because so many creationists have been lied to by propagandists to think that the 2nd Law says something it doesn't say.

"JEP: Don’t know, but refute it. SLOT applies to everything in the universe EXCEPT complex macroevolution. Hmmm… I ain’t buying it."

Actually, no physicist would say this - we know that the 2nd Law applies (or at least certainly seems to) to every single interaction in the Universe - including evolution (macro or otherwise).

Why don't you just explain to me what the 2nd Law states and why evolution violates it - only fair considering you brought up this asinine argument.

Oh for someother stuff

"JEP: With all due respect, this is simply hyperbole. Sheeze…with this assertion why do we need gasoline for our cars or oil to power our electrical generators. We can just ‘borrow’ this energy from the net energy of the universe and all will be well. *creationist trying to pull physicist back down to earth by the seat of his pants* You seem to be suggesting that there are some sort of wires hooked up to a virtual fluctuation where it sucks out energy to stay alive from somewhere else in the universe. If this is true, then you will be able to borrow this energy and create the gold from lead that so many alchemists have tried in the past. Glad to become buddies with you."

Funny - you ignored that whole thing about the amount of energy "borrowed" is inversely proportional to the length of time that can be borrowed for. Further, you ignored that whole net energy of the Universe equals zero thing once more. Why should I bother responding? You aren't debating points - you are just espousing personal incredulity about atopic you know nothing about.

BTW - there are quite a few physicists working on applications of this little quirk of nature in some ways as amazing as your little joke up there. You might have unintentionally it on something here.

"JEP: Fine. I agree. So are you saying that our universe is matter/energy of a vanishingly short period of time?? This must be what you’re saying since you are implying that the universe was created by virtual fluctuation. How could I deduce anything other than this from your argument? "

No I did not! I specifically discussed how the Universe has exactly zero net energy and how the length of time energy can be "borrowed" from nothingness is inversely related to its "lifespan." Therefore, it doesn't take a math whiz to see that if you have 0 in the numerator and x in the demoninator equal to something (in this case Planck's constant), the number in the denominator is infinity - right? Now just so you forget the denominator was the length of time the enrgy could be "borrowed" - its lifespan.

"JEP: I simply said that virtual particles spring from energy. If you prefer to call it ‘Vacuum Energy’ this will work as well. The point is that they do not spring from nothingness and there is no way they could have played a role in the inception of our universe. "

What exactly is nothingness?

BTW - I agree that virtual particles didn't play a role in the creation of the Universe, I simply said that models employing the quantum fluctuations do not violate the 1st Law - they don't. You still won't admit it even after I have explained again and again why they do not violate the 1st Law. Either you are just being obstinate for debating purposes or you are simply obtuse - pick.

But, it seems to me that you ignored the whole thing about the zero net energy of the vacuum - meaning that you don't even care to read what I type.

"JEP: You’ve misunderstood me. I’m not describing the particles themselves; I’m describing this nothingness they are supposedly ‘springing’ from. "

The unraveling of the spatial dimensions is a hot topic in String and its related M-Theory, neat stuff - pick up the Elegant Universe by Green if you are interested.

"JEP: Well, certainly Darwin did and I suspect that many Secular Humanist scientists are doing so today; especially in academia."

Guess all those Christian biologists and physicist are just so stupid that they don't see it too, right?

"So you think the SLOT argument on macro is stupid??"

Yep.

"Warning: If you choose to discuss this with the dum kreationist you are going to end up looking really silly right here in front of God and everyone else."

You are right - I will look like an idiot for wasting my time explaining something that you obviously do not want to understand.

Why do I get sucked into this junk.

"Peace, and good luck in our debates. I really do like and respect you, but I tend to debate aggressively. Especially when I can land someone at (or near??) the PhD level. God bless! "

Any chance you ever admit that you might possibly be wrong about something? Just wondering...

I obviously have too much time on my hands if I am responding to this...

 

[MartinM]

Perhaps I'm missing something here, but does the 1st law of thermodynamincs even apply universally? After all, the FRW metrics are not asymptotically flat, so the total mass-energy content of the Universe isn't even a well-defined concept. And energy-momentum isn't globally conserved in curved spacetime anyway.

 

[Dawn Marie]

(Okay, what is this "Big Bang Theory"?)

 

[MartinM]

This might help - http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmolog.htm

 

[Jeptha]

“The SLOT argument is boring because it seems I have to respond to it with detailed descriptions of the 2nd Law because so many creationists have been lied to by propagandists to think that the 2nd Law says something it doesn't say.”

JEP: LOL…Maybe I’m one of those propagandists?? Tell me. Do you really think we just make it up as we go, or could there be a legitimate argument here?

"JEP IN A PREVIOUS POST: Don’t know, but refute it. SLOT applies to everything in the universe EXCEPT complex macroevolution. Hmmm… I ain’t buying it.

JOE: Actually, no physicist would say this - we know that the 2nd Law applies (or at least certainly seems to) to every single interaction in the Universe - including evolution (macro or otherwise).”

JEP: Actually a lot of physicists would say this. They would have to if complex macroevolution is to have occurred.

”Why don't you just explain to me what the 2nd Law states and why evolution violates it - only fair considering you brought up this asinine argument.”

JEP: Well, there are many definitions of SLOT (second law of thermodynamics) depending upon the application. But for the lurkers who may not be that savvy in science, I’ll do some defining. SLOT is really a law of decay that dictates that things do not get younger, they age and decay. Fires do not burn brighter through infinity, they die out as they consume their energy. Cars do not become newer as they age, they grow older and will eventually rust back into the earth in a junkyard.

In fact SLOT is such a beast that some physicists predict that eventually the universe will become so disorganized as to be nothing more than a sea of broken atoms floating randomly.

I think Asimov sums it up rather succinctly: "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 own 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 itself - and that is what the second law is all about."
[Isaac Asimov, "In the Game of Energy and Thermodynamics You Can't Even Break Even", Smithsonian Institution Journal (June 1970), p. 6 (emphasis added).]

Einstein defined entropy as when ‘my room gets messy.’ Entropy is a mathematical measurement of SLOT. While entropy is not always disorder it will always be in the way that we use the term. As disorder in a system increases, so does entropy. When entropy decreases, a system orders.

The problem that SLOT has with complex macroevolution is that neo-darwinists espouse that over a period of a couple of billion years man morphed from a bacterium (or single celled critter) via a million times a million speciations where most of these speciations resulted in a more complex critter. SLOT says that this cannot happen at all. The resultant critter must me more disorganized, not more organized.

“Oh for someother stuff”

JEP: Wanna debate the war? We could figure the entropy resulting from a MOAB falling on Saddam’s forehead.

”Funny - you ignored that whole thing about the amount of energy "borrowed" is inversely proportional to the length of time that can be borrowed for. Further, you ignored that whole net energy of the Universe equals zero thing once more.”

JEP: I didn’t ignore it, I simply told you it’s not relevant to the topic and then re-summed my argument for you. I know physicists very well and if I’m not careful we’ll so far off topic as to not further the discussion. But if you think it is relevant, then please tell me how.

”No I did not! I specifically discussed how the Universe has exactly zero net energy and how the length of time energy can be "borrowed" from nothingness is inversely related to its "lifespan." Therefore, it doesn't take a math whiz to see that if you have 0 in the numerator and x in the demoninator equal to something (in this case Planck's constant), the number in the denominator is infinity - right? Now just so you forget the denominator was the length of time the enrgy could be "borrowed" - its lifespan.”

JEP: Cool. I didn’t know that. But why are we into this since you say below that you are not espousing that matter came into existence via quantum fluctuation? Which begs another question: If we didn’t get here through quantum fluctuation and we were not created, then just how in the heck do YOU think we got here??

”What exactly is nothingness?”

JEP: Nothingness describes the total lack of somethingness.

”BTW - I agree that virtual particles didn't play a role in the creation of the Universe, I simply said that models employing the quantum fluctuations do not violate the 1st Law - they don't. You still won't admit it even after I have explained again and again why they do not violate the 1st Law. Either you are just being obstinate for debating purposes or you are simply obtuse - pick.”

JEP: If I’m forced to pick then I must go with Christ-like obstinacies. What you are failing to see is that everything you wish to theorize doesn’t necessarily happen in the real world. Do you deny that my car COULD borrow energy from the universe to run rather than gasoline? But it doesn’t, does it? Guess what: neither do virtual particles. I will go with Heisenberg’s postulation that virtual particles do not violate the first law because of their brevity of existence. I might also add that they come in particle/anti-particle pairs and in effect cancel each other out. However, you must also note that if these virtual particles STAYED in existence, then they WOULD violate the first law because energy cannot be created nor destroyed. It can only be changed. I didn’t write the first law, somebody else did. Reckon it was an evil creationist??

”The unraveling of the spatial dimensions is a hot topic in String and its related M-Theory, neat stuff - pick up the Elegant Universe by Green if you are interested.”

JEP: I’m on it next time I go to the library.

”Why do I get sucked into this junk.”

JEP: Because somebody upstairs is totally upset with your lifestyle??

”Any chance you ever admit that you might possibly be wrong about something? Just wondering...”

JEP: Will be glad to just as soon as you show me I’m wrong. Whew. That was a long post. You’re a lot of work, Joe.

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

Jep-

How is what happens at the beginning of every human life different from the process described by the Theory of Evolution? One cell -> Many. Simplicity -> Complexity. Wouldn't your logic state that your existence is impossible?

 

[MartinM]

Today at 11:28 PM Jeptha said this in Post #68 Actually a lot of physicists would say this. They would have to if complex macroevolution is to have occurred

Quote me a single physicist who says that.

Well, there are many definitions of SLOT (second law of thermodynamics) depending upon the application. But for the lurkers who may not be that savvy in science, I’ll do some defining

Let's skip that and go straight for the real definitions, shall we?

The Kelvin-Planck statement - t is impossible for any device that operates on a cycle to receive heat from a single reservoir and produce an equivalent amount of work

The Clausius statement - It is impossible to construct a device that operates on a cycle to and produces no effect other than the transfer of heat from a lower temperature body to a higher temperature body

The two are equivalent, of course. Alongside them is a third statement - the entropy of an isolated system can never decrease.

Einstein defined entropy as when ‘my room gets messy.’

Unfortunate, since it's actually not a very good example at all.

Entropy is a mathematical measurement of SLOT. While entropy is not always disorder it will always be in the way that we use the term. As disorder in a system increases, so does entropy. When entropy decreases, a system orders

Not only is entropy not equal to disorder, they are often opposites.

The problem that SLOT has with complex macroevolution is that neo-darwinists espouse that over a period of a couple of billion years man morphed from a bacterium (or single celled critter) via a million times a million speciations where most of these speciations resulted in a more complex critter. SLOT says that this cannot happen at all. The resultant critter must me more disorganized, not more organized

Second law says no such thing. Feel free to prove your statement. I'll be here, watching my hot chocolate get cold.

Cool. I didn’t know that. But why are we into this since you say below that you are not espousing that matter came into existence via quantum fluctuation?

As I read it, he said that the Universe didn't get here through particle-antiparticle creation. That is only one example of quantum fluctuation.

Guess what: neither do virtual particles

Yes they do. By definition, in fact.

I will go with Heisenberg’s postulation that virtual particles do not violate the first law because of their brevity of existence

Show me where first law states 'energy is conserved, unless you're really quick about it'.

I might also add that they come in particle/anti-particle pairs and in effect cancel each other out

No, since antiparticles energy is positive. Unless you're disputing E = m, pair creation requires energy.

However, you must also note that if these virtual particles STAYED in existence, then they WOULD violate the first law because energy cannot be created nor destroyed

No, if they stayed in existence they would violate Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, which states (broadly) that the total energy of the Universe fluctuates. The shorter the duration of the fluctuation, the bigger it can be.

 

[Aradia]

I actually just stopped by to ask Joe a question (love your posts, thanks =), but I just have to address a couple of jep's comments.

First, the question: Joe! Can you recommend some good books for more study of the whole net-zero-energy thing? Although not a physicist, I'm not looking for layman's stuff. Thanks. =D

Next...

JEP, dude, you're a bit short-sighted. SLOT states a tendency towards entropy. Plant a seed and unless you're like me, it'll grow into a more complex organism, n'est-ce pas? Beyond even that, you're arguing about specific subsystems within a larger system. If you want to look at the net increase, you need to examine the entire system, not just bits and pieces. So who cares if entropy decreases in the evolution of an organism? Somewhere else, entropy is decreasing. It'll all work out in the end, don't you worry.

Also, please don't ever use the phrase "begs the question" again until you've learned what it means. Begging a question is a type of logical fallacy, essentially synonymous with circular logic.

Oh, last thing (I think): Of course the things Joe theorises can happen in the real world. Just not the world you're exposed to. Reaching out to touch a monitor has nothing to do with having net zero energy in the universe. Different worlds entirely. So to speak. =)

Oh yeah, IANAP.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

To Jeptha

I assume that you are the same Jeptha whose incoherent ramblings about thermodynamics led to some of the longest threads in the history of ARN about a year ago.   Did you ever figure out how an endothermic reaction could be spontaneous? Maybe you'll get fewer things backwards this time but I really don't think anyone should bother to take you seriously. I hope you're not going to tell this group that it is not a spontaneous process when water molecules attract each other.

Did you ever come up with an answer to this question?

What specific step required for macroevolution is prevented by the second law of thermodynamics?

Of course you didn't because macro evolution is not prevented by the second law of thermodynamics. All you can do is ramble on about messy rooms and complexity. If you can't indentify the specific step required for evolution that violates the second law then you are just blowing smoke. 

Joe and Martin

You are trying to argue thermodynamics with someone who thought that heat is released when things evaporate and was very confused about thermodynamics in general. You will get nowhere. He can come up with more misconceptions in a few minutes than you can hope to correct with hours of work. 


For Lurkers

Based his history on ARN, if JEP LOLs at a statement made by someone you can be pretty certain that the statement was correct.


As to the original topic of this thread here is a link to an interesting abstract treating the big bang as transition by means of a huge statistical fluctuation in the Dirac sea.

http://lbl.confex.com/lbl/2001/program/abstract_1584.htm

Here are couple of links to pages discussion the thermodynamics of the universe after the big bang.

This page discusses phase transition in the early universe

http://astro.uwaterloo.ca/~mjhudson/teaching/phys787/chapter04.pdf

And this one discusses the thermodynamics of the hot big bang and derives an express for the tremendous entropy of the microwave background.

http://astro.uni-tuebingen.de/~wilms/teach/cosmo/cosmo156.html

"Human attempts to obey the second law....are swamped by..... microwave background." slide 9

The Frumious Bandersnatch

 

[Dawn Marie]

Today at 05:17 PM MartinM said this in Post #67

This might help - http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmolog.htm

Whoa. Too many big words.

 

[lucaspa]

4th April 2003 at 01:28 PM Jon said this in Post #28

You still cannot put everything inside the universe into a dot(.)

The universe started out as pure energy. I don't know of any limitation to packing energy into a volume.

Matter comes later as the universe expands and cools enough to allow matter to "freeze" out.

 

[Jeptha]

“How is what happens at the beginning of every human life different from the process described by the Theory of Evolution? One cell -> Many. Simplicity -> Complexity. Wouldn't your logic state that your existence is impossible?”

JEP: No, it doesn’t at all. The reason is that SlOT can be overcome via the addition of energy. When my car engine wears out, I can just do some work and replace it. When Ice melts and entropy increases, I can put it into the fridge, plug it in the wall and the liquid will organize into crystals lowering it’s entropy.

Seeds, cocoons, amniotic sacs and eggs come prepackaged as little bundles of energy including all the chemicals, vitamins, minerals and hormones it takes to get me up and running. But once I’ve reached maturity SLOT takes over and I age, wither, die and decompose.

 

[MartinM]

Today at 02:26 AM Jeptha said this in Post #75 No, it doesn’t at all. The reason is that SlOT can be overcome via the addition of energy

Well, not exactly. Second Law applies whether you add energy or not. But in an open system change in entropy is no longer constrained to be non-negative. In any case, apply what you just wrote to evolution. Problem solved.

 

[lucaspa]

Today at 01:58 AM Jeptha said this in Post #62

JOE: NO IT WOULDN'T as I have explained several times. A fluctuation of the vacuum can produce matter and energy for vanishingly short periods of time”

JEP: Fine. I agree. So are you saying that our universe is matter/energy of a vanishingly short period of time?? This must be what you’re saying since you are implying that the universe was created by virtual fluctuation. How could I deduce anything other than this from your argument?

Jep, you claim to be familiar with the concepts.  So please address the concepts and not nitpick. Quantum fluctuation hypothesizes that the universe is a quantum fluctuation analogous to virtual particles but not identical with them.  The time scale is expanded because the net energy "borrowed" is zero.  Which is what Joe stated next:

“- in fact it can produce positive net energy of amounts that vary inversely with their "lifespans." This "borrowing" effect is observed through the actions of virtual particles and quantum teleportation. Now, if the net energy "borrowed" is exactly zero, then the it can exist for an infinite amount of time”

JEP: With all due respect, this is simply hyperbole. Sheeze…with this assertion why do we need gasoline for our cars or oil to power our electrical generators.

Because those chemical reactions and not QM. To borrow your sarcasm: Sheeze, don't you know the difference?


JEP: Well, certainly Darwin did and I suspect that many Secular Humanist scientists are doing so today; especially in academia. So you think the SLOT argument on macro is stupid?? Warning: If you choose to discuss this with the dum kreationist you are going to end up looking really silly right here in front of God and everyone else. You may not want to go there because the truth will come out.

Let's go there, Jep.  As I have looked at the "macroevolution violates SLOT" argument, it is a mistaken notion of SLOT.   

JEP: Don’t know, but refute it. SLOT applies to everything in the universe EXCEPT complex macroevolution.

Ever hear of Gibb's Free Energy?  SLOT applies to everything in the universe.  Including macroevolution, but I can't find how macroevolution violates SLOT. The universe is indeed increasing in entropy.  That means that local systems can decrease in entropy as long as the overall entropy of the system and surroundings increase.  Which they do.

 

[Joe_Sixpack]

Well after reading your complete lack of understanding of the 2nd Law, I must simply ask how come a seed does not violate the 2nd Law as it grows intoa tree? Is that not an increase in "order" and thus a decrease in entropy?

What you seem to not understand is that local decreases in entropy occur all the time - in fact you wouldn't be able to live if they didn't. The trick is that these local decreases in entropy result in a corresponding increase of entropy somewhere else in the system. Therefore, if a reaction causes a snowflake or any other crystal to form, and thus lowering the entropy of the components of that crystal, a corresponding increase in entropy somewhere else must occur - in this case the release of heat into the system. Thermodyanmics is all about heat (hint: that is the whole "thermo" part of the word) and its transfer within a system. The best way to define the 2nd Law in macro terms is that heat will not flow spontaneously from a cooler body to a warmer body (the other way to look at the entropy is to look at it from a particle perspective where it refers to the distribution of particles in the system, but this is mathematically equivalent to the macro description, so forget about it). Of course, just because it won't occur spontaneously doesn't mean it won't happen at all - example the refrigerator in your home in which heat is pumped into a hotter body (the room) from a cooler body by the condensor coil system and uses a substantial amount of electricity in the process. Does your frig violate the 2nd Law? No, because it takes in energy into the system - i.e. the frig and the room is not a closed system - the electrical company provides energy into the system.

Now, is the Earth a closed system? Think about it for a second.

"The problem that SLOT has with complex macroevolution is that neo-darwinists espouse that over a period of a couple of billion years man morphed from a bacterium (or single celled critter) via a million times a million speciations where most of these speciations resulted in a more complex critter. SLOT says that this cannot happen at all. The resultant critter must me more disorganized, not more organized."

NO IT MUSTN'T BE - order (or more precisely negative entropy) can be added to any non closed system through the input of energy to the system. A plant grows, thus deceases its local entropy, by taking in energy from the sun. You seemed to have missed this little part of your physics education.

I'll get to your other misconceptions another day. Suffice it to say:

1. Quantum fluctuation hypotheses for the beginning of the Universe do not break the 1st Law of Thermo because the Universe has exactly zero net energy - therefore no energy was created in the fluctuation.

2. Virtual Particles and Particle Pair Production are not the same thing despite what many people might have told you. Virtual Particles exist for vanishingly short periods of time and are force carriers that allow for enrgy to be "borrowed" from the vacuum. Particle Pair production is different and is not limited by the same lifespan constraints as virtual particles (example Hawking Radiation) - the particle pairs do not break the 1st Law either because they have opposite energy vectors, so they have zero net energy as a system.

3. The 2nd Law no more prohibits evolution from single-celled to large organisms than it prohibits the a zygote into developing into an adult human.

 

[Jeptha]

“Quote me a single physicist who says that.”
JEP: That says what?

”The Kelvin-Planck statement - t is impossible for any device that operates on a cycle to receive heat from a single reservoir and produce an equivalent amount of work

The Clausius statement - It is impossible to construct a device that operates on a cycle to and produces no effect other than the transfer of heat from a lower temperature body to a higher temperature body

The two are equivalent, of course. Alongside them is a third statement - the entropy of an isolated system can never decrease.”
JEP: There’s three of them but they are not that relevant to our topic. Let’s just go with this simple one: With any spontaneous reaction or process, entropy will tend to increase. And we are talking energetically spontaneous, of course.

“Unfortunate, since it's actually not a very good example at all.”

JEP: It was a joke….sheeze.

“Not only is entropy not equal to disorder, they are often opposites.”
JEP: Please read my posts. I say that entropy is not always disorder just a line or two back from where you got the quote.

The rest of your post is pretty redundant with the other ones I’m getting--or fairly silly.

 

[Jeptha]

"Well, not exactly. Second Law applies whether you add energy or not. But in an open system change in entropy is no longer constrained to be non-negative. In any case, apply what you just wrote to evolution. Problem solved."

JEP: Cool. Now explain how it happened. If it's your assertion, I'm afraid it will be up to you to support it.