-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
The Big Bang Theory
- Thread starter Late_Cretaceous
- Start date
But earlier you wrote.
So one can see how you were misunderstood. Here's a little gem that Jeptha posted on ARN last year.
I guess by now you have figured out that some endothermic reactions are spontaneous but it sure didn't sound like it in your post above. BTW endothermic reactions do not lower thermodynamic entropy.
I see that Scott registered on this board in May of last year and you registered this Wednesday. I guess he must have been psychic to have "followed" you almost a year ago. So Scott, who is going to win the World Series this year?
Jeptha, if you can't provide a specific answer to this question you really have no argument. I mean a specific answer and not the disorganized ramblings about information and complexity that you have provided so far.
What specific step required for macroevolution is prevented by the second law of thermodynamics?
The Frumious Bandersnatch
Upvote
0
But earlier you wrote.
quote:
But endothermic reactions need heat energy in order to complete the reaction. They absorb this heat from the system and actually lower thermodynamic entropy. These reaction are non-spontaneous because they cannot go off unaided.
JEP: So what? Thats the scientific definition of the reactions I was taught in college. But are there exceptions, yes. Now please read that three times and we can move on.
So one can see how you were misunderstood. Here's a little gem that Jeptha posted on ARN last year.
quote:
ME: LOL.....What the heck is a spontaneous endothermic reaction? The two terms are oxymorons. An endothermic reaction must absorb heat in order to react. This is the exact opposite of a spontaneous reaction.
JEP: LOL Are you collecting my posts too? I do know that the ARN server crashed losing my old posts, so you must be.
I guess by now you have figured out that some endothermic reactions are spontaneous but it sure didn't sound like it in your post above. BTW endothermic reactions do not lower thermodynamic entropy.
JEP: Er .Duh .Yes, I guess I have.
I see that Scott registered on this board in May of last year and you registered this Wednesday. I guess he must have been psychic to have "followed" you almost a year ago. So Scott, who is going to win the World Series this year?
JEP: I didnt say on this board, did I? And is this the only intelligence you can add to the Big Bang question or thermodynamics? Hmmm If I didnt know better, I might conclude you are a troll. Heaven forbid!
Jeptha, if you can't provide a specific answer to this question you really have no argument. I mean a specific answer and not the disorganized ramblings about information and complexity that you have provided so far.
What specific step required for macroevolution is prevented by the second law of thermodynamics?
JEP: Ive ignored that silly question because Ive only answered it about a hundred times already. That step is complexity in speciation.
Finally, would you please lay off the quote boxes and colored text? This really messes up my word processor as the boxes wont delete.
quote:
But endothermic reactions need heat energy in order to complete the reaction. They absorb this heat from the system and actually lower thermodynamic entropy. These reaction are non-spontaneous because they cannot go off unaided.
JEP: So what? Thats the scientific definition of the reactions I was taught in college. But are there exceptions, yes. Now please read that three times and we can move on.
So one can see how you were misunderstood. Here's a little gem that Jeptha posted on ARN last year.
quote:
ME: LOL.....What the heck is a spontaneous endothermic reaction? The two terms are oxymorons. An endothermic reaction must absorb heat in order to react. This is the exact opposite of a spontaneous reaction.
JEP: LOL Are you collecting my posts too? I do know that the ARN server crashed losing my old posts, so you must be.
I guess by now you have figured out that some endothermic reactions are spontaneous but it sure didn't sound like it in your post above. BTW endothermic reactions do not lower thermodynamic entropy.
JEP: Er .Duh .Yes, I guess I have.
I see that Scott registered on this board in May of last year and you registered this Wednesday. I guess he must have been psychic to have "followed" you almost a year ago. So Scott, who is going to win the World Series this year?
JEP: I didnt say on this board, did I? And is this the only intelligence you can add to the Big Bang question or thermodynamics? Hmmm If I didnt know better, I might conclude you are a troll. Heaven forbid!
Jeptha, if you can't provide a specific answer to this question you really have no argument. I mean a specific answer and not the disorganized ramblings about information and complexity that you have provided so far.
What specific step required for macroevolution is prevented by the second law of thermodynamics?
JEP: Ive ignored that silly question because Ive only answered it about a hundred times already. That step is complexity in speciation.
Finally, would you please lay off the quote boxes and colored text? This really messes up my word processor as the boxes wont delete.
Upvote
0
BTW endothermic reactions do not lower thermodynamic entropy
JEP: Really? Please explain to me how heat can be absorbed within a system and entropy not decrease.
JEP: Really? Please explain to me how heat can be absorbed within a system and entropy not decrease.
Upvote
0
"The energy utilized to cause the reaction would result in a net increase in entropy"
JEP: No it wouldn't. You have it exactly backward. Most endothermic reactions must absorb energy in the form of heat from the system in order to go off. This decreases the free heat in the system. And when heat is decreased in a system, entropy decreases.
You can read for yourself from a university here:
"When heat is removed, the entropy decreases, when heat is added the entropy increases. Entropy has units of Joules per Kelvin."
http://electron4.phys.utk.edu/141/nov19/November 19.html
JEP: No it wouldn't. You have it exactly backward. Most endothermic reactions must absorb energy in the form of heat from the system in order to go off. This decreases the free heat in the system. And when heat is decreased in a system, entropy decreases.
You can read for yourself from a university here:
"When heat is removed, the entropy decreases, when heat is added the entropy increases. Entropy has units of Joules per Kelvin."
http://electron4.phys.utk.edu/141/nov19/November 19.html
Upvote
0
Aradia
Regular Member
JEP: "This is but one source of mutations. But you are missing the big picture. If radiation causes mutations, this is disorder from order. Logical entropy will increase."
This seems to be the only flaw you pointed out, so I'll focus on this. I believe you are missing the bigger picture: SLOT does not discriminate between "forms of entropy". SLOT defines the net entropy of energy in a system, period. "Logical entropy", or "informational entropy", or whatever other qualification you wish to use is irrelevant. *Net Entropy* in the *entire system* still increases, regardless of whether anyone thinks "logical entropy" in a subsystem decreases.
If you wish to prove me wrong, you'll have to show evidence that net entropy in the universe decreases due to complex macroevolution, or that the defintion of SLOT only involves "logical entropy". As you have done neither, my point still stands.
I'll tell you now, you can't beat me in a debate. You're outmatched.
This seems to be the only flaw you pointed out, so I'll focus on this. I believe you are missing the bigger picture: SLOT does not discriminate between "forms of entropy". SLOT defines the net entropy of energy in a system, period. "Logical entropy", or "informational entropy", or whatever other qualification you wish to use is irrelevant. *Net Entropy* in the *entire system* still increases, regardless of whether anyone thinks "logical entropy" in a subsystem decreases.
If you wish to prove me wrong, you'll have to show evidence that net entropy in the universe decreases due to complex macroevolution, or that the defintion of SLOT only involves "logical entropy". As you have done neither, my point still stands.
I'll tell you now, you can't beat me in a debate. You're outmatched.
Upvote
0
SLOT does not discriminate between "forms of entropy". SLOT defines the net entropy of energy in a system, period. "Logical entropy", or "informational entropy", or whatever other qualification you wish to use is irrelevant. *Net Entropy* in the *entire system* still increases, regardless of whether anyone thinks "logical entropy" in a subsystem decreases.
JEP: SLOT does not discriminate between forms of entropy; it governs them all, doesnt it? But we have to discriminate between the forms or we will never understand what is happening in the system we are studying.
We will also need to insure that we define our systems and subsystems correctly. This is the first step to understanding thermo and what it is doing. For example, it wouldnt do me much good to label the universe as my system when Im studying a bacterium, would it?
If you wish to prove me wrong, you'll have to show evidence that net entropy in the universe decreases due to complex macroevolution
JEP: Why? Since my argument is just the opposite.
or that the defintion of SLOT only involves "logical entropy".
JEP: That would be silly, wouldnt it?
As you have done neither, my point still stands.
JEP: Your point still stands? Good! Now just what the heck was that point?
I'll tell you now, you can't beat me in a debate. You're outmatched.
JEP: LOL Youve got ME convinced.
JEP: SLOT does not discriminate between forms of entropy; it governs them all, doesnt it? But we have to discriminate between the forms or we will never understand what is happening in the system we are studying.
We will also need to insure that we define our systems and subsystems correctly. This is the first step to understanding thermo and what it is doing. For example, it wouldnt do me much good to label the universe as my system when Im studying a bacterium, would it?
If you wish to prove me wrong, you'll have to show evidence that net entropy in the universe decreases due to complex macroevolution
JEP: Why? Since my argument is just the opposite.
or that the defintion of SLOT only involves "logical entropy".
JEP: That would be silly, wouldnt it?
As you have done neither, my point still stands.
JEP: Your point still stands? Good! Now just what the heck was that point?
I'll tell you now, you can't beat me in a debate. You're outmatched.
JEP: LOL Youve got ME convinced.
Upvote
0
You're exactly right,if you're only talking about a system in isolation and not its surroundings. Useful energy must be utilized to fuel an endothermic reaction. Because no process of generating energy is 100% efficient, the overall entropy of the Universe increases.
edit: miswording
Upvote
0
JEP: No it wouldn't. You have it exactly backward. Most endothermic reactions must absorb energy in the form of heat from the system in order to go off. This decreases the free heat in the system. And when heat is decreased in a system, entropy decreases.
Let me address this first. Apparently no one has yet taught Jeptha why endothermic reactions can be spontaneous and Jeptha doesn't actually know very much about thermodynamics as some of you have no doubt noticed by now. He may be confusing those who don't know a lot of thermo since he is so confused himself. As usual he is the one who has things backwards. Somewhere he learned that reducing temperature reduces entropy which is true, but only necessarily true if there are no reactions going on that may increase entropy. The point may not be very relevant to the argument about evolution but I think it should be cleared up.
I will use (delta) to represent the Greek letter Delta.
Endothermic reactions can be spontaneous if the products have higher entropy than the reactants and T(delta)S is larger than the postive heat change (delta)H. Positive delta H means that heat is absorbed in the reaction and the reaction is endothermic but the free energy change,
(delta)G = (delta)H - T(delta)S
will still be negative if (delta)S is positive and large enough, and the reacton will be spontaneous.
An example is the reaction of barium hydroxide octahydrate with ammonium nitrate to form barium dinitrate, amonia and water. Urea "reacting" with water to form a solution is also spontaneous and endothermic as is the dissolution of ammonium nitrate in water, the basis of chemical cold packs. In these cases the free energy change is negative because the entropy change is large and positive and entropy increases even though the temperature decreases.
The entropy of the surroundings decreases because the surroundings are cooled, for instance water may condense or even freezed on the beaker, but the entropy of the products is much higher than that of the reactants or the reaction would not occur.
Spontaneous endothermic reactions are entropy driven.
The Frumious Bandersnatch
Let me address this first. Apparently no one has yet taught Jeptha why endothermic reactions can be spontaneous and Jeptha doesn't actually know very much about thermodynamics as some of you have no doubt noticed by now. He may be confusing those who don't know a lot of thermo since he is so confused himself. As usual he is the one who has things backwards. Somewhere he learned that reducing temperature reduces entropy which is true, but only necessarily true if there are no reactions going on that may increase entropy. The point may not be very relevant to the argument about evolution but I think it should be cleared up.
I will use (delta) to represent the Greek letter Delta.
Endothermic reactions can be spontaneous if the products have higher entropy than the reactants and T(delta)S is larger than the postive heat change (delta)H. Positive delta H means that heat is absorbed in the reaction and the reaction is endothermic but the free energy change,
(delta)G = (delta)H - T(delta)S
will still be negative if (delta)S is positive and large enough, and the reacton will be spontaneous.
An example is the reaction of barium hydroxide octahydrate with ammonium nitrate to form barium dinitrate, amonia and water. Urea "reacting" with water to form a solution is also spontaneous and endothermic as is the dissolution of ammonium nitrate in water, the basis of chemical cold packs. In these cases the free energy change is negative because the entropy change is large and positive and entropy increases even though the temperature decreases.
The entropy of the surroundings decreases because the surroundings are cooled, for instance water may condense or even freezed on the beaker, but the entropy of the products is much higher than that of the reactants or the reaction would not occur.
Spontaneous endothermic reactions are entropy driven.
The Frumious Bandersnatch
Upvote
0
JEP: LOL
Are you collecting my posts too? I do know that the ARN server crashed losing my old posts, so you must be.
Don't flatter yourself. They are all archived on ARN
http://www.arn.org/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=forum;f=1;DaysPrune=45
Like almost everything else you think you know this is wrong.
I would encouage anyone who thinks that Jep knows anything at all about thermo to look them over. You might start with this set.
http://www.arn.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=001887;p=1
Now to the key question.
What specific step required for macroevolution is prevented by the second law of thermodynamics?
JEP: Ive ignored that silly question because Ive only answered it about a hundred times already. That step is complexity in speciation.
Of course this is nonsense like so much else you say. Complexity in speciation is not a specific step, it is just something you made up. Either speciation can occur or it can't. Speciation has been observed so it is obviously not prevented by the second law. There is no step required for macroevolution that is prevented by the second law. As I said end of story.
Try using the paste special function and paste unformated text. That should solve the problem.
The Frumious Bandersnatch
Don't flatter yourself. They are all archived on ARN
http://www.arn.org/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=forum;f=1;DaysPrune=45
Like almost everything else you think you know this is wrong.
I would encouage anyone who thinks that Jep knows anything at all about thermo to look them over. You might start with this set.
http://www.arn.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=001887;p=1
Now to the key question.
What specific step required for macroevolution is prevented by the second law of thermodynamics?
JEP: Ive ignored that silly question because Ive only answered it about a hundred times already. That step is complexity in speciation.
Of course this is nonsense like so much else you say. Complexity in speciation is not a specific step, it is just something you made up. Either speciation can occur or it can't. Speciation has been observed so it is obviously not prevented by the second law. There is no step required for macroevolution that is prevented by the second law. As I said end of story.
Try using the paste special function and paste unformated text. That should solve the problem.
The Frumious Bandersnatch
Upvote
0
"You're exactly right,if you're only talking about a system in isolation and not its surroundings. Useful energy must be utilized to fuel an endothermic reaction. Because no process of generating energy is 100% efficient, the overall entropy of the Universe decreases."
JEP: It increases! Have all the scientists left this debate? I'm not going to take you back to 10th grade science. I simply don't have the time. Your posits in this post are simply asinine.
JEP: It increases! Have all the scientists left this debate? I'm not going to take you back to 10th grade science. I simply don't have the time. Your posits in this post are simply asinine.
Upvote
0
JEP: Look, Frum. I have addressed that stupid 'spontaneous' accusation about ten times now. You are a troll that obviously don't care to further the discussion ( if there is anyone out there capable of it) and you're on ignore.
Upvote
0
Once again, for a non-spontaneous endothermic reaction to occur, energy must be put into the system. Where does this energy come from? Nuclear reactors? (Stars even?) Coal power plants transforming heat energy into electric? None of these processes are 100% efficient, so the amount of energy available in the Universe to do available work decreases. That means that, for the Universe as a whole, entropy increases.
Now, for the non-spontaneous endothermic system in question, its entropy does decrease. However, this is at the expense of a greater increase in entropy elsewhere.
Just what are you trying to argue in the first place? We've strayed pretty far off topic.
Now, for the non-spontaneous endothermic system in question, its entropy does decrease. However, this is at the expense of a greater increase in entropy elsewhere.
Just what are you trying to argue in the first place? We've strayed pretty far off topic.
Upvote
0
JEP: Look, Frum. I have addressed that stupid 'spontaneous' accusation about ten times now. You are a troll that obviously don't care to further the discussion ( if there is anyone out there capable of it) and you're on ignore.
It was quite clear from reading your posts on the subject that you did not understand the nature of spontaneous endothermic reactions. If you read my post you should be able to figure it out assuming you know any thermo at all.
The Frumious Bandersnatch
It was quite clear from reading your posts on the subject that you did not understand the nature of spontaneous endothermic reactions. If you read my post you should be able to figure it out assuming you know any thermo at all.
The Frumious Bandersnatch
Upvote
0
You wrote in your post above that the entropy of the universe decreases which is of course backwards and I think from what you say here that you did not intend to word it this way and wrote decreases when you meant to write increases. This is why Jep was able to jump down your throat with the 10th grade science comment.
The Frumious Bandersnatch
Upvote
0
Once again, for a non-spontaneous endothermic reaction to occur, energy must be put into the system. Where does this energy come from? Nuclear reactors? (Stars even?) Coal power plants transforming heat energy into electric?
JEP: Sheeze I cant believe you are so inept in this subject that you would ask that. Why are you even bothering to attempt an argument here? I dont want to demean you, my friend; but I would think you might want to go argue with someone a little more on your level. We are talking about the human cell. Unless that person is dead as a doornail, then there will always be some heat within the cell that endothermic reactions can borrow to react. And if they are dead, then entropy is maximum anyhow.
None of these processes are 100% efficient, so the amount of energy available in the Universe to do available work decreases. That means that, for the Universe as a whole, entropy increases.
JEP: Er .no kidding? But you stated in your last post that entropy in the universe actually decreases. That will be comforting to know to all the physicists who are predicting the heat death of the universe via increased maximum entropy.
Now, for the non-spontaneous endothermic system in question, its entropy does decrease. However, this is at the expense of a greater increase in entropy elsewhere.
JEP: Forget non-spontaneous endothermic reactions. They are irrelevant to anything we have discussed. But their entropy does NOT decrease. It is the entropy in the system they reside in that decreases. Do you even understand what Im talking about? If you do not, then you just need to look in the mirror and tell yourself that you are out of your element. This wouldnt make you an ignorant person. Just in this one subject. We are all ignorant in some areas, especially me.
Just what are you trying to argue in the first place? We've strayed pretty far off topic.
JEP: LOL I give up.
JEP: Sheeze I cant believe you are so inept in this subject that you would ask that. Why are you even bothering to attempt an argument here? I dont want to demean you, my friend; but I would think you might want to go argue with someone a little more on your level. We are talking about the human cell. Unless that person is dead as a doornail, then there will always be some heat within the cell that endothermic reactions can borrow to react. And if they are dead, then entropy is maximum anyhow.
None of these processes are 100% efficient, so the amount of energy available in the Universe to do available work decreases. That means that, for the Universe as a whole, entropy increases.
JEP: Er .no kidding? But you stated in your last post that entropy in the universe actually decreases. That will be comforting to know to all the physicists who are predicting the heat death of the universe via increased maximum entropy.
Now, for the non-spontaneous endothermic system in question, its entropy does decrease. However, this is at the expense of a greater increase in entropy elsewhere.
JEP: Forget non-spontaneous endothermic reactions. They are irrelevant to anything we have discussed. But their entropy does NOT decrease. It is the entropy in the system they reside in that decreases. Do you even understand what Im talking about? If you do not, then you just need to look in the mirror and tell yourself that you are out of your element. This wouldnt make you an ignorant person. Just in this one subject. We are all ignorant in some areas, especially me.
Just what are you trying to argue in the first place? We've strayed pretty far off topic.
JEP: LOL I give up.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
