The Second Law fallacy

[chilehed]

ON THE FALLACIOUS APPEAL TO THE SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS

We've all heard the argument that the Second Law says that the disorder of a system increases with time, so evolution can't be true because it would require a violation of physics. This argument is based on a basic misunderstanding, both of what entropy is, and of what the Second Law says and what it means. In this post, I will attempt to explain:

1. That, in thermodynamics, the word “entropy” is used to describe two distinct but related properties.
2. What the Second Law says and what it means.
3. That there is no such thing as a “local violation” of the Second Law.
4. That entropy is not a generic measure of disorder.
5. That the claim that entropy is a measure of spatial order leads to a violation of the Second Law.
6. That information has no thermodynamic entropy.​

I want to clarify that I'm not making any comment about the merits of the theories of evolution or creation. I'm ONLY trying to explain why it's a poor tactic to use a Second Law argument in an attempt to refute evolution. Darwin’s psychology, the geologic record, the social fallout of evolutionary theory, the interpretation of Biblical texts, and anything else not directly related to thermodynamics are simply not relevant to this discussion. Also, if I say below that something is not possible, the comment is intended only to describe the normal behavior of the world, and is not a denial of God’s ability to do whatever He wants.

I believe that I'm qualified by training and experience to speak as an expert on this topic. I hold a Bachelor of Science Degree in Mechanical Engineering (Cum Laude) from a respected university, I got a 98+ in Thermodynamics (similar grades in physics, calculus and statistics), I have 14 years experience in the automotive industry, and I've thought about this a lot.

NOTE: as I post this I'm away from home on a work trip. I'm working about 14 hours a day for the next week or so and won't be able to make more than very brief replies. Thanks for your patience.​

WHAT ARE ENTHALPY AND ENTROPY?

Enthalpy is an intensive state property of matter, intensive meaning that its value is independent of the amount of matter present. Other intensive properties you may be more familiar with are density, coefficient of thermal expansion, and electrical conductivity. Enthalpy is a measure of the amount of internal heat of a substance; it is dependent on temperature and pressure, and is measured in units of Joules per kilogram.

The term “entropy” is used to describe two different but related properties of a thermodynamic system. In conversation, "entropy" is used interchangeably to describe both of these properties, with the context usually clarifying which meaning is intended.

In one sense, entropy is another intensive state property of matter, that being a measure of the ability of the internal heat of a substance to do work. Its value is expressed in units of Joules per kilogram-degree K, and is also dependent on temperature and pressure. At absolute zero, a a perfect crystal of an inert, non-radioactive substance has zero intensive entropy. If an atom solidifying onto a crystal doesn’t get into the correct position, then some of the heat of fusion of that atom is not released to the environment. If an otherwise perfect crystal is brought to absolute zero, its entropy is not exactly zero because there is some amount of heat energy still locked up and available to do work.

As temperature increases, so does the entropy of the substance. When the substance changes phase (such as when ice melts) its entropy changes even though its temperature does not. When you return the substance to its original pressure and temperature, it has the exact same value of entropy as it did at the beginning of the process. It is not uncommon to hear these kinds of entropy changes, which involve no violation of the Second Law, referred to as local changes in entropy; this unfortunate term should never be used as it leads to serious misunderstandings of the Second Law (as will be described below).

Total entropy is an extensive state property of thermodynamic systems, extensive meaning that its value is dependent on the amount of matter present. Total entropy is measured in units of Joules per degree K. Engineers are typically interested in changes in total entropy (sometimes referred to as entropy generation, shown by the symbol “dS&#8221 during a process, since these changes are a direct measure of the efficiency of the process. Mathematically, the entropy generated by a process is given by the sum (&#931 of the energy transfer (dQ) divided by the temperature (T) of the elements the energy is flowing into: dS = Σ(dQ/T).

When modeling power generation or refrigeration systems, one rarely is concerned with the intensive entropy of the solid phase of the working fluid because solids cannot be easily pumped between the heat source and the heat sink. Because of this, it is common to assign a value of zero intensive entropy to the coldest temperature at which the working fluid is fluid in order to simplify the calculations. This is merely a convention, and in practice one may assign a value of zero to any convenient temperature. In the examples below I’ve assigned a value of zero to ice at temperature of 273 K (the freezing temperature), and calculated the values at the other states from standard tables of entropy (which can be found online using the search terms “steam tables entropy&#8221.

Let me provide a concrete example. Imagine a system of two masses of water, one a hot vapor and the other a cold block of ice. They are of just the right size so that the heat heat required to fully melt the ice is the exact amount required to fully condense the steam. The two masses are brought into contact just long enough to fully melt the ice and condense the steam. The entropy changes are as follows:

The steam has a mass of 1.0 kg, is at the vaporization temperature (373 K)and has intensive entropy of 15.9 kJ/kg*K. The heat flow out of the steam is 2257 kJ, which reduces the ability of the steam to do work (i.e., lowers its entropy). During this process the steam changes phase from a gas to a liquid without changing temperature, and at the end it has an intensive entropy of 9.6 kJ/kg*K. Thus the change in the intensive entropy of the steam is 9.6 - 15.9= -6.3 kJ/kg*K.

The ice has a mass of 6.8 kg, is at the freezing temperature (273 K) and has an intensive entropy of 0.0 kJ/kg*K. The heat flow into the ice is 2257 kJ (the same as the heat that came out of the steam),which increases the ability of the ice to do work (i.e., raises its entropy). During this process the cold mass changes phase from a solid to a liquid without changing temperature, and at the end it has an intensive entropy of 8.3 kJ/kg*K. Thus the change in the intensive entropy of the cold mass is 8.3 – 0.0= 8.3 kJ/kg*K.

The total entropy generated by this process is given by dS = (-2257/373) + (2257/273) = -6.3 + 8.3 = 2.0 kJ/K.

The energy present in a system is contained in both the free heat energy (what we’d measure as temperature), the chemical energy contained in the molecules of the substance, and the atomic energy contained within the atoms. In thermodynamic discussions it’s assumed that the chemical and atomic energy can be neglected unless one is specifically dealing with reacting systems. Reacting and radioactive systems are more complex to analyze but the basic rules are the same.​

WHAT DOES THE 2ND LAW SAY?

The Second Law is a mathematical description of the behavior of total entropy during thermodynamic processes: “Every real thermodynamic process results in an entropy generation greater than or equal to zero”. Mathematically, this is given by the furmula “dS >/= 0 kJ/K”. Looking back to the ice and steam example above, see that the process resulted in a positive generation of entropy (+2.2 kJ/K)

Imagine a process in which heat flows from the cold water (causing it to freeze) into the hot water (causing it to boil). The entropy generation from that process would be -8.3 + 6.3 = -2.0 kJ/K, which would violate the Second Law, and in fact heat does not spontaneously flow from cold objects to hot ones.

There are several corollaries to the Second Law, one of which can be stated as follows: "In a closed system, total entropy increases for irreversible processes and remains constant for reversible processes". Irreversible processes are those that result in an increase in total entropy; such processes can only occur in one direction. For example, you can heat up a fluid by spinning a paddle in it, but you cannot apply the heat energy of a fluid to a paddle and make the paddle spin. You can heat two objects up by rubbing them together, but you cannot make two objects rub together by heating them up. Energy expended in irreversible processes is no longer available to do work, so it is referred to as being irreversibly lost.

Not all processes are irreversible. When you use a rotating shaft to raise a weight, you can harness all of the potential energy of the raised weight to make the shaft spin again. There is, therefore, no change in total entropy due to the work done in raising the weight. When you slowly pressurize a gas by moving a piston against it, you can recover all of the work done by allowing the piston to move back to its original position under the pressure of the gas. There is no change in total entropy when a gas is pressurized slowly, thus the process is completely reversible.

The entropy generation of a process is a measure of both the irreversibility and the efficiency of the process. If one compares two processes that perform the same amount of work, the process that generates the least total entropy is the least irreversible (the most reversible) and the most efficient.

Another corollary to the Second Law is "there can be no machine whose only effect is to cause heat to flow from a cold body to a warm body". Suppose that, in the example given above, you now want to re-freeze the cold water and re-vaporize the hot water by reversing the heat flow. In order to remove heat from a cold object and reject it to a hot one, one uses a refrigerator. A theoretically ideal refrigeration cycle will require the addition of 827 kJ of energy from an external source, and a total of 3084 kJ will be rejected to the hot water. The change in total entropy would then be -2257/273.15 + 3084/373.15 = 0.00191 kJ/K, and the effect was to cause heat to flow to a hot body from both a cold one and a hotter one. The process fully complies with the second Law.

It is vital to understand that the Second Law prohibits reductions in total entropy, that is, it forbids a negative generation of entropy; it does not forbid reductions in the intensive entropy of the individual bodies in the system nor does it require a positive generation of entropy. Notice again, in the refrigeration example above, that without the addition of 827 kJ from an outside source, the entropy generated during the process would have had a negative value, and it is this negative value that is disallowed by the Second Law.​

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A “LOCAL VIOLATION” OF THE SECOND LAW

It has been erroneously proposed that there can be “local” violations of the Second Law, such as when a refrigerator causes heat to flow from a cold body to a hot one. In my experience, all of these proposals fail because either the system boundaries are incorrectly drawn, or each step of the process is not correctly understood, or both.

Refrigerators transfer heat from a low temperature body to a higher temperature body by means of the addition and rejection of an additional amount of heat. It is not possible to separate out this heat addition from an analysis of the cycle, and at no time during the cycle is there a violation of the 2nd Law.

Within the refrigeration cycle there are four phases:

1. Compression, in which the enthalpy of the working fluid is increased at constant entropy, by the addition of energy. At the end of this phase the fluid is hotter than the air in the room.
2. Heat rejection (to the room) at a constant pressure, during which the enthalpy and entropy of the fluid are both decreased.
3. Expansion, in which the enthalpy of the working fluid is decreased at constant entropy. At the end of this phase the fluid is colder than the air in the refrigerated space, and is at a lower entropy than at the start of the compression phase.
4. Heat absorption (from the refrigerated space) at a constant pressure, during which the entropy and enthalpy of the fluid are increased to the same values they had at the start of the compression phase.​

You can see that the intensive entropy of any individual element of refrigerant cycles from high to low levels over the cycle; this in no way involves any violation of the Second Law.

You can see that during the cycle heat never flows from a hot object to a cold object. The heat rejected to the room is equal to that absorbed from the refrigerated space plus that added during the compression phase. The cycle fully complies with the statement "there can be no machine whose only effect is to cause heat to flow from a cold body to a warm body", because it also has the effect of causing heat to flow from a hot body to the warm body. Note also that this is intrinsic to the cycle itself, and is the case even if the source of the added heat is perfectly efficient.​

(continued)
(EDITED 15MAR06 to correct a boneheaded math error, and to refine the explanation)

 

[chilehed]

ENTROPY IS NOT A GENERIC MEASURE OF DISORDER.

Entropy is related to "order" only insofar as "order" describes the state of the energy in the system. If all of the heat energy is contained in one body and the other body is at absolute zero, then the total entropy of the system is at a minimum. When heat is allowed to flow from the hot body to the cold one, the intensive entropy of the hot body decreases, while that of the cold body and the total entropy of the system increase. So one can say that entropy is related to how ordered the energy of the system is, provided that by “ordered” one means the distribution of heat energy in the system. However, it is not true to then say that entropy is, in general, a measure of order or disorder. The spatial arrangement of the objects in the system, in and of itself, has no bearing on entropy.

For example, if you take a box of white and black marbles that have been segregated by color, and then shake the box up well, the only change in entropy is that due to the energy you expended in shaking the box. The change in entropy due to the fact that the marbles are now mixed is exactly zero. That you never manage to shake the box until the marbles are re-segregated is due to the fact that the number of arrangements in which the marbles are mixed vastly outnumber those in which they are segregated. If you shake the box long enough, you'll eventually get lucky - it'll just take a very, very, very long time. The friction between the marbles themselves and between the marbles and the box is an irreversible loss, but the mixing of the marble colors is not.

In the same way, suppose you have a collection of floor tiles, all identical expect for their colors. The change in total entropy due to laying out a tile is a result of the inefficiency of the chemical processes in your muscles, the friction in your joints, the viscous drag of the air against your body as you move around, the friction between you and your clothing, and numerous other factors, but the color of the tile has absolutely nothing to do with it. The fact that you put the tile up near the ceiling rather than on the floor also has nothing to do with it (remember that raising the tile into the air is a reversible process). Because of this, if you use the tiles to copy the Mona Lisa there is no more or less change in total entropy than if you lay them out in a random pattern.

The state of clutter in your bedroom impacts entropy only insofar as it reflects the distribution of heat energy. Anything sitting on a shelf stores potential energy because you had to do work to it to pick it up, but since all of the potential energy stored in the raised object can be recovered when you lower it back down to the floor the process is by definition reversible and is thus isentropic. If you seal the room and come back a thousand years later nothing will have moved. If you lay down a mosaic of loose floor tiles they will remain in place forever, provided no one disturbs them and they don't rot away. Rooms do not spontaneously clutter themselves up.​

THE SECOND LAW IS VIOLATED IF ENTROPY IS DEFINED AS A GENERIC MEASURE OF DISORDER.

Let's assume that I'm wrong, and that entropy is indeed generically dependent on spatial arrangement. Frozen water at 32 degrees F, being arranged in a very ordered crystal structure, would then have a higher entropy than liquid water at the same temperature. If this were true, then heat would flow out of the ice into the water and your drink would boil away! We could create an engine that has no effect but to make heat flow from a cold object to a warmer object, which is a Second Law violation.

In fact, spatial order can and often does arise out of spatially disordered systems during the course of energy transfer. Convection cells, cloud bands in a hurricane, turbulent eddies in flowing fluids and lightning are common examples.

Anyone who lives in the north has seen big piles of snow plowed up in the winter, into which gravel from the road is mixed in a very disordered manner. When the pile begins to thaw in the spring one will find, on close inspection, that each piece of gravel is perched at the top of a little column of snow, exactly like the huge boulders one finds on top of rock pillars in the American west. Clearly the pebble perched on top of the pillar of snow and the boulder on the column of rock are very spatially ordered systems, which arose from a disordered system.

If entropy were a generic measure of disorder, such structures would not be possible in nature. The fact that they are found indicates that entropy is not such a generic measure.

Notice also that this increase in spatial order does not involve any mechanism which serves to direct the flow of energy.​

INFORMATION HAS NO THERMODYNAMIC ENTROPY.

One theory of information asks “How much information is in the message?” In computer language the unit of information is a “bit”, each bit can be either a 0 or a 1, and the total amount of information is the number of bits in the message. The messages “000”, “001”, “010”, “011”, “100”, “101”, “110”, and “111” all have the same amount of information, even though the content of the messages is different in each case. In the same way, the letter strings “act”, “atc”, “cat”, “cta”, “tac”, and “tca” all have the same amount of information, and all have the same odds of coming up in a random draw if the letters. Thus, by this theory of information all combinations have the same “information entropy” and are equally allowable.

Another theory asks “what is the useful content of the message?” As we saw above, the letter string “act” can be reordered in six different ways, but only a two of them have any meaning in the English language. Although each order has the same amount of information as every other, not all orders may be immediately useful – but the number of them that are useful can vary depending on the intent of the writer. For example, “cta” may mean nothing, or it may mean “chicago transit authority”, but again in either case the odds of it coming up in a random draw of the letters is identical. Thus, by this theory of information combinations may have differing “information entropy” and yet still be equally allowable.

DNA influences the growth of a cell via chemical reactions, and mutations are caused by changes in the DNA sequence resulting in the subsequent reactions taking a different path. Each reaction is a thermodynamic event that conforms to the Second Law. Thus, to claim that a mutation involves a violation of the Law is, in fact, a claim that the associated change in the DNA sequence violates the Law. However, the change in the sequence is itself a thermodynamic event that by definition conformed to the Law: the molecule was changed by the presence of a chemical contaminant or a high energy subatomic particle. Because each individual step in the mutation process conforms to the Second Law, the entire mutation also conforms to it.​

THUS, THE SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS DOES NOT DISPROVE THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION.

 

[gluadys]

and

Great work.

 

[herev]

wow, well said

 

[chaoschristian]

I motion for this to be sticky-ed.

This is very good work.

 

[Dannager]

I approve of this message.

 

[shinbits]

Chilehed did a great job with putting that up.

I just have this to put up:
http://www.trueorigin.org/steiger.asp#first

I'm not putting this up to cause of fight. This is an opposing view, using the the 2nd Law against evolution. It seemed to make sense; don't get angry if there's anything you disagree with, just point out what you see.

The Second Law​

On the other hand, the second law tells us what can and cannot take place in terms of the relationships and transformations between matter, energy, and work, and their respective properties, as well as those of information and complexity, saying

Every system, left to its own devices, always tends to move from order to disorder, its energy tending to be transformed into lower levels of availability (for work), ultimately becoming totally random and unavailable for work.
...or...
The entropy of a closed system cannot decrease.




​

(Entropy is a measure of (1) the amount of energy unavailable for work within a system or process, and/or (2) the probability of distribution or randomness [disorder] within a system.)





To help ensure an adequate understanding of what the second law means, consider the following, also from Isaac Asimov:

“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 itself -- and that is what the second law is all about.”
[Smithsonian Institute Journal, June 1970, p. 6]




​

This is the essence of Classical Thermodynamics. Similarly, the “generalized 2nd law” applies to probability of distribution matters in Information Theory 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, entropy—in this case informational entropy)—and likewise, applied to matters 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, entropy—in this case statistical entropy).

The Evolutionist’s Spin​

Evolutionist theory faces a problem in the second law, since the law is plainly understood to indicate (as does empirical observation) that things tend towards disorder, simplicity, randomness, and disorganization, while the theory insists that precisely the opposite has been taking place since the universe began (assuming it had a beginning).
Beginning with the “Big Bang” and the self-formation and expansion of space and matter, the evolutionist scenario declares that every structure, system, and relationship—down to every atom, molecule, and beyond—is the result of a loosely-defined, spontaneous self-assembly process of increasing organization and complexity, and a direct contradiction (i.e., theorized violation) of the second law.
This hypothesis is applied with the greatest fervor to the evolutionists’ speculations concerning biological life and its origin. The story goes that—again, in violation of the second law—within the midst of a certain population of spontaneously self-assembled molecules, a particularly vast and complex (but random) act of self-assembly took place, producing the first self-replicating molecule.
Continuing to ignore the second law, this molecular phenomenon is said to have undergone multiple further random increases in complexity and organization, producing a unique combination of highly specialized and suitably matched molecular “community members” which formed what we now know as the incredibly efficient, organized self-sustaining complex of integrated machinery called the cell.
Not only did this alleged remarkable random act of self-transformation take place in defiance of the second law, but the environment in which it happened, while itself presumably cooperating with the second law’s demand for increased disorder and break-down, managed (by some further unknown random mechanism) to leave untouched the entire biological self-assembly process and the self-gathered material resources from which the first living organism built itself.
Evolutionism takes its greatest pride in applying this same brand of speculation to the classic Darwinian hypothesis in which all known biological life is said to have descended (by means of virtually infinite—yet random—additional increases in organized complexity) from that first hypothesized single-celled organism. This process, it is claimed, is directly responsible for the existence of (among other things) the human being.

Details, Details...​

Perhaps the reader should be reminded (or informed) at this point that not one shred of unequivocal evidence exists to support the above described self-creation myth. Yet very ironically, it’s the only origins account treated in the popular and science media, nicely blurring in the public mind the distinction between bona fide science and popular beliefs.
To be sure, many corollary hypotheses have been produced to show how one or another biological or geological phenomenon—or an empirical fact gathered in any scientific discipline—might be explained in evolutionary terms (often not without the use of highly convoluted, incredible, and unprovable stories). But as Karl Popper observed, a theory that seems to explain everything really explains nothing. Popper insisted that a theory’s true explanatory power comes from making narrowly defined, risky predictions—success in prediction being meaningful only to the extent that failure is a real possibility in the first place. Evolutionists find ways to explain and/or produce after-the-fact “predictions” for any and every empirical fact or phenomenon presented to them—frequently ignoring established standards for logic and scientific method.
In the same manner, many evolutionists are so convinced of evolution as a “fact” that they are compelled to either ignore or dismiss the applicability of the second law to biological processes. The presupposition of evolution as “fact” leaves no alternative but that it must be possible in spite of the second law. But no one can explain satisfactorily how a presumed process of nature (evolution) has moved steadily towards higher arrangements of ordered complexity, when the foremost law of nature demands that (in Asimov’s words) “all we have to do is nothing, and everything deteriorates, collapses, breaks down, wears out, all by itself.”

Open vs. Closed Systems​

The classic evolutionist argument used in defending the postulates of evolutionism against the second law goes along the lines that “the second law applies only to a closed system, and life as we know it exists and evolved in an open system.”
The basis of this claim is the fact that while the second law is inviolate in a closed system (i.e., a system in which neither energy nor matter enter nor leave the system), an apparent limited reversal in the direction required by the law can exist in an open system (i.e., a system to which new energy or matter may be added) because energy may be added to the system.
Now, the entire universe is generally considered by evolutionists to be a closed system, so the second law dictates that within the universe, entropy as a whole 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 phenomenon—fact, not theory.
The evolutionist rationale is simply that life on earth is an “exception” because we live in an open system: “The sun provides more than enough energy to drive things.” This supply of available energy, we are assured, adequately satisfies any objection to evolution on the basis of the second law.
But simply adding energy to a system doesn’t automatically cause reduced entropy (i.e., increased organized complexity, or “build-up” rather than “break-down”). Raw solar energy alone does not decrease entropy—in fact, it increases entropy, speeding up the natural processes that cause break-down, disorder, and disorganization on earth (consider, for example, your car’s paint job, a wooden fence, or a decomposing animal carcass, both with and then without the addition of solar radiation).





Speaking of the general applicability of the second law to both closed 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 [closed] 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, what is it that makes life possible within the earth’s biosphere, appearing to “violate” the second law of thermodynamics?
The apparent increase in organized complexity (i.e., decrease in entropy) found in biological systems requires two additional factors besides an open system and an available energy supply. These are:

1. a “program” (information) to direct the growth in organized complexity
2. a mechanism for storing and converting the incoming energy.

Each living organism’s 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 organism’s physical structure faster than natural processes (as governed by the second law) can break it down.
Living systems also have the second essential component—their own built-in mechanisms for effectively converting and storing the incoming energy. Plants use photosynthesis to convert the sun’s 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 see that living things seem to “violate” the second law because they have built-in programs (information) and energy conversion mechanisms that allow them to build up and maintain their physical structures “in spite of” the second law’s effects (which ultimately do prevail, as each organism eventually deteriorates and dies).
While this explains how living organisms may grow and thrive, thanks in part to the earth’s “open-system” biosphere, it does not offer any solution to the question of how life could spontaneously begin this process in the absence of the program directions and energy conversion mechanisms described above—nor how a simple living organism might produce the additional new program directions and alternative energy conversion mechanisms required in order for biological evolution to occur, producing the vast spectrum of biological variety and complexity observed by man. In short, the “open system” argument fails to adequately justify evolutionist speculation in the face of the second law. Most highly respected evolutionist scientists (some of whom have been quoted above with care—and within context) acknowledge this fact, many even acknowledging the problem it causes the theory to which they subscribe.

 

[notto]

So we see that living things seem to “violate” the second law because they have built-in programs (information) and energy conversion mechanisms that allow them to build up and maintain their physical structures “in spite of” the second law’s effects (which ultimately do prevail, as each organism eventually deteriorates and dies).
While this explains how living organisms may grow and thrive, thanks in part to the earth’s “open-system” biosphere, it does not offer any solution to the question of how life could spontaneously begin this process in the absence of the program directions and energy conversion mechanisms described above—nor how a simple living organism might produce the additional new program directions and alternative energy conversion mechanisms required in order for biological evolution to occur, producing the vast spectrum of biological variety and complexity observed by man. In short, the “open system” argument fails to adequately justify evolutionist speculation in the face of the second law. Most highly respected evolutionist scientists (some of whom have been quoted above with care—and within context) acknowledge this fact, many even acknowledging the problem it causes the theory to which they subscribe.

This part in particular is garbage. A simple look at a few chemical reactions would show how transparent this argument is.

 

[shernren]

First a direct approach challenging the article on its own terms:

Evolution does not violate the "2nd law of thermodynamics" in the same way that life does not. Evolution has a "program" that "directs growth" of biodiversity, i.e. natural selection (which ensures that the gene pool does not change haphazardly, but in an orderly manner according to the requirements of the environment) and a "storage mechanism" that channels energy and stores it in biodiversity, i.e. mutations (which take chemical / photonic energy and use it to change genes, thus giving rise to changes that propagate for a long time through the gene pool). Evolution is self-organizing in the way that life is self-organizing and therefore both do not violate the 2nd law.

Now, that was ridiculous - because the terms on which the article is defined is ridiculous.

There are three kinds of entropy which we can discuss:

1. Thermodynamic entropy. Very well defined in the OPs, so I'll leave you to look back at them, basically a measure of work done per unit temperature. Everyday example: When you put ice in hot coffee heat flows from the coffee to the ice, not the other way around: it is calculated that the entropy increases in the first situation and decreases in the next.
2. "Informational entropy" / probability, chaos. The fact that given a particular set of items, there will be some arrangements more probable than others. Everyday example: shake up a box containing white and black beads. There are lots of possible ways for all the beads to be mixed up, but only a few where all the black beads are on the bottom and all the white ones are on the top.
3. "Creationist entropy". If something looks fancy and organized then it must have low "entropy"; if something looks clunky and junked and disorganized then it must have high "entropy". Everyday example: a brand new car has "low entropy" and a smashed up car has "high entropy".

Often a confusion between these three terms is behind a claim that "evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics". The 2nd law of thermodynamics says that "in a closed system entropy increases". Fine. So anti-evolutionists come and take "entropy" here to mean the 3rd entropy and say: "The 2nd law tells me that things become disorganized!" This is a misunderstanding of how the three types of entropy are related.

The second "entropy" is clear enough. Another example: if a family has six children, there are 20 ways for those children to be three boys and three girls (BBBGGG, BBGBGG, BGBBGG, ... ) but only one way for those children to be six boys. If you come across a family with six boys and no girls that's certainly unusual; if you come across an extended family where the grandmother has 73 grandsons and no granddaughters you start investigating a potential mass murder and digging for corpses. Why? Because when an event has a low probability of happening, it doesn't happen often. Duh ... which is how probability is defined. Take the set of all possible outcomes ("the genders of six children"), see how many possible outcomes there are (2^6 = 64), see how many match your criteria ("three boys and three girls" - 20 possibilities) and divide (20 / 64 = 5/16 chance, or about 1 in 4, which might seem small but is bigger than any of the others).

The first "entropy" is related to the second when there is a specific mention of energy. When a highly energetic particle hits a less energetic particle, the chance that the high-e particle will gain even more energy is very small. Over a large portion of matter / time, when high-temperature masses lose heat energy to low-temperature masses after adding up billions of those small hits, we get an increase in thermodynamic entropy. (At least, that's what I understand of it. If you want more you'll have to go into "work" and all that stuff, which is almost out of my league.)

Now, if you're asking "How does entropy 1 & 2 link to entropy 3?" you're on the right track. When I first heard creationists using the "2nd law" to "refute evolutionism" it immediately sounded fishy to me - even though I was a creationist myself. I mean, somebody's telling me that the same law which makes sure that my fridge doesn't make my food hotter instead of colder and that fuel burning in my engine makes it move, forbids lobe-finned fish from crawling onto land over countless generations and millions of years ... the scale and phenomena don't match.

The "sense" in which they are related is this:

First "entropy": more possible states of high entropy than of low entropy.
Second "entropy": more possible states of even distribution than of strange / "fluky" distributions.

Third "entropy": more possible states of chaos than of order.

Mind you, this is true sometimes, but not all the time, and quite possibly not this time:

The 2nd law is a statistical law. Like I said earlier, when you want to determine how probable a state is, you have to find all possible outcomes, sum up the number, look for all the outcomes which match your criteria and find the probability. The 2nd law of "thermodynamics" says that out of all the possible outcomes where you mix ice and coffee, there are practically zero where coffee absorbs heat from ice. Now, if creationists want a "second law" of their own, what they have to do is:

find all the possible outcomes for the earth after 5 billion years;
sum them all up;
investigate how many of them have advanced life;
and divide.

When they do that, they can confidently say that they have a "second law" that disproves evolution. And not a moment before.

For better treatments than mine:

http://www.csicop.org/si/2005-03/evolution.html - around paragraph 13 onwards, a good treatment of the "entropy problem".
http://www.entropylaw.com/ - indepth treatment especially with regards to "chaos" and evolution.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2135779.stm - the second law "broken"?

And for some humour:
http://users.durge.org/~edwin/songs/firstandsecond.html
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/28308

 

[shinbits]

Hi, all! I just had a simple question; I hope no one thinks I'm only asking to argue.

ENTROPY IS NOT A GENERIC MEASURE OF DISORDER.




Entropy is related to "order" only insofar as "order" describes the state of the energy in the system. If all of the heat energy is contained in one body and the other body is at absolute zero, then the total entropy of the system is at a minimum.

At a minimum? So, is an energy source not even needed? Is this saying, that ordered systems, can exist without the need for heat?

Are u sure your definition for entropy is correct?
Doesn't that contradict what you've said entropy is?

Look:

At absolute zero, a perfect crystal has zero entropy.

​

 

[chilehed]

shinbits,

My short answer is that the guy who wrote the piece you quoted didn't know beans about thermodynamics. It's so full of errors that I hardly know where to start; as I said I'm extremely pressed for time but the entire quote is already disproved in the OP.

For example, the bit about open vs. closed systems is a result of not realizing that "entropy" is used to describe two distinct properties, and I answered that in the sections defining entropy and enthalpy and explaing that there is no such thing as a "local violation" of the Second Law.

I'll try to get a grip on the questions in your last post, I know the answer but it'll take a bit of thought to figure out how to explain it. The way you ask the questions tells me that you're still laboring under a number of misunderstandings. Part of the problem is that entropy isn't at all what you've always been told it is, and that's not your fault.

For now I can only suggest that you carefully reread my OP, and remember that it took me 3 months of classrooom study and 14 years of engineering experience before I was able to craft, over a period of 18 months, a fairly non-technical yet accurate response to erroneous claims that take thirty seconds to make.

 

[shinbits]

Thank you, chilehed, for your gracious response.

And I think you made a good point here:

it took me 3 months of classrooom study and 14 years of engineering experience before I was able to craft, over a period of 18 months, a fairly non-technical yet accurate response to erroneous claims that take thirty seconds to make.

True. If anything has errors, I know it will take time to think about them, so I'll wait for your response.

I will admit: yes, I believe in Intelligent Design; however, I'm open to anything offered on the part of evolution.

I will anylize, of course, whatever is offered. But I don't anylize with a mindset that it's already wrong---I just examine it to see if everything makes sense or is factual, and if there's evidence of whatever's been said.

So if I ask questions, know that it's only to find out what's true. If it turns out that what's offered on the part of evolution is true, I'll gladly accept it as fact.

Thank you for starting this thread.

 

[shernren]

To chilehed: Doesn't a substance at absolute zero have a constant, non-zero entropy by the Third Law of Thermodynamics? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_thermodynamics and what would that mean?

 

[shinbits]

Lots to answer, chilehed.

Maybe the Second Law does contradict evolution after all.

But again, I'm open to your response.

 

[notto]

Maybe the Second Law does contradict evolution after all.

Not unless you can name a physical mechanism used in the theory of evolution that violates the law. The theory of evolution can't violate the second law as it is not a physical thing. Only a physical interaction, such as a chemical reaction, can violate the law or be looked at in the context of the laws of thermodynamics.

Unless one is named and the math is shown, don't get your hopes up.

Since all of the physical mechanisms that are involved in the theory of evolution have been observed, claiming that any one of them violate the laws of thermodynamics would be a silly thing to do.

 

[shernren]

Nope, that factual error doesn't affect the basic premise of the article. Basically the Second Law of Thermodynamics tells us that when hot touches cold the hot doesn't grow hotter and the cold colder. Unless you can show that evolution requires that don't get your hopes up.

 

[shinbits]

Since all of the physical mechanisms that are involved in the theory of evolution have been observed, claiming that any one of them violate the laws of thermodynamics would be a silly thing to do.

I believe what's specifically in question here, is the Law of Entropy, and the whole "disorder" thing.

That's really what the argument with creation/evolution is.


As it is, we are currently awaiting a response from the original poster.


If he can't come through here, then we haven't established a basis to claim that evolution violating the Entropy Law is false.


Let's see what happens.

 

[notto]

If he can't come through here, then we haven't established a basis to claim that evolution violating the Entropy Law is false.
Let's see what happens.

Again, you need to name a mechanism that violates the law. 'evolution' is not a mechanism and therefore cannot violate the law.

Until you name one, you are not talking about anything relevant to the laws. They are laws of physics and only apply to physical, mechanical, chemical, atomic, or electromagnetic interaction.

Your discussion on evolution being in violation of these laws is a little light on actually discussing any physical mechanisms.

Can you name a physical mechanism that is used in defining the theory of evolution that supposedly violates these laws?

If you can't, again, you have no case and are simply repeating points that in reality have little to do with the laws of thermodynamics.

 

[shernren]

What's happening is that you are confusing mechanical entropy with "creationist entropy". Mechanical entropy has something to do with the distribution of heat in a system. Creationist entropy is more about how nice and orderly something looks. The 2nd law of thermodynamics tells us that mechanical entropy increases, not that creationist entropy increases.

 

[shinbits]

Again, you need to name a mechanism that violates the law. 'evolution' is not a mechanism and therefore cannot violate the law.

I don't need to name anything;

see, the original poster, put up what he believes falsifies the fact that the Entropy Law has to do with order/disorder.

I'm just showing that what he's put up so far has holes.

The OP sets out to prove that Entropy has nothing to do with order. Because if he succeeds in doing that, then no one can say that evolution theory violates a law.

He hasn't done it. Why?

Again, what he's put up has holes. He said he'd reply soon enough, though.