Are Darwinian claims for evolution consistent with the 2nd law of thermodynamics?

_{Denyse O'Leary

March 3, 2015

Darwinism, Evolution, Intelligent Design, Physics

3}_{Categories
Darwinism
Evolution
Intelligent Design
Physics}

Share: Facebook; Twitter/X; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

A friend wrote to ask because he came across a 2001 paper, Entropy and Self-Organization in Multi-Agent Systems by H. Van Dyke Parunak and Sven Brueckner Proceedings of the International Conference on Autonomous Agents (Agents 2001), 124-130:

Emergent self-organization in multi-agent systems appears to contradict the second law of thermodynamics. This paradox has been explained in terms of a coupling between the macro level that hosts self-organization (and an apparent reduction in entropy), and the micro level (where random processes greatly increase entropy). Metaphorically, the micro level serves as an entropy “sink,” permitting overall system entropy to increase while sequestering this increase from the interactions where selforganization is desired. We make this metaphor precise by constructing a simple example of pheromone-based coordination, defining a way to measure the Shannon entropy at the macro (agent) and micro (pheromone) levels, and exhibiting an entropybased view of the coordination.

The thought seems to be that entropy decreases here but somehow increases somewhere where we can’t see it.

I’ve (O’Leary for News) always thought that a fishy explanation, especially because I soon discovered that even raising the question is considered presumptive evidence of unsound loyalties. The sort I am long accustomed to hearing from authoritarians covering up a scandal.

So not only do I not believe it, but after that sort of experience I get the sense I shouldn’t believe it. Depending on where I am working, I might need to parrot it to keep my job, of course, but it would be best not to actually believe it.

Rob Sheldon told us both,

What you read is the “standard” physics response. It is misleading on many levels.

a) Physicists really, really can’t explain what goes on in biology. Neither their definition of entropy, nor their definition of information (Shannon, etc) work. Rather than admit that they don’t know what is going on, they simply extrapolate what they do know (ideal gasses) to biology and make pronouncements.

b) While it is true that “open” systems may allow energy and matter to flow through them, which would change the information in the system, this does not nor cannot explain biology. The best treatment of this is Granville Sewell’s articles on different types of entropy. Truly excellent. It explains why sunlight does not carry enough information to create life out of precursor molecules. And people who claim this are either: (i) deluded that physics entropy = biology entropy, or (ii) equivocating on the use of the word “entropy”, or (iii) unable to handle basic math, or most likely, (iv) all the above.

c) This paper suggests that the cell has machinery for converting sunlight to information–e.g. photosynthesis. While true, this machine must be even more complicated than the carbohydrates it produces. Ditto for self-replicating machinery, etc. So if we permit some high level of information to enter the system, then low-level information can be created from energy sources. This argument really is indistinguishable from ID, though they may not realize it.

In conclusion, the violation of the 2nd Law remains true for biology, and there still is no good physics explanation for it.

It’s a good thing they didn’t realize it. They won’t have to issue some embarrassing repudiation of their work.

And I don’t have to believe something for which we have no evidence just to protect the tenurebots’ theory.

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Comments

Box: Just like the question of whether ID is “science” ultimately just depends on your definition of “science” and is irrelevant to its truthfulness, debating whether Sewell’s argument is based on what you consider the “Second Law” is an irrelevant distraction to its truthfulness. It makes a difference because when Sewell says it's the 2nd law of thermodynamics, then the arguments raised concern the 2nd law of thermodynamics. (See reply to halloschlaf later in this comment.) Maybe he means to propose a law *analogous* to the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Call it the 2nd law of something-something, but don't call it the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Box: The four fundamental forces are pretty creative indeed, however intuition informs us that there is a definite boundary to what they can do. Intuition is a powerful tool, but doesn't substitute for scientific support. Seversky: The conditions in the primordial singularity would seem to have been so unimaginably extreme that nothing – not matter, not information, not order, not regularity – could possibly survive intact. While there's a lot unknown, much of the order is due to symmetry breaking, quantum fluctuations, and the resulting history of interactions. Zachriel: Adding intelligence, as in Intelligent Design, does not allow one to violate the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. Life and evolution are consistent with the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, as are refrigerators and designer genes. Mung: And your knowledge of these alleged “facts” comes from where? They're scientific findings. Zachriel: Are you saying the manufacture of computers violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics? halloschlaf: No. Because in this case manifested intelligence in form of roboters, machines, workers has transgressed the border of the open system to form kybernetic systems. It's energy that crosses the boundary that keeps it in conformity with the 2nd law. Intelligence doesn't impact the 2nd law of thermodynamics, no matter how inventive the engineer. That's the reason the law was originally formulated. Perhaps you are referring to the 2nd law of something-something.Zachriel_{March 7, 2015
March
03
Mar
7
07
2015
05:37 AM
5
05
37
AM
PDT}

Box, yes and yes again. That is why I took time to directly confront objectors with the case of the Abu 6500 C3 reel, to show how emergent functionality rooted in specific, configuration dependent interaction of parts is an undeniable fact of the real -- reel? -- world. Then, we can extend to molecular nanotech in cells that shows the same and ask pointed questions on where the empirical evidence points to on origins, given the needle in haystack search challenge. The very challenge that the statistical analytical framework integral to a modern understanding of 2LOT, poses. Where -- ever since Paley's thought exercise on a self-replicating functional watch in Ch 2 of NT showed -- the origin of the cell's von Neumann self replication facility is an additional critical case of FSCO/I that should increase our recognition of supreme artifice or contrivance. In the face of such, evasiveness and question begging circularities such as CH posed above stand out like a sore thumb and flag their inadequacies. KFkairosfocus_{March 6, 2015
March
03
Mar
6
06
2015
11:49 PM
11
11
49
PM
PDT}

Mung, cf 72 above, which I have been fruitlessly trying to draw to the attention of objectors to design thought and the thermodynamics connexion. Names like Brillouin, Jaynes and Robertson as well as Gilbert N Lewis have weighed in long since. Just, it seems such cuts across a favoured talking point line. KFkairosfocus_{March 6, 2015
March
03
Mar
6
06
2015
11:38 PM
11
11
38
PM
PDT}

Zachriel:
Adding intelligence, as in Intelligent Design, does not allow one to violate the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. Life and evolution are consistent with the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, as are refrigerators and designer genes.
And your knowledge of these alleged "facts" comes from where?Mung_{March 6, 2015
March
03
Mar
6
06
2015
11:20 PM
11
11
20
PM
PDT}

#137 All that was needed was for the Universe to expand and cool. The expanding universe allowed the excess of thermal energy to escape, satisfying the 2nd LoT as physical interactions led to the emergence of structures (see Hangonasec at #85).Piotr_{March 6, 2015
March
03
Mar
6
06
2015
11:19 PM
11
11
19
PM
PDT}

rvb8 died a mysterious death. The death of cowards.Mung_{March 6, 2015
March
03
Mar
6
06
2015
11:14 PM
11
11
14
PM
PDT}

We make this metaphor precise by constructing a simple example of pheromone-based coordination, defining a way to measure the Shannon entropy at the macro (agent) and micro (pheromone) levels, and exhibiting an entropy-based view of the coordination.
What is Shannon entropy and what is it's relationship to thermodynamic entropy? News? Anyone?Mung_{March 6, 2015
March
03
Mar
6
06
2015
11:05 PM
11
11
05
PM
PDT}

Are young earth creationist claims consistent with the second law of thermodynamics?Mung_{March 6, 2015
March
03
Mar
6
06
2015
09:01 PM
9
09
01
PM
PDT}

Piotr, The four fundamental forces are pretty creative indeed, however intuition informs us that there is a definite boundary to what they can do. CS3 on this matter:
I think it is fair to say that the Second Law says that the direction of spontaneous change is from an arrangement of lesser probability to an arrangement of greater probability. The only problem is that, outside of thermal entropy, which is easily quantifiable, allowing one to compute with certainty which arrangement is more probable, in other cases, we usually can only use intuition to guess which arrangement has greater probability. And intuition can sometimes be wrong, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t sometimes pretty obvious. To use my magnetized coin flipping example again, I can believe that natural forces could cause all heads to come up, even though that would be an extremely improbable macrostate (with only one microstate) based on random chance alone, because that is consistent with the type of “order” I could expect based on my knowledge and experience with the natural forces (and in fact, would happen if I placed a magnet under the table). However, I could not believe that natural forces could cause the coins to come up as a bit-wise representation of a great novel (without, say, an intelligent human setting initial conditions to assure that happens, for example, by placing small magnets selectively under certain coins), even though that macrostate is no more improbable (assuming only chance) than the all heads macrostate (in fact there are more microstates in this case), because that is not a type of “order” consistent with my understanding or experience of what the natural forces can do. Could they land such that every 2i+5 is heads? I would think probably not, but maybe there is a way that could happen that I just haven’t thought of. It is not always easy to say exactly what the four unintelligent natural forces can and can’t do, but that doesn’t mean, in my opinion, that there aren’t some cases that are obvious. (Disclaimer: obviously all of these statements are made assuming a reasonable limit on the total number of flips.) That said, I agree that, apart from the refutation of the compensation argument (which was the content of the paper itself), these other arguments are essentially equivalent to the CSI arguments made, with more rigor, by Dembski and others. Thus, I would not expect anyone unconvinced by those arguments to be convinced by Sewell’s arguments in that regard.

Piotr: clouds collapsed gravitationally into large-scale structures, eventually forming dense objects like stars and protoplanetary discs… etc.
which reminds me of Eric Anderson's article on the accretion hypothesis, which shows how much uncertainty there is on these apparent 'basic' matters.Box_{March 6, 2015
March
03
Mar
6
06
2015
05:08 PM
5
05
08
PM
PDT}

The four fundamental forces are evidence for an Intelligently Designed universe.Joe_{March 6, 2015
March
03
Mar
6
06
2015
04:57 PM
4
04
57
PM
PDT}

Piotr @ 136
“The four fundamental forces” are pretty creative. About one nanosecond after the Big Bang the uniform quark soup of the earliest universe curdled into baryons. A few minutes later some protons and neutrons were already combining into deuterium and helium nuclei....
This has always struck me one of the greatest mysteries. The conditions in the primordial singularity would seem to have been so unimaginably extreme that nothing - not matter, not information, not order, not regularity - could possibly survive intact. But if that is so, whence came the order, regularity, information that emerged after the singularity went "Bang"? Was it still intrinsic, surviving somehow where nothing should have survived? Or was it extrinsic, entering from outside? But if that is the case, what "outside" could it have come from?Seversky_{March 6, 2015
March
03
Mar
6
06
2015
04:43 PM
4
04
43
PM
PDT}

#133 Box, "The four fundamental forces" are pretty creative. About one nanosecond after the Big Bang the uniform quark soup of the earliest universe curdled into baryons. A few minutes later some protons and neutrons were already combining into deuterium and helium nuclei. Thousands of years later, nuclei recombined with electrons to form neutral atoms; atoms formed simple molecules; simple molecules formed larger molecules; gravity made baryonic matter condense into clouds of gas; clouds collapsed gravitationally into large-scale structures, eventually forming dense objects like stars and protoplanetary discs... etc. A lot of order was generated in perfect agreement with the second law of thermodynamics.Piotr_{March 6, 2015
March
03
Mar
6
06
2015
04:18 PM
4
04
18
PM
PDT}

Kairosfocus, Every time this subject is brought up I realize more and more how fundamental it is in relation to ID, FSCO/I and holism. BTW thanks for mentioning E.T.Jaynes, I've acquired "Probability Theory - the logic of science".Box_{March 6, 2015
March
03
Mar
6
06
2015
03:32 PM
3
03
32
PM
PDT}

Box, yes. KFkairosfocus_{March 6, 2015
March
03
Mar
6
06
2015
03:04 PM
3
03
04
PM
PDT}

Excellent summation of Sewell's argument by CS3:
Sewell’s argument basically boils down to two statements: 1) Natural forces do not do things that are macroscopically describable that are extremely improbable from the microscopic point of view. 2) Statement 1 holds whether a system is isolated or open; when it is open, you just have to also consider what is entering or leaving the system when deciding what is or is not extremely improbable. Statement 1 derives from two sources: the principle that particles obey the four fundamental forces, and the idea that, of all the microstates equally likely given the constraints of the four fundamental forces, macrostates with more microstates are more probable. For example, when only diffusion is operative, all positions within the volume are equally likely, so a uniform distribution is the most probable macrostate. A macrostate with few microstates will be achieved only if the four fundamental forces make that microstate not improbable – for example, a magnet moves magnetic particles initially uniformly distributed in a volume all to one side of the volume. Statement 2 derives from logic and common sense, although he also proves it analytically for the simple case of diffusion.
This statement by Halloschlaf is also very clear:
Halloschlaf: So if you want to show the aggregation of micro particles to form cybernetic systems you have actually to look for adequate forces or principles otherwise the pool of microparticles will be reigned by the second Law i.e the trend to higher entropy states.
Box_{March 6, 2015
March
03
Mar
6
06
2015
03:01 PM
3
03
01
PM
PDT}

@zachriel Question 1: Of course. They tend to fall apart. Question 2:No. Because in this case manifested intelligence in form of roboters, machines, workers has transgressed the border of the open system to form kybernetic systems.halloschlaf_{March 6, 2015
March
03
Mar
6
06
2015
01:55 PM
1
01
55
PM
PDT}

holloschlaf: We don’t argue about the ruling of the second law over cybernetic systems, we argue about their origin. So you agree that cybernetic systems follow the 2nd law of thermodynamics? Electronic computers can act as cybernetic systems. Are you saying the manufacture of computers violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics?Zachriel_{March 6, 2015
March
03
Mar
6
06
2015
01:43 PM
1
01
43
PM
PDT}

@zachriel I don't understand you. We don't argue about the ruling of the second law over cybernetic systems, we argue about their origin.halloschlaf_{March 6, 2015
March
03
Mar
6
06
2015
01:34 PM
1
01
34
PM
PDT}

halloschlaf: Additional it’s also obvious for decades that kybernetic systems and their parts are definitely not arranged by Coulomb forces. Cybernetic systems still follow the 2nd law of thermodynamics.Zachriel_{March 6, 2015
March
03
Mar
6
06
2015
01:22 PM
1
01
22
PM
PDT}

@ zachriel and hangonasec The formation of chrystals is of course no problem for the second Law regarding X-Entropy because the binding forces are system-inherent. It's the same fallacy as with the first thought experiment by Davisson in which it was overseen that gravity has already transgressed the border of the open system. Of course you will -under special conditions- see ordering effects in respect of weight when their is a gravity field; that's trivial. The same is with coupling or binding forces of microparticles. These forces have already transgressed the border of the open system and will obviously show up at special conditions. The energy niveaus of coupling forces will actually be effective when the kinetic energies are to small and are therefore overruled. But there is no doubt that without the Coulomb forces there will be no binding. The Columb forces themselves obey in the same way the second Law and tend towards lower energy states i.e. higher entropy. So if you want to show the aggregation of micro particles to form kybernetic systems you have actually to look for adaequate forces or principles otherwise the pool of microparticles will be reigned by the second Law i.e the trend to higher entropy states. This means: The strongest bindings will be preferred. It's only a question of energy states. I hope you will admit this. It's the same with the gravity thought experiment. The Particles will definitely sink to the bottom of the jar in perfect accordance with the existing gravity field. On the Bottom of the Jar there is the lowest energy state and there they will stay. In the same way it would be essential to show that the assumed replicator is at „the bottom“ of the inherent Coulomb energy states. Otherwise its realization is forbidden by the second law. That replicators are of this kind of system type has never shown to be true. In fact the opposite seems to be obvious. Additional it's also obvious for decades that kybernetic systems and their parts are definitely not arranged by Coulomb forces. Actually its the very scope of kybernetic systems not to be dominated by coulomb or gravity forces otherwise there would be no freedom /variability which is the sign of kybernetic systems. This is especially crucial for nanosystems. Kybernetic systems have to be arranged in a way that there will be decision nodes, which are per definitonem force-free. Just look for example at the arrangement of DNA as a part of a kybernetic system. In force-free systems which are afforded to form kybernetic systems the second Law rules with an iron fist. If there is no adaequate force which transgresses the border of the observed open system to form decision nodes kybernetic systems won't come into existence.halloschlaf_{March 6, 2015
March
03
Mar
6
06
2015
01:17 PM
1
01
17
PM
PDT}

kairosfocus: There is no need to further belabour such in time wasting circles of back and forth. That's completely up to you. Do you agree that the manufacture and use of a computer do not violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics?Zachriel_{March 6, 2015
March
03
Mar
6
06
2015
09:58 AM
9
09
58
AM
PDT}

Z, it is obvious that you are not open to reckon with the informational and config or phase space blind search challenges and linked plausibility (reducible to probability under some cases per approaches of statistical thermodynamics) that are involved. There is no need to further belabour such in time wasting circles of back and forth. I therefore simply refer the serious onlooker to the remarks at 72 above and onwards. I further note to such onlookers that these remarks in some form have been linked through my handle for every comment I have ever made at UD -- that is what in the end the violently hostile objectors have been trying to undermine when they have done every thing they could to play the red herrings led away to ad hominem soaked strawman caricatures set alight with accusatory rhetoric games that have been such an unfortunate feature of the debates on design. Z and a few others have not stooped to such levels, but the evasiveness at key points is plain. KFkairosfocus_{March 6, 2015
March
03
Mar
6
06
2015
09:53 AM
9
09
53
AM
PDT}

kairosfocus: again, I point out that above I indicated how crystalline ordered states occur. So you agree that ordered states can occur under the 2nd law of thermodynamics, atoms can be sorted and arranged into specific configurations? It's as if you flipped trillions of coins, and they all ended up on heads. And you apparently arrive at that conclusion because you understand and accept the mechanisms involved. kairosfocus: There is no analogue to that which would spontaneously “crystallise” or polymerise the hundreds of proteins and other molecules needed to form a living cell. Yes, we understand you reject the proposed mechanisms, but those proposed mechanisms are not in violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics any more than the manufacture and use of a computer are a violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics.Zachriel_{March 6, 2015
March
03
Mar
6
06
2015
09:40 AM
9
09
40
AM
PDT}

Z, again, I point out that above I indicated how crystalline ordered states occur. I also pointed out how organised functionally specific states occur. Neither are inconsistent with 2LOT. But what is contrary to the reasoning involved is that blind chance forces are being expected to spontaneously come up with organisation. In the case of say water molecules, there is a polar structure and geometry that gives rise to ice once there is a process that removes the thermal agitation sufficiently. There is no analogue to that which would spontaneously "crystallise" or polymerise the hundreds of proteins and other molecules needed to form a living cell; including of course a neuron . . . much less the embryological program to create a brain much less a human one and onward issues about programming the neural networks. Indeed, high contingency as opposed to mechanically necessary order is a requisite of the informational nature of DNA and RNA, and thus proteins assembled based on such; the chemistry of chaining does not force an ordering, and the side chains do not force a chaining in a particular sequence either. Such would be self-defeating. That, too, is a very good reason why we observe such being assembled in living cells based on execution of highly specific instructions that are based on a code and algorithms with execution machinery. So the comparison you have tried to set up with your artful question -- with all due respect -- is little more than a way of avoiding making and reckoning with due, empirically grounded distinctions. KFkairosfocus_{March 6, 2015
March
03
Mar
6
06
2015
09:34 AM
9
09
34
AM
PDT}

Box, 2LOT does inextricably have the context that Sewell has spoken to, post Josiah Willard Gibbs and others who founded statistical mechanics or statistical thermodynamics. It so happens that it is one of the laws of physics with multiple formulations, having been arrived at by multiple people form multiple directions. The pivotal issue is the logic and linked plausibility of forming rare clusters of states spontaneously. Just consider, temperature is a macro-observable, that traces to that at molecular etc scale, there is a random distribution of energy and mass across the set of possible configurations, i.e. degrees of freedom. And in fact I have found that the informational view that Jaynes et al brought to full form gives particularly relevant insights. I find the astonishing refusal to acknowledge that well known fact quite revealing that something is deeply, deeply wrong. KFkairosfocus_{March 6, 2015
March
03
Mar
6
06
2015
09:22 AM
9
09
22
AM
PDT}

kairosfocus, You forgot to answer the questions we posed. So you agree that order is not unexpected to occur because of the 2nd law of thermodynamics, as we can easily point to many natural, ordered phenomena, none of which violate the 2nd law? Which has less entropy (thermodynamic ‘order’), a human brain or a like mass of diamonds?Zachriel_{March 6, 2015
March
03
Mar
6
06
2015
09:20 AM
9
09
20
AM
PDT}

Z, on the contrary, it does, that is the point of the underlying microstate picture issue; functionally specific organisation (especially at molecular levels is a special and macroscopically recognisable form of order). The very same issue of overwhelming bulk of states that statistically grounds 2LOT and its applications in ever so many domains of work, is the very one that grounds the issue that spontaneous arrival at FSCO/I rich configs is maximally implausible. And, the microstate picture dates back to Gibbs et al in C19. That is what 72 above addresses. To use a simple example, consider a string of slots to be filled with bits at random, of length 1000 bits. The very same statistics that indicates that states such as that by chance flipping we arrive at 1111 . . . 1 or 000 . . . 0 or 0101 . . . 01, are maximally implausible and instead the system will with all but certainty gravitate to near 50-50 1/0 in no particular order will make it utterly unlikely that we would get to the ascii characters for the first 143 or so characters of this post by the same means. THis is the same statistics that I illustrated by the example of micro-jet parts diffusing in a vat of liquid and forming or failing to form a flyable jet by chance forces, and more, much more. The string problem is directly related to issues of formation of proteins and D/RNA in a Darwin's pond or the like environment, once we go to realistic lengths such as 300 AA for the protein. KFkairosfocus_{March 6, 2015
March
03
Mar
6
06
2015
09:08 AM
9
09
08
AM
PDT}

Box: Just like the question of whether ID is “science” ultimately just depends on your definition of “science” and is irrelevant to its truthfulness, debating whether Sewell’s argument is based on what you consider the “Second Law” is an irrelevant distraction to its truthfulness. How many legs does a dog have if you call the tail a leg? Box: If you prefer, assume he is just using logic and probability, not the “Second Law.” The 2nd law of Sewell.
Sewell: It is {not} widely argued that the spectacular local decreases in something-something that occurred on Earth as a result of the origin and evolution of life and the development of human intelligence are not inconsistent with the second law of Sewell, because the Earth is an open system and something-something can decrease in an open system, provided the decrease is compensated by something-something increases outside the system. http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/main/article/download/BIO-C.2013.2/BIO-C.2013.2
Then Sewell goes on to state the 2nd law of thermodynamics from "Classical and Modern Physics". Then he quotes a bunch of physicists talking about the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Then he provides examples of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. It's impossible to read his paper as anything but a fallacious understanding of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Perhaps you could link to the "logic and probability" argument without the something-something mumbo jumbo.Zachriel_{March 6, 2015
March
03
Mar
6
06
2015
08:58 AM
8
08
58
AM
PDT}

CS3 on the annoying "but this is not really the 2nd law of thermodynamics" defense:
CS3: Just like the question of whether ID is “science” ultimately just depends on your definition of “science” and is irrelevant to its truthfulness, debating whether Sewell’s argument is based on what you consider the “Second Law” is an irrelevant distraction to its truthfulness. If you want to define the “Second Law” to exclude anything not explicitly about energy, and dismiss the countless textbooks and journal papers that use a broader definition as “confused”, fine. If you prefer, assume he is just using logic and probability, not the “Second Law.”
Box_{March 6, 2015
March
03
Mar
6
06
2015
08:47 AM
8
08
47
AM
PDT}

Timaeus @102 Thanks for that link!harry_{March 6, 2015
March
03
Mar
6
06
2015
08:38 AM
8
08
38
AM
PDT}

1 2 3 … 5 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply