Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

The illusion of organizing energy

Categories
Biophysics
Intelligent Design
Share
Facebook
Twitter/X
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

The 2nd law of statistical thermodynamics states that in a closed system any natural transformation goes towards the more probable states. The states of organization are those more improbable, then transformations spontaneously go towards non-organization, so to speak. Since evolution would be spontaneous organization, evolution disagrees with the 2nd law.

The tendency expressed in the 2nd law rules all physical phenomena and is clearly evident in our everyday life, where e.g. systems that were ok yesterday, today are ko, while systems that are ko, do not self repair and remain ko until an intelligent intervention. In short, things break down and do not self-repair, to greater reason they do not self-organize. All that can be related to the trend of the 2nd law.

Before this evidence an usual objection is that Earth is not a closed system because it receives radiant energy from the Sun, so the 2nd law doesn’t apply. Such energy — evolutionists say — would provide the organizing power for evolution. Here we will see in very simple terms as this is nothing but a naive illusion.

In my previous post I noted how, according to general systems theory, organization shows always two different aspects: power and control. Energy is related to the power that the system needs to work and control is related to all what pertains to the “intelligence” of the system, what governs both energy/matter and information in the system. Notice that control has even to organize the energy itself powering the system. If energy really had the organizing capability evolutionists believe, one would ask why systems theory does such distinction in the first place. (In philosophical terms, in a sense, the above distinction is related to the distinction between action and knowledge. Action without knowledge is only agitation and disorder. We will see below how power/energy without control is even destructive.)

All know what energy is. The capability to do a work. Mechanical work/energy is defined as a force producing a shift. A moving object has kinetic energy, due to its speed. Thermal energy is due to the disordered motions of the molecules making up matter. Electric energy is a flow of electrons. Chemical energy is sort of potential energy able to power chemical reactions. Radiant energy is carried by light and other electromagnetic radiation.

Energy can power the systems, but never can create the organized system in the first place. In short, energy is the fuel, not the engine. Example, in photosynthesis, used by plants to convert light energy into chemical energy, the light energy presupposes a photosynthesis system just in place. The light energy doesn’t create the photosynthesis system, like the photons don’t create the photovoltaic cell that outputs electric current.

In all definitions of “energy” there is nothing that could lead us to think that energy is able to transform improbable states into probable states. Consequently, energy cannot change the situation of the 2nd law: energy cannot create organization, which always implies highly improbable states. Indeed the opposite: per se uncontrolled energy is destructive. Example: an abandoned building is slowly but inexorably destroyed by the natural forces of the environment during some centuries. If we increases the energy by considering a flood, it can be destroyed in some days. With more energy, a tornado can destroy it in minutes. Finally with the energy of a bomb we can destroy the building in few seconds. More the energy, more the speed of destruction.

If we consider the physical principle of mass–energy equivalence we reach the same conclusion as above. Mass per se has nothing to do with real organization. Mass and matter are simply the initial support/substance on which an higher principle — intelligence/essence — must operate to obtain a final organized system.

In general we can say that what energy can do is to speed the processes/transformations. But since the transformations go towards the more probable states, uncontrolled energy, far from helping evolution, it could even worsen its problems, because accelerates the trend towards non-organization. The moral is that to invoke uncontrolled energy to revert the trend of the 2nd law is counterproductive for evolutionists.

An objection that evolutionists could rise is: energy can power and greatly speed the chemical reactions, so they can produce life. In these objection there are two problems.
(1) Usually chemical reactions go towards equilibrium, the more probable state, so they don’t overturn at all the 2nd law.
(2) In this context the alleged naturalistic origin of life stated by evolutionism is a non-sequitur. In the hierarchy of biological organization chemical reactions are at the lowest level. Between this level and the final organization of organisms there are countless layers of complexity, related to increasingly higher kinds of abstractness and formalism, which are unattainable by mere chemistry.

Another similar evolutionist objection is that in 1953 Miller and Urey conducted an experiment where some organic compounds such as amino acids were formed by providing thermal and electric energy to a mixture of methane, ammonia, hydrogen, and water. Again no new organization here. The compounds obtained are exactly the probable transformations that the system was able to produce, under the same circumstances. In fact if one repeats the Miller/Urey experiment he gets again the same results. This shows that nothing improbable happens, rather something of very probable, almost certain. No violation of the 2nd law. Obviously also here there is an abyss between the Miller/Urey amino acids and the organization of life, also if we consider a single unicellular organism.

To sum up, the 2nd law in the context of statistical thermodynamics, provides a fundamental reason why naturalistic origin of life is impossible. To resort to energy doesn’t solve the problem, because energy is not a source of organization, rather the inverse: uncontrolled energy can cause destruction (= non-organization). Only intelligence is source of organization, and as such can explain the arise of life, the more organized thing in the cosmos.

Comments
Keith: The law of gravity must be taken into account, but that doesn’t make it unlikely that airplanes can fly. As Zachriel says, they provide a lifting force to balance gravity.
Yes, as Zach says, we do indeed need "a lifting force" to overcome the obstacle that gravity presents for anything that wants to go up. Well now ... what is this "ordering force" - or organizational force - that balances the 2nd law? What force prevents an organism to be lead toward equilibrium - death - due to the 2nd law?Box
March 12, 2015
March
03
Mar
12
12
2015
06:01 PM
6
06
01
PM
PDT
Zachriel: The law of gravity isn’t that nothing can go up. The law of gravity is a force. As such, it just means you need sufficient force working in the opposite direction to create lift.
Exactly!! One needs a "sufficient force working in the opposite direction to create lift". Well ... Similarly wrt the second law one needs a "sufficient force working in the opposite direction to create ORDER"!Box
March 12, 2015
March
03
Mar
12
12
2015
05:32 PM
5
05
32
PM
PDT
Box,
If I were an atheist I would opt for the multiverse (MWO). That solves the 2nd law problem.
What 2nd law problem?keith s
March 12, 2015
March
03
Mar
12
12
2015
05:26 PM
5
05
26
PM
PDT
keiths:
Keith: Anyone who says “the law of gravity makes it unlikely that airplanes can fly” is seriously misunderstanding the law of gravity.
Box:
Really? So you seriously hold that gravity doesn’t pose an obstacle for anything to fly?
The law of gravity must be taken into account, but that doesn't make it unlikely that airplanes can fly. As Zachriel says, they provide a lifting force to balance gravity. Nor does flight require that the law of gravity be "held at bay", to use Eric's phrase. The law of gravity is in full force while an airplane flies. It is unfettered and not diminished in the least. After all, the law of gravity only forbids violations of the law of gravity, and airplane flight does not violate the law of gravity. Likewise, the maintenance of far-from-equilibrium systems requires a source of usable energy, but such sources exist. The 2nd Law does not have to be "held at bay" in order for these systems to continue existing. It is in full force the entire time, unfettered and not diminished in the least. After all, the 2nd law only forbids violations of the 2nd law, and the continued existence of far-from-equilibrium systems does not violate the 2nd law, as long as they are able to export entropy to their environments. PS Did you read and understand my gerbil example above?keith s
March 12, 2015
March
03
Mar
12
12
2015
05:20 PM
5
05
20
PM
PDT
Box: So you seriously hold that gravity doesn’t pose an obstacle for anything to fly? You are confused. The law of gravity isn't that nothing can go up. The law of gravity is a force. As such, it just means you need sufficient force working in the opposite direction to create lift.Zachriel
March 12, 2015
March
03
Mar
12
12
2015
05:09 PM
5
05
09
PM
PDT
Keith: Anyone who says “the law of gravity makes it unlikely that airplanes can fly” is seriously misunderstanding the law of gravity.
Really? So you seriously hold that gravity doesn't pose an obstacle for anything to fly?Box
March 12, 2015
March
03
Mar
12
12
2015
03:51 PM
3
03
51
PM
PDT
A couple of years ago, commenter CS3 made the same mistake as Eric. Here's how I responded:
CS3, You and Granville have fallen into the trap of wanting the second law to do more than it actually does. The second law forbids violations of the second law, no more and no less. Let me give an example of the same error, but in terms of the first law. Suppose a friend of yours claims that gerbils keep poofing into existence in his living room. He is constantly giving gerbils away to his friends as a result of the alleged gerbil influx. You find this wildly implausible, but he is adamant that it really happens. You try to reason him out of his delusion by showing him that gerbils can’t possibly materialize out of thin air. One of your arguments is that if gerbils really did poof into existence in his living room, this would be a violation of the first law of thermodynamics, which says that energy can be neither created nor destroyed. Since matter is a form of energy (by Einstein’s famous equation), the appearance of a gerbil out of thin air would violate the first law. He tells you he’s made careful measurements that show that every time a gerbil appears, the mass of the furniture in the living room decreases by a corresponding amount. In other words, the incarnation of the gerbil is compensated for by a decrease in mass of the living room furniture. You find this absurd and tell him “This compensation argument is bogus. The first law doesn’t allow gerbils to poof into existence merely because there is a compensatory loss of mass in the living room furniture!” But if you tell him this, you are wrong. The first law does allow gerbils to poof into existence, because the first law only forbids violations of the first law, no more and no less. As long as the mass of the furniture decreases by the correct amount, there is no violation of the first law. The gerbil-poofing idea is still ridiculous, and you have many reasons to doubt it, but the first law is not one of them, because the first law is not violated. The first law is not obligated to rule out every wildly improbable event in the universe, including gerbil poofing. It only rules out violations of the first law. Likewise with evolution and the second law. You and Granville may (and obviously do) think that evolution is ridiculous, and that people and locomotives and lava lamps can’t appear on a formerly barren planet simply because solar energy is streaming in and waste heat is radiating out. But your skepticism has nothing to do with the second law, because the second law is not violated. You just think evolution is improbable, like every other IDer and creationist.
keith s
March 12, 2015
March
03
Mar
12
12
2015
03:21 PM
3
03
21
PM
PDT
Box,
Sure, but does gravity forbid flying?
No. The law of gravity only forbids violations of the law of gravity -- nothing more and nothing less. Gravity continues to operate on airplanes while they are flying, so there is no violation. Anyone who says "the law of gravity makes it unlikely that airplanes can fly" is seriously misunderstanding the law of gravity. Likewise, anyone who says "the 2nd law makes it unlikely for far-from-equilibrium systems to arise" is seriously misunderstanding the 2nd law. The 2nd Law forbids uncompensated local entropy decreases. Anything at all that does not involve uncompensated local entropy decreases is allowed by the 2nd Law, fully and unconditionally. That doesn't mean it will actually happen. It might be prohibited by some other law or laws, but it is fully allowed by the 2nd Law. Far-from-equilibrium systems do not involve uncompensated local entropy decreases. Therefore they are allowed by the 2nd Law. The 2nd Law does not have to be "held at bay", as Eric put it, in order for such systems to arise. The 2nd Law is fully operational and unfettered the entire time. You may think that such systems are unlikely for some other reason, but if you think that the 2nd Law makes them unlikely, then you are misunderstanding the 2nd Law.keith s
March 12, 2015
March
03
Mar
12
12
2015
03:10 PM
3
03
10
PM
PDT
Box: does gravity forbid flying? No. In Newtonian mechanics, gravity is defined as a force.Zachriel
March 12, 2015
March
03
Mar
12
12
2015
03:00 PM
3
03
00
PM
PDT
niwrad: Clearly, we are speaking of different entropies That's fine. You might want to correct the original post, which concerns thermodynamic entropy so there is no confusion. niwrad: I even suspect that you use the magic word “entropy” as a smoke curtain to not acknowledge what really matters: do you realize or not that systems go towards probable states? As you're not referring to thermodynamic entropy, it's hard to parse your statement. With thermodynamics, at least, things may go towards less probable states locally, defined as a reduction in the available microstates. But you said you weren't talking about thermodynamic entropy, so its hard to know what you mean. Eric Anderson: What allows the airplane to stay aloft, given the law of gravity? Energy. That's what causes dust from Africa to cross the Atlantic to feed the Amazonian rainforest and affect the formation of hurricanes. Eric Anderson: To put the shoe on the other foot, does the 2nd Law (or any other natural law) naturally lead to the formation of stable, far-from-equilibrium ? ... a highly improbable arrangement of matter The monsoon is a non-organic, stable, far-from-equilibrium system. Eric Anderson: So those who think such systems came about without any intelligent design or input are left to argue that it was some incredibly lucky accident, a cosmic draw of the lottery, a remarkable fluke. Varuna http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p027pyry/p027py0k Eric Anderson: this is a live, open, well-understood issue in the origin of life research community. Yes, the origin of life is still a mystery. Eric Anderson: The researchers thought they had come up with a solution ... But to argue that the 2nd Law can only be viewed in its classical and most narrow sense (Zachriel) Please note they are using the term thermodynamics in its conventional "narrow sense".Zachriel
March 12, 2015
March
03
Mar
12
12
2015
02:59 PM
2
02
59
PM
PDT
Keith: The 2nd Law rules out violations of the 2nd Law — no more and no less. Things that violate the 2nd law are forbidden.
Sure, but does gravity forbid flying?
Eric Anderson: Think of it this way: If we understand how gravity works, but also see an airplane flying, it is perfectly reasonable to ask: What allows the airplane to stay aloft, given the law of gravity? There is no suggestion that the law of gravity is broken or has been “violated.” Of course not. But neither can we just dismiss the question and with a rhetorical flick of the finger by saying, “Well, some things fly, so obviously the law of gravity doesn’t prevent things from flying. And so your question is bunk.”
Box
March 12, 2015
March
03
Mar
12
12
2015
02:04 PM
2
02
04
PM
PDT
Eric, Like Granville Sewell, you keep asking the 2nd Law to do things it cannot do. The 2nd Law rules out violations of the 2nd Law -- no more and no less. Things that violate the 2nd law are forbidden*. Things that don't violate the 2nd law are allowed by the 2nd law -- though they may be forbidden by other laws of nature. You quoted a paper:
. . . living systems are far-from-equilibrium systems that must constantly tap into some external source of energy in order to maintain that far-from-equilibrium state. Failure to obtain a continuing supply of energy necessarily leads the animate system toward equilibrium—to death.
That's right. It's why we eat food, why plants use sunlight for photosynthesis, and why ecosystems form around hydrothermal vents. None of which violate the 2nd Law. Perhaps it would help if you would state the 2nd Law as you understand it, and then show exactly why you think it presents a problem for far-from-equilibrium systems. *There may be exceptions for tiny systems that are much smaller than the ones involved in OOL and evolution.keith s
March 12, 2015
March
03
Mar
12
12
2015
01:32 PM
1
01
32
PM
PDT
If I were an atheist I would opt for the multiverse (MWO). That solves the 2nd law problem:
Koonin: From a slightly different perspective, the usual adage about the second law of thermodynamics being true in the statistical sense takes a literal meaning in an infinite universe: any violation of this law that is permitted by other conservation laws will happen – and on an infinite number of occasions. Thus, spontaneous emergence of complex systems that would have to be considered virtually impossible in a finite universe becomes not only possible but inevitable under MWO, even though the prior probabilities of the vast majority of histories to occur in a given O-region are vanishingly small. [ANYTHING THAT CAN HAPPEN HAPPENS IN A MULTIVERSE:] In this framework, the possibility that the breakthrough stage for the onset of biological evolution was a high-complexity state, i.e., that the core of the coupled system of translation-replication emerged by chance, cannot be dismissed, however unlikely (i.e., extremely rare in the multiverse). The MWO model not only permits but guarantees that, somewhere in the infinite multiverse – moreover, in every single infinite universe, – such a system would emerge. [THERE ARE INFINITE COPIES OF US:] There is, e.g., an infinite number of (macroscopically) exact copies of the earth with everything that exists on it, (...) [source] [my emphasis]
Box
March 12, 2015
March
03
Mar
12
12
2015
10:50 AM
10
10
50
AM
PDT
Joe @124 - thanks, Joey One-Post.Hangonasec
March 12, 2015
March
03
Mar
12
12
2015
10:25 AM
10
10
25
AM
PDT
Zachriel, keith s (and everyone else), you might be interested in this quote from a paper that Nick Matzke referred us to a couple of years ago, from some researchers (Note: these are committed evolutionists on Nick's side of the fence) looking into the origin of life:
. . . living systems are far-from-equilibrium systems that must constantly tap into some external source of energy in order to maintain that far-from-equilibrium state. Failure to obtain a continuing supply of energy necessarily leads the animate system toward equilibrium—to death. Inanimate systems on the other hand, though not necessarily in an equilibrium state, do at all times tend toward that lower Gibbs energy state. Clearly, the thermodynamic pattern of behavior expressed by animate as opposed to inanimate systems is quite different and raises the question as to how, from a thermodynamic point of view, the emergence of energy-consuming, far-from-equilibrium systems would arise in the first place.
The researchers thought they had come up with a solution (which turns out to be nonsense), but the point for the present discussion is that this is a live, open, well-understood issue in the origin of life research community. You can try (as Pross and his colleagues did) to come up with an answer to the question. But to argue that the 2nd Law can only be viewed in its classical and most narrow sense (Zachriel) or that the question is not relevant because the 2nd Law doesn't fundamentally prohibit the existence of such systems (keith s), is not a fruitful avenue of discourse.Eric Anderson
March 12, 2015
March
03
Mar
12
12
2015
10:04 AM
10
10
04
AM
PDT
keith s @107:
The 2nd law neither prohibits such systems from arising nor from continuing to exist.
I certainly never said it did. What you are failing to appreciate, however, is that the 2nd Law drives systems in a certain direction. That direction is away from the stable far-from-equilibrium systems that we see in living organisms. Thus, it is perfectly reasonable to ask: What allows such systems to exist, given the 2nd Law? Think of it this way: If we understand how gravity works, but also see an airplane flying, it is perfectly reasonable to ask: What allows the airplane to stay aloft, given the law of gravity? There is no suggestion that the law of gravity is broken or has been "violated." Of course not. But neither can we just dismiss the question and with a rhetorical flick of the finger by saying, “Well, some things fly, so obviously the law of gravity doesn’t prevent things from flying. And so your question is bunk.” No, the question is perfectly reasonable. And if we take time to think through the implications and the engineering (rather than just dismissing the uncomfortable question) it points us back to how the system actually functions, how it takes energy and uses principles of chemistry and physics to perform a feat that, otherwise, we would not normally see.
The 2nd Law forbids violations of the 2nd Law, nothing more and nothing less. If you want to argue that the formation of such systems is improbable, fine — go to it. But it doesn’t violate the 2nd Law, and so your reasons will have to lie elsewhere.
I think we are largely in agreement on this point. As I’ve said, I would not necessarily approach the 2nd Law arguments the same way others might. However, the question about the formation of stable, far-from-equilibrium systems does relate to the 2nd Law and deserves an answer. The answer might be, as you hint at, some probability assessment. To put the shoe on the other foot, does the 2nd Law (or any other natural law) naturally lead to the formation of stable, far-from-equilibrium systems? Certainly not. So those who think such systems came about without any intelligent design or input are left to argue that it was some incredibly lucky accident, a cosmic draw of the lottery, a remarkable fluke. Not a particularly compelling explanation.
I’ve never heard anyone claim that “anything goes” in an open system, though some IDers like to pretend that we do.
Of course not. Because when it is stated clearly like I did, it is obvious that the idea is absurd. However, when couched in language about the Earth being an “open” system, or loss of entropy being magically “compensated” for elsewhere in the universe, it isn’t quite as clear to the listener what is being claimed. When the question on the table is how a stable, far-from-equilibrium system – a highly improbable arrangement of matter – could come about under purely natural processes, a response that "Well, yes, it is wildly improbable; but Earth is an open system,” is one of two things: (i) either it is a complete misunderstanding of the question and is an irrelevant answer; and/or (ii) it is an attempt to claim that receiving energy from the Sun somehow makes the utterly improbable probable – normally it wouldn’t happen, but, hey, when we get energy from the Sun, crazy things can happen, even life spontaneously arising. Maybe not "anything" goes, but unusual, crazy, wildly improbable things go.Eric Anderson
March 12, 2015
March
03
Mar
12
12
2015
09:54 AM
9
09
54
AM
PDT
Joe, quit b­eing­ retarded.CHartsil
March 12, 2015
March
03
Mar
12
12
2015
08:34 AM
8
08
34
AM
PDT
CHartsil, enjoys being an ignorant coward and pathological liar.Joe
March 12, 2015
March
03
Mar
12
12
2015
08:28 AM
8
08
28
AM
PDT
Joe, quit being retar­ded.CHartsil
March 12, 2015
March
03
Mar
12
12
2015
08:22 AM
8
08
22
AM
PDT
CHartsil, quit being an ignorant coward and a pathological liar.Joe
March 12, 2015
March
03
Mar
12
12
2015
08:20 AM
8
08
20
AM
PDT
Joe, quit being retarded.CHartsil
March 12, 2015
March
03
Mar
12
12
2015
08:19 AM
8
08
19
AM
PDT
LoL! @ CHartsil- Neither of those articles support UNGUIDED evolution. And both are speculation. Strange that you will believe anything as long as you think it supports your position.Joe
March 12, 2015
March
03
Mar
12
12
2015
08:15 AM
8
08
15
AM
PDT
"Unguided evolution cannot account for multicellular organisms" http://link.springer.com/article/10.1023%2FA%3A1006527528063 http://www.pnas.org/content/109/5/1595CHartsil
March 12, 2015
March
03
Mar
12
12
2015
08:04 AM
8
08
04
AM
PDT
Zachriel Clearly, we are speaking of different entropies, and I even suspect that you use the magic word "entropy" as a smoke curtain to not acknowledge what really matters: do you realize or not that systems go towards probable states? That is all what matters here. But you don't like this truth because it means that unguided evolution (extremely improbable, to say the least) is contra the 2nd law and therefore is only a dream in your mind.niwrad
March 12, 2015
March
03
Mar
12
12
2015
07:52 AM
7
07
52
AM
PDT
Unguided evolution cannot account for multicellular organisms...Joe
March 12, 2015
March
03
Mar
12
12
2015
07:52 AM
7
07
52
AM
PDT
KF @117 H,
I stopped at the freshly hatched chick just out of the egg. But indeed, there is a highly informational organisation imposed on the food to make the new chick grow. And it needs more than an egg-ful of food now! KF
Nutrition, then. Nonetheless, the conversion of zygote into free-living multicellular organism involves an increase in entropy.Hangonasec
March 12, 2015
March
03
Mar
12
12
2015
07:44 AM
7
07
44
AM
PDT
kairosfocus: it has been repeatedly pointed out to you and ilk — over the years — that there is a valid informational view on thermodynamics and it lends fresh insights to the 2nd law. Insights are wonderful, however, thermodynamic entropy is a measurable, extensive property. If your notions require you to argue that crystals have a comparatively high thermodynamic entropy rather than low thermodynamic entropy, then your notions are wrong.Zachriel
March 12, 2015
March
03
Mar
12
12
2015
07:35 AM
7
07
35
AM
PDT
Z, it has been repeatedly pointed out to you and ilk -- over the years -- that there is a valid informational view on thermodynamics and it lends fresh insights to the 2nd law. My always linked, App A, and Section A give some outline info. KFkairosfocus
March 12, 2015
March
03
Mar
12
12
2015
07:18 AM
7
07
18
AM
PDT
niwrad: Obviously tornadoes, crystals, and monsoons do NOT violate the 2nd law because they represent exactly the probable states in those particular circumstances of wheater and nature, and the 2nd law, meant in its statistical sense, indeed says that systems go towards their probable states. The entropy of crystals is much much lower than the same atoms not arranged in crystals. Entropy calculations dwarf your common notions of order.Zachriel
March 12, 2015
March
03
Mar
12
12
2015
07:17 AM
7
07
17
AM
PDT
Zachriel to me:
Then tornadoes, crystals, and monsoons violate the the 2nd law as they do in the opposite direction, towards order.
Obviously tornadoes, crystals, and monsoons do NOT violate the 2nd law because they represent exactly the probable states in those particular circumstances of wheater and nature, and the 2nd law, meant in its statistical sense, indeed says that systems go towards their probable states. You can call those phenomena "order" or "disorder", but what is sure is that they are, -- I repeat -- in those boundary conditions, the probable states. In this discussion of statistical thermodynamics what matters more is probable or improbable states. I cannot speak for Box and Eric, then I leave to them the fun of answering Zachriel's questions to them. :)niwrad
March 12, 2015
March
03
Mar
12
12
2015
07:13 AM
7
07
13
AM
PDT
1 … 4 5 6 7 8 … 10