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
niwrad: If here with “ordering” you mean e.g. formation of crystals or other patterns, then the 2nd law doesn’t preclude them indeed because, given their scenarios of formation, those patterns are exactly the more probable states in those contexts. In other words, entropy can decrease locally and still be consistent with the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Other examples include a rock cooling in the mist from a waterfall, a tornado, a blue sky.Zachriel
March 11, 2015
March
03
Mar
11
11
2015
07:55 AM
7
07
55
AM
PST
Joe, quit being retardedCHartsil
March 11, 2015
March
03
Mar
11
11
2015
07:53 AM
7
07
53
AM
PST
Joe 85 Obviously yes.niwrad
March 11, 2015
March
03
Mar
11
11
2015
07:50 AM
7
07
50
AM
PST
Does the 2LoT prevent a car from spontaneously arising?Joe
March 11, 2015
March
03
Mar
11
11
2015
07:43 AM
7
07
43
AM
PST
Zachriel
"But the 2nd law of thermodynamics doesn’t preclude local ordering."
If here with "ordering" you mean e.g. formation of crystals or other patterns, then the 2nd law doesn’t preclude them indeed because, given their scenarios of formation, those patterns are exactly the more probable states in those contexts. However such ordering/patterns have nothing to do with organization, which always implies extremely improbable states.niwrad
March 11, 2015
March
03
Mar
11
11
2015
07:40 AM
7
07
40
AM
PST
niwrad: Disorder implies disorganization. But the 2nd law of thermodynamics doesn't preclude local ordering. harry: Do you suppose there is more to {life} than just energy from the sun? Yes. Energy is a necessary (per the 2nd law of thermodynamics), but not sufficient, condition for life.Zachriel
March 11, 2015
March
03
Mar
11
11
2015
07:28 AM
7
07
28
AM
PST
>One single planet out of trillions supports life >Vast store of highly ordered energyCHartsil
March 11, 2015
March
03
Mar
11
11
2015
07:27 AM
7
07
27
AM
PST
Collin @61
Isn’t it lucky that the universe started out with a vast store of highly-ordered energy? I wonder why that was.
Yes. That is very interesting. Roger Penrose, British mathematician/physicist and friend of Stephen Hawking (they co-authored the book, The Nature of Space and Time), in his book, The Road to Reality: A Complete Guide to the Laws of the Universe, calculated the odds of the "Big Bang" producing by chance a universe so low in entropy that the emergence and development of life was even a possibility to be 1 in 10^10^123, which makes that happening mindlessly and accidentally a virtual impossibility. And that is only what it took for life to become a possibility, it didn't make the emergence of life probable any more than the fact that all of the substances found in a laptop PC occur naturally make it probable that matter would accidentally assemble itself into one. Yet, since energy from the sun has been available for billions of years now, there should be self-assembled computers and all kinds of phenomena of equivalent functional complexity popping up all over the place by now. Instead, life seems to be the sole product of the creative power of sunlight. Hmmmm .... Do you suppose there is more to it than just energy from the sun? ;o)harry
March 11, 2015
March
03
Mar
11
11
2015
07:20 AM
7
07
20
AM
PST
Zachriel
"Thermodynamic disorder, not human notions of disorganization."
Disorder implies disorganization. Have you ever seen a disordered organization?niwrad
March 11, 2015
March
03
Mar
11
11
2015
07:14 AM
7
07
14
AM
PST
niwrad: The issue is simple. Yes, the original post made a demonstrably false statement. niwrad: Physics (hard science) states that in nature there is tendency towards disorganization. Thermodynamic disorder, not human notions of disorganization. ETA: Even then, thermodynamic disorder can decrease locally. The 2nd law of thermodynamics is proscriptive, not prescriptive.Zachriel
March 11, 2015
March
03
Mar
11
11
2015
07:03 AM
7
07
03
AM
PST
Zachriel You try to defend the indefensible. The issue is simple. You deny the evidence. Physics (hard science) states that in nature there is tendency towards disorganization. Evolution says that in bio-nature there was a giant process of countless processes all towards increasing organization. Don't you see the problem?niwrad
March 11, 2015
March
03
Mar
11
11
2015
06:38 AM
6
06
38
AM
PST
Eric Anderson: It is a rhetorical game that does absolutely nothing to answer the issue being raised. The first paragraph of this thread concludes "Since evolution would be spontaneous organization, evolution disagrees with the 2nd law." That is the issue being raised, and the claim is false. Eric Anderson: Having enough energy is not a problem. No, it's not, which is why the argument about the 2nd law precluding life is fallacious.Zachriel
March 11, 2015
March
03
Mar
11
11
2015
05:50 AM
5
05
50
AM
PST
DNA_Jock: If the sun magically vanished tomorrow, in the following year would the entropy of the earth increase or decrease? Why?
What kind of entropy are you referring to?Box
March 11, 2015
March
03
Mar
11
11
2015
05:00 AM
5
05
00
AM
PST
We do not need the 2LoT to dispute unguided evolution. The concept can't be tested, offers no predictions nor entailments and is outside the realm of science. That is more than enough.Joe
March 11, 2015
March
03
Mar
11
11
2015
04:28 AM
4
04
28
AM
PST
eng wrote:
The original question did not have enough information therefore I had to make assumptions exactly what is included in this thought experiment and what is not. My answer is certainly correct in terms of the conditions I have described.
A failure on your part to read the question, which was very simple and very specific.
You asked specifically about the earth, and not about the earth plus “cold of space”.
Precisely.
You want a heat transfer from the inside of the boundary to “the cold of space” and (here is another assumption of mine) no energy transfer from the outside of the boundary to the inside such as star light, microwave background radiation, meteorites and the like.
Wrong, no such assumption is required. My question gave a specific time-frame: “If the sun magically vanished tomorrow, in the following year would the entropy of the earth increase or decrease? Why?”
If we allow starlight to shine on our earth, it is possible that it will be heated so much over time that the entropy increases.
Failure to read the question.
The change of entropy is negative, therefore the entropy of the earth will decrease.
Correct. I will also give you partial credit for spotting the reason: the earth is surrounded by a heat-sink, the "cold of space", therefore terrestrial decreases in entropy are possible under the 2LoT. The point being, the annihilation of the biosphere would be small potatoes, entropy-wise, compared with the massive heat flow, and it can safely be ignored in this context. These calculations have been done. Invoking 2LoT to dispute evolution (or growth...) betrays a failure to understand 2LoT. Furthermore, as Niwrad notes, "The 2nd law rules any system, the natural and the artificial", so invoking intelligence to circumvent a perceived "problem" with 2LoT makes no sense whatsoever. Brains need fuel.DNA_Jock
March 11, 2015
March
03
Mar
11
11
2015
04:25 AM
4
04
25
AM
PST
Thanks bornagain77 for the rich info you always provide to us. Strangely enough, while evolutionists resort to the organizing-energy-enters-closed-system escamotage, they usually don't resort to the dual organizing-matter-enters-closed-system to counter the 2nd law. It is strange because in physics mass and energy are equivalent. If energy organizes why mass does not? Thanks to all commenters. It seems the spirit of the post was grasped very well... "on average" (finally I got it :) ).niwrad
March 11, 2015
March
03
Mar
11
11
2015
04:03 AM
4
04
03
AM
PST
In light of this strong association between entropy and the death of our temporal, material, bodies, it is interesting to point out a subtle nuance on the Shroud of Turin. Namely that Gravity was overcome in the resurrection event of Christ:
Particle Radiation from the Body – July 2012 – M. Antonacci, A. C. Lind Excerpt: The Shroud’s frontal and dorsal body images are encoded with the same amount of intensity, independent of any pressure or weight from the body. The bottom part of the cloth (containing the dorsal image) would have born all the weight of the man’s supine body, yet the dorsal image is not encoded with a greater amount of intensity than the frontal image. Radiation coming from the body would not only explain this feature, but also the left/right and light/dark reversals found on the cloth’s frontal and dorsal body images. https://docs.google.com/document/d/19tGkwrdg6cu5mH-RmlKxHv5KPMOL49qEU8MLGL6ojHU/edit A Quantum Hologram of Christ’s Resurrection? by Chuck Missler Excerpt: “You can read the science of the Shroud, such as total lack of gravity, lack of entropy (without gravitational collapse), no time, no space—it conforms to no known law of physics.” The phenomenon of the image brings us to a true event horizon, a moment when all of the laws of physics change drastically. Dame Piczek created a one-fourth size sculpture of the man in the Shroud. When viewed from the side, it appears as if the man is suspended in mid air (see graphic, below), indicating that the image defies previously accepted science. The phenomenon of the image brings us to a true event horizon, a moment when all of the laws of physics change drastically. http://www.khouse.org/articles/2008/847 THE EVENT HORIZON (Space-Time Singularity) OF THE SHROUD OF TURIN. – Isabel Piczek – Particle Physicist Excerpt: We have stated before that the images on the Shroud firmly indicate the total absence of Gravity. Yet they also firmly indicate the presence of the Event Horizon. These two seemingly contradict each other and they necessitate the past presence of something more powerful than Gravity that had the capacity to solve the above paradox. http://shroud3d.com/findings/isabel-piczek-image-formation Turin shroud – (Particle Physicist explains event horizon) – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HHVUGK6UFK8 The Center Of The Universe Is Life (Jesus) - General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, Entropy and The Shroud Of Turin - video http://vimeo.com/34084462
Verse, Forensic examination of the Shroud, and Music:
Acts 13:36-37 “Now when David had served God’s purpose in his own generation, he fell asleep; he was buried with his ancestors and his body decayed. But the one whom God raised from the dead did not see decay. Forensic evidence of the Shroud of Turin – video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z5QEsaNiMVc Detailed Forensic Evidence of The Shroud - video Excerpt: "it is definitely an anatomically and forensically correct depiction of a victim of a Roman crucifixion." http://www.shroud-enigma.com/wall_1/autopsy/turin-shroud-forensic-pathology.html Turin Shroud: a medical forensic study of its blood marks and image - G.Lavoie - May 2010 Abstract - From extensive analytical studies of the Shroud of Turin we know that the image is not man-made, and from medical forensic studies of the blood marks we know that a crucified man was laid out on his back and wrapped in this cloth. But the question still remains as to what caused the shroud image. A forensic evaluation of the blood marks and a study of the effect of gravity on surface anatomy suggest that a natural event is not the most probable cause of shroud image formation. http://www.acheiropoietos.info/proceedings/LavoieWeb.pdf Empty (Empty Cross Empty Tomb) with Dan Haseltine Matt Hammitt http://www.godtube.com/watch/?v=F22MCCNU
bornagain77
March 11, 2015
March
03
Mar
11
11
2015
04:02 AM
4
04
02
AM
PST
Of interest: the maximum source of entropic randomness in the universe is found to be where gravity is greatest,,,
Evolution is a Fact, Just Like Gravity is a Fact! UhOh! – January 2010 Excerpt: The results of this paper suggest gravity arises as an entropic force, once space and time themselves have emerged. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/evolution-is-a-fact-just-like-gravity-is-a-fact-uhoh/ Evolution is a Fact, Just Like Gravity is a Fact! UhOh! – January 2010 Excerpt: The results of this paper suggest gravity arises as an entropic force, once space and time themselves have emerged. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/evolution-is-a-fact-just-like-gravity-is-a-fact-uhoh/ Entropy of the Universe – Hugh Ross – May 2010 Excerpt: Egan and Lineweaver found that supermassive black holes are the largest contributor to the observable universe’s entropy. They showed that these supermassive black holes contribute about 30 times more entropy than what the previous research teams estimated. http://www.reasons.org/entropy-universe
It is also interesting to learn what would happen to a 'hypothetical observer' if they fell into a blackhole:
Two very different ‘eternities’: Special Relativity, General Relativity, Heaven and Hell Excerpt: “Einstein’s equation predicts that, as the astronaut reaches the singularity (of the black-hole), the tidal forces grow infinitely strong, and their chaotic oscillations become infinitely rapid. The astronaut dies and the atoms which his body is made become infinitely and chaotically distorted and mixed-and then, at the moment when everything becomes infinite (the tidal strengths, the oscillation frequencies, the distortions, and the mixing), spacetime ceases to exist.” Kip S. Thorne – “Black Holes and Time Warps: Einstein’s Outrageous Legacy” pg. 476 https://docs.google.com/document/d/1_4cQ7MXq8bLkoFLYW0kq3Xq-Hkc3c7r-gTk0DYJQFSg/edit
Needless to say, the implications of this ‘eternity of destruction’ should be fairly disturbing for those of us who are of the ‘spiritually minded’ persuasion! Moreover, as pointed out previously, entropy is the primary reason our temporal bodies grow old and die:
Entropy Explains Aging, Genetic Determinism Explains Longevity, and Undefined Terminology Explains Misunderstanding Both – 2007 Excerpt: There is a huge body of knowledge supporting the belief that age changes are characterized by increasing entropy, which results in the random loss of molecular fidelity, and accumulates to slowly overwhelm maintenance systems [1–4].,,, http://www.plosgenetics.org/article/info%3Adoi/10.1371/journal.pgen.0030220 Entropy Explains Aging, Genetic Determinism Explains Longevity, and Undefined Terminology Explains Misunderstanding Both – 2007 Excerpt: There is a huge body of knowledge supporting the belief that age changes are characterized by increasing entropy, which results in the random loss of molecular fidelity, and accumulates to slowly overwhelm maintenance systems [1–4].,,, http://www.plosgenetics.org/article/info%3Adoi/10.1371/journal.pgen.0030220 Genetic Entropy - Down Not Up – Dr. John Sanford – video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_edD5HOx6Q0
Notes from Dr. John Sanford’s preceding video:
*3 new mutations every time a cell divides in your body * Average cell of 15 year old has up to 6000 mutations *Average cell of 60 year old has 40,000 mutations Reproductive cells are ‘designed’ so that, early on in development, they are ‘set aside’ and thus they do not accumulate mutations as the rest of the cells of our bodies do. Regardless of this protective barrier against the accumulation of slightly detrimental mutations still we find that,,, *60-175 mutations are passed on to each new generation.
This following video brings the point personally home to each of us about the very destructive effects of entropy on our bodies:
Aging Process – 80 years in 40 seconds – video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A91Fwf_sMhk
bornagain77
March 11, 2015
March
03
Mar
11
11
2015
04:02 AM
4
04
02
AM
PST
That the second law holds for biology and that natural selection cannot overcome the tendency towards decay in borne out empirically:
“The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution”: Break or blunt any functional coded element whose loss would yield a net fitness gain - Michael Behe - December 2010 Excerpt: In its most recent issue The Quarterly Review of Biology has published a review by myself of laboratory evolution experiments of microbes going back four decades.,,, The gist of the paper is that so far the overwhelming number of adaptive (that is, helpful) mutations seen in laboratory evolution experiments are either loss or modification of function. Of course we had already known that the great majority of mutations that have a visible effect on an organism are deleterious. Now, surprisingly, it seems that even the great majority of helpful mutations degrade the genome to a greater or lesser extent.,,, I dub it “The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution”: Break or blunt any functional coded element whose loss would yield a net fitness gain. http://behe.uncommondescent.com/2010/12/the-first-rule-of-adaptive-evolution/ Multiple Overlapping Genetic Codes Profoundly Reduce the Probability of Beneficial Mutation George Montañez 1, Robert J. Marks II 2, Jorge Fernandez 3 and John C. Sanford 4 - May 2013 Excerpt: It is almost universally acknowledged that beneficial mutations are rare compared to deleterious mutations [1–10].,, It appears that beneficial mutations may be too rare to actually allow the accurate measurement of how rare they are [11]. 1. Kibota T, Lynch M (1996) Estimate of the genomic mutation rate deleterious to overall fitness in E. coli . Nature 381:694–696. 2. Charlesworth B, Charlesworth D (1998) Some evolutionary consequences of deleterious mutations. Genetica 103: 3–19. 3. Elena S, et al (1998) Distribution of fitness effects caused by random insertion mutations in Escherichia coli. Genetica 102/103: 349–358. 4. Gerrish P, Lenski R N (1998) The fate of competing beneficial mutations in an asexual population. Genetica 102/103:127–144. 5. Crow J (2000) The origins, patterns, and implications of human spontaneous mutation. Nature Reviews 1:40–47. 6. Bataillon T (2000) Estimation of spontaneous genome-wide mutation rate parameters: whither beneficial mutations? Heredity 84:497–501. 7. Imhof M, Schlotterer C (2001) Fitness effects of advantageous mutations in evolving Escherichia coli populations. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 98:1113–1117. 8. Orr H (2003) The distribution of fitness effects among beneficial mutations. Genetics 163: 1519–1526. 9. Keightley P, Lynch M (2003) Toward a realistic model of mutations affecting fitness. Evolution 57:683–685. 10. Barrett R, et al (2006) The distribution of beneficial mutation effects under strong selection. Genetics 174:2071–2079. 11. Bataillon T (2000) Estimation of spontaneous genome-wide mutation rate parameters: whither beneficial mutations? Heredity 84:497–501. http://www.worldscientific.com/doi/pdf/10.1142/9789814508728_0006
Moreover, niwrad's claim that energy cannot create organization happens to be the falsification threshold for ID:
The Law of Physicodynamic Incompleteness - David L. Abel Excerpt: "If decision-node programming selections are made randomly or by law rather than with purposeful intent, no non-trivial (sophisticated) function will spontaneously arise." If only one exception to this null hypothesis were published, the hypothesis would be falsified. Falsification would require an experiment devoid of behind-the-scenes steering. Any artificial selection hidden in the experimental design would disqualify the experimental falsification. After ten years of continual republication of the null hypothesis with appeals for falsification, no falsification has been provided. The time has come to extend this null hypothesis into a formal scientific prediction: "No non trivial algorithmic/computational utility will ever arise from chance and/or necessity alone." https://www.academia.edu/9957206/The_Law_of_Physicodynamic_Incompleteness_Scirus_Topic_Page_
Thus if Darwinists want to claim that the tendency towards decay does not hold for biology and that natural selection can overcome the second law and create organization, then they are more than invited to try to falsify ID:
It’s (Much) Easier to Falsify Intelligent Design than Darwinian Evolution – Michael Behe, PhD https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_T1v_VLueGk Finally, a Detailed, Stepwise Proposal for a Major Evolutionary Change? - Michael Behe - March 10, 2015 Excerpt: I would say its (Nick Matzke's 2004 proposal for the evolution of the flagellum) chief problem is that it's terminally fuzzy, bases most of its speculation on sequence comparisons, and glides over difficulties that would have to be dealt with in nature.,,, That's one reason I wrote The Edge of Evolution -- to say that we no longer have to rely on our imaginations, that we have good evidence to show what Darwinian processes are capable of doing. When we look to see what they do when we are watching, we never see the sorts of progressive building of coherent systems that Darwinists imagine. Rather, we see tinkering around the edges with preexisting systems or degradation of complex systems to gain short-term advantage. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/03/finally_a_detai094271.html
bornagain77
March 11, 2015
March
03
Mar
11
11
2015
03:35 AM
3
03
35
AM
PST
In fact. Energy is not at all sufficient, to create organization. Note that, exactly as it happens in nature, in industry and all civilization fields, to create organization energy is not enough and intelligence is always necessary. Their relation is not symmetric, while intelligence uses and organizes energy, energy neither uses/organizes nor, to greater reason, produces intelligence. The 2nd law rules any system, the natural and the artificial.niwrad
March 11, 2015
March
03
Mar
11
11
2015
02:16 AM
2
02
16
AM
PST
No. It’s a valid response to questions about the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
No. It is a rhetorical game that does absolutely nothing to answer the issue being raised. The alleged thermodynamic "system" is whatever we define it as. We can define it as the Earth-Sun system if you like. There. Now it is closed. Or we can define it as the galaxy. Now it is good and closed. But it doesn't make one iota of difference. Again, I would not necessarily approach the issue as some have, but the substantive questions being raised are about how energy is used, how it acts, what is required to make a functional physical system. Simply adding more energy doesn't even address the point. So anyone saying "Well, the Earth is an open system," not only is not providing an answer. They didn't even understand the question.
Having a source of energy is a necessary (due to the 2nd law), but not sufficient condition, for how life could arise through purely natural processes on the early Earth.
Agreed. But again, having energy is not much of an issue. You can have all the energy you want -- Sun, volcanic vents, tide pools, radioactive decay, wind and waves, deep sea vents, lightning strikes -- pick any form you want, in any amount you want. Let the energy pour on in to your "open" system. Now how does life emerge? Having enough energy is not a problem. So the whole "open system" response is singularly unhelpful.Eric Anderson
March 10, 2015
March
03
Mar
10
10
2015
08:58 PM
8
08
58
PM
PST
The original question did not have enough information therefore I had to make assumptions exactly what is included in this thought experiment and what is not. My answer is certainly correct in terms of the conditions I have described. You asked specifically about the earth, and not about the earth plus "cold of space". Anyway, let's consider a boundary at some distance of earth's surface which now allows heat transfer. You want a heat transfer from the inside of the boundary to "the cold of space" and (here is another assumption of mine) no energy transfer from the outside of the boundary to the inside such as star light, microwave background radiation, meteorites and the like. The change of entropy for reversible processes is: dS = dQ / T, where S is the entropy, Q is the heat and T is the temperature. The change of heat is negative (heat is removed). Since no negative values for T are possible (T is expressed in degrees Kelvin), it follows that also dS will be negative in all possible cases. The change of entropy is negative, therefore the entropy of the earth will decrease. Again, this answer is valid only with respect of the conditions mentioned above. If we allow starlight to shine on our earth, it is possible that it will be heated so much over time that the entropy increases.eng
March 10, 2015
March
03
Mar
10
10
2015
08:49 PM
8
08
49
PM
PST
The 2nd law of statistical thermodynamics states that in a closed system any natural transformation goes towards the more probable states.
And how do we know it's a natural transformation? Because it goes towards the more probable states.Mung
March 10, 2015
March
03
Mar
10
10
2015
07:17 PM
7
07
17
PM
PST
Zachriel, Yes. Although eng came up with an incorrect answer, he actually shows an understanding of basic thermodynamics that I have not seen previously in an ID-proponent, assuming, of course, that he is one. eng, In your second scenario -- the Oort cloud one -- (your first scenario is, I think you'll agree, rather nonsensical), has the entropy of the earth increased or decreased? And as a follow-up question, what is it about the earth's environment that allows such local decreases in entropy?DNA_Jock
March 10, 2015
March
03
Mar
10
10
2015
04:04 PM
4
04
04
PM
PST
dna_jock: If the sun magically vanished tomorrow, in the following year would the entropy of the earth increase or decrease? Why? eng: the whole system has reached maximum entropy The question isn't the entropy of "the whole system", but the entropy of the Earth, which will radiate its heat into the cold of space.Zachriel
March 10, 2015
March
03
Mar
10
10
2015
03:35 PM
3
03
35
PM
PST
Joe @60:
I see you are ignorant of science. To get to the design inference necessity and chance are eliminated FIRST. We would never get to the design inference if you and yours could support the claims of your position.
Well said. This is an important point that should be made frequently on UD.Mapou
March 10, 2015
March
03
Mar
10
10
2015
03:28 PM
3
03
28
PM
PST
ChartSil: Try living without anything that was either directly or indirectly produced by the sun. Boy could I use some help in teasing out meaning or logic from that mishmash. But I'll try on my own. The sun creates ions, I think I could live without them, but could be mistaken. The sun creates radio frequency energy, I can live without that. The sun creates heavy elements which cannot be mined, so I can live without those. And actually almost all of the inert matter that I cannot live without did not come from the sun, and the oceans surely did not, nor the elements in biological material. So really can someone tell me with what contributor is challenging sleazy people? The sense and logic of the challenge escapes me, honestly. Not a creationist here nor sleazy as I have never been accused of either. Not even the most ignorant or sleezily (sic) dishonest creationist can weasel around this one. Wondering if the contributor often thinks of "ignorant or sleezily (sic) dishonest creationist(s)" or encounters them. Wondering how many contributor has met. Also wondering why it would take "weasel(ing) around" to weasel around previously noted mishmash, with which I think a puzzled weasel might not bother. Even as contributor seems to be proud of some kind of profundity there.groovamos
March 10, 2015
March
03
Mar
10
10
2015
03:05 PM
3
03
05
PM
PST
Isn't it lucky that the universe started out with a vast store of highly-ordered energy? I wonder why that was.Collin
March 10, 2015
March
03
Mar
10
10
2015
03:04 PM
3
03
04
PM
PST
CHartsil:
Argument from ignorance and burden shifting.
Yes, yours is an argument from ignorance and all you can do is try to shift the burden.
By that logic, all you have to do is produce a model of design and evolution is falsified.
I see you are ignorant of science. To get to the design inference necessity and chance are eliminated FIRST. We would never get to the design inference if you and yours could support the claims of your position. See parsimony, Occam's Razor and Newton's four rules of scientific investigation.Joe
March 10, 2015
March
03
Mar
10
10
2015
02:44 PM
2
02
44
PM
PST
@dna_jock If the sun magically vanished tomorrow, in the following year would the entropy of the earth increase or decrease? Why? It will increase. Place a boundary around the earth, let's say at a height of 10km above the surface. No energy is allowed to cross this boundary, nothing gets in, nothing gets out. The heat from hot earth core will then distribute evenly to the earth crust and the atmosphere, which means that the temperature of the earth core will decrease from (let's say) 6000 °C to 3000 °C and the temperature of the earth crust and the atmosphere will increase from 20 °C to 3000 °C. (These values are of course just guesses to illustrate my point. It will also take an infinite amount of time to reach that state) Whatever the actual temperatures will be, it is clear that there will be no temperature difference anywhere after some time. The system has reached its maximum entropy. The same is true if we place the boundary at a much larger distance, let's say far outside the solar system. In this case the thermal energy of the earth's core would radiate away and heat up the ice in the Oort cloud. I assume the total mass of the Oort cloud is much larger than the earth, if this is the case then the objects in the Oort cloud would heat up somewhat but the earth would cool down to the temperature of the Oort cloud objects. Again, the whole system has reached maximum entropy.eng
March 10, 2015
March
03
Mar
10
10
2015
02:40 PM
2
02
40
PM
PST
1 6 7 8 9 10

Leave a Reply