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
"If someone could just demonstrate that blind and undirected chemical processes can produce a living organism from matter and energy ID would be falsified" Argument from ignorance and burden shifting. By that logic, all you have to do is produce a model of design and evolution is falsified.CHartsil
March 10, 2015
March
03
Mar
10
10
2015
12:41 PM
12
12
41
PM
PDT
Ok, to my knowledge UV rays pass through the water, but maybe this depends also on the frequencies and the depth of the water. Anyway this is a detail that doesn't change much the message I wanted to send. If on the ground all life forms die, then macroevolution would have to remake all its work from the sea. :)niwrad
March 10, 2015
March
03
Mar
10
10
2015
12:04 PM
12
12
04
PM
PDT
niwrad
About energy as double-edge sword, consider e.g. that too much ultra-violet radiation from the Sun would destroy all life on Earth.
How would an increase in UV light destroy deep-sea hydrothermal vent communities?franklin
March 10, 2015
March
03
Mar
10
10
2015
11:24 AM
11
11
24
AM
PDT
"Can you elucidate?" I can, and I have. Now, about my questions...DNA_Jock
March 10, 2015
March
03
Mar
10
10
2015
10:58 AM
10
10
58
AM
PDT
About energy as double-edge sword, consider e.g. that too much ultra-violet radiation from the Sun would destroy all life on Earth.niwrad
March 10, 2015
March
03
Mar
10
10
2015
10:51 AM
10
10
51
AM
PDT
Box: Anyway we seem to agree that undirected energy doesn’t cause organizational order.
DNA_Jock: No, I don’t agree.
So you hold that undirected energy causes organizational order. This is a fundamental claim, all other matters that we have discussed pale in comparison. Can you elucidate?Box
March 10, 2015
March
03
Mar
10
10
2015
10:35 AM
10
10
35
AM
PDT
Eric Anderson: Again, I am not sure I would formulate the issue quite as has been formulated in the OP, but the basic issues raised deserve careful consideration and they have most certainly not been addressed and answered by abiogenesis proponents.
Absolutely. I for one would very much welcome your version of the argument. The absence of a organizational power, the destructive nature of the 2nd law, it's all foundational to ID. Personally I hold that this topic cannot get enough attention.Box
March 10, 2015
March
03
Mar
10
10
2015
10:08 AM
10
10
08
AM
PDT
Box wrote:
Anyway we seem to agree that undirected energy doesn’t cause organizational order.
No, I don't agree. I did agree with your statement that
Undirected energy doesn’t explain organizational order.
I hope you can see the difference. Please try to be precise. Undirected energy plus chemistry can produce organizational order.
From this I gather that you are saying that the 2nd law is not a destructive power wrt to organization. Present your case.
Ok. The direction of all chemical reactions is determined by the 2LoT. All chemistry (including biochemistry) depends on the 2LoT, including those reactions that produce "organizational order". Everything, even computer manufacture, depends on the 2LoT.
Note that you are only responding to the second part of the argument of the OP (as I understand it): (1). materialism cannot explain organization. (2). moreover the second law is a destructive power wrt organization.
As I understand the argument of the OP, it is that "energy cannot change the situation of the 2nd law: energy cannot create organization, which always implies highly improbable states." So the premise is rather obviously wrong. Why, given the hopelessness of the premise, would I bother attacking the rather vague conclusion? I am happy to stipulate that in the long term the 2LoT will be fatal to all life. But in the short term, it is absolutely necessary. P.S. I note that, as expected, you have not answered any of my questions @34.DNA_Jock
March 10, 2015
March
03
Mar
10
10
2015
10:04 AM
10
10
04
AM
PDT
nirwad @ 8 -
timothya #3 “in average”? Do systems break down “in average”? No. *All* systems crash. *Zero* systems self-repair or self-organize.
So how come you're alive? Were you spontaneously created in your present form? Have you never been injured?Bob O'H
March 10, 2015
March
03
Mar
10
10
2015
09:57 AM
9
09
57
AM
PDT
Eric Anderson: “Earth is an open system” mantra is (i) little more than a rhetorical game, No. It's a valid response to questions about the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Eric Anderson: and (ii) utterly unhelpful in answering the question of how life could arise through purely natural processes on the early Earth. 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.Zachriel
March 10, 2015
March
03
Mar
10
10
2015
09:48 AM
9
09
48
AM
PDT
Without commenting on Niwrad's particular formulation or argument, I would simply point out that the "Earth is an open system" mantra is (i) little more than a rhetorical game, and (ii) utterly unhelpful in answering the question of how life could arise through purely natural processes on the early Earth. Again, I am not sure I would formulate the issue quite as has been formulated in the OP, but the basic issues raised deserve careful consideration and they have most certainly not been addressed and answered by abiogenesis proponents.Eric Anderson
March 10, 2015
March
03
Mar
10
10
2015
09:29 AM
9
09
29
AM
PDT
As well, it is now found that 'non-local', beyond space-time matter-energy, Quantum entanglement/information 'holds' DNA (and proteins) together:
Quantum Information/Entanglement In DNA – short video https://vimeo.com/92405752 Quantum entanglement holds together life’s blueprint - 2010 Excerpt: When the researchers analysed the DNA without its helical structure, they found that the electron clouds were not entangled. But when they incorporated DNA’s helical structure into the model, they saw that the electron clouds of each base pair became entangled with those of its neighbours. “If you didn’t have entanglement, then DNA would have a simple flat structure, and you would never get the twist that seems to be important to the functioning of DNA,” says team member Vlatko Vedral of the University of Oxford. http://neshealthblog.wordpress.com/2010/09/15/quantum-entanglement-holds-together-lifes-blueprint/ The DNA Mystery: Scientists Stumped By “Telepathic” Abilities – Sept, 2009 Scientists are reporting evidence that contrary to our current beliefs about what is possible, intact double-stranded DNA has the “amazing” ability to recognize similarities in other DNA strands from a distance. Somehow they are able to identify one another, and the tiny bits of genetic material tend to congregate with similar DNA. The recognition of similar sequences in DNA’s chemical subunits, occurs in a way unrecognized by science. There is no known reason why the DNA is able to combine the way it does, and from a current theoretical standpoint this feat should be chemically impossible. http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2009/09/the-dna-mystery-scientists-baffled-by-telepathic-abilities.html
Moreover, classical 'digital' information is found to be a subset of ‘non-local' (i.e. beyond space and time) quantum entanglement/information by the following method:
Quantum knowledge cools computers: New understanding of entropy – June 2011 Excerpt: No heat, even a cooling effect; In the case of perfect classical knowledge of a computer memory (zero entropy), deletion of the data requires in theory no energy at all. The researchers prove that “more than complete knowledge” from quantum entanglement with the memory (negative entropy) leads to deletion of the data being accompanied by removal of heat from the computer and its release as usable energy. This is the physical meaning of negative entropy. Renner emphasizes, however, “This doesn’t mean that we can develop a perpetual motion machine.” The data can only be deleted once, so there is no possibility to continue to generate energy. The process also destroys the entanglement, and it would take an input of energy to reset the system to its starting state. The equations are consistent with what’s known as the second law of thermodynamics: the idea that the entropy of the universe can never decrease. Vedral says “We’re working on the edge of the second law. If you go any further, you will break it.” http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/06/110601134300.htm
,,,And here is the evidence that quantum information is in fact ‘conserved’;,,,
Quantum no-hiding theorem experimentally confirmed for first time Excerpt: In the classical world, information can be copied and deleted at will. In the quantum world, however, the conservation of quantum information means that information cannot be created nor destroyed. This concept stems from two fundamental theorems of quantum mechanics: the no-cloning theorem and the no-deleting theorem. A third and related theorem, called the no-hiding theorem, addresses information loss in the quantum world. According to the no-hiding theorem, if information is missing from one system (which may happen when the system interacts with the environment), then the information is simply residing somewhere else in the Universe; in other words, the missing information cannot be hidden in the correlations between a system and its environment. http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-03-quantum-no-hiding-theorem-experimentally.html Quantum no-deleting theorem Excerpt: A stronger version of the no-cloning theorem and the no-deleting theorem provide permanence to quantum information. To create a copy one must import the information from some part of the universe and to delete a state one needs to export it to another part of the universe where it will continue to exist. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_no-deleting_theorem#Consequence The superiority of conserved quantum information over conserved classical information https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/essay-contest-do-life-and-living-forms-present-a-problem-for-materialism/#comment-551269
Besides providing direct empirical falsification of neo-Darwinian claims as to the generation of information from a material basis, the implication of finding 'non-local', beyond space and time, and ‘conserved’ quantum information in molecular biology on a massive scale is fairly, and pleasantly, obvious:
Does Quantum Biology Support A Quantum Soul? – Stuart Hameroff - video (notes in description) http://vimeo.com/29895068
Verse and Music:
John 1:1-4 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. Matthew 16:26 For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul? Kari Jobe - I Am Not Alone (Live) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bfveawSAHJA
bornagain77
March 10, 2015
March
03
Mar
10
10
2015
09:07 AM
9
09
07
AM
PDT
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 Aging Process - 85 years in 40 seconds - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A91Fwf_sMhk Rabbit decomposition time-lapse (higher resolution) - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C6sFP_7Vezg
In regards to the whole dissolving into fragments at the moment of death, Talbott rightly asks:
"What power holds off that moment — precisely for a lifetime, and not a moment longer?" Stephen L. Talbott The Unbearable Wholeness of Beings - Stephen L. Talbott Excerpt: Virtually the same collection of molecules exists in the canine cells during the moments immediately before and after death. But after the fateful transition no one will any longer think of genes as being regulated, nor will anyone refer to normal or proper chromosome functioning. No molecules will be said to guide other molecules to specific targets, and no molecules will be carrying signals, which is just as well because there will be no structures recognizing signals. Code, information, and communication, in their biological sense, will have disappeared from the scientist’s vocabulary. ,,, the question, rather, is why things don’t fall completely apart — as they do, in fact, at the moment of death. What power holds off that moment — precisely for a lifetime, and not a moment longer? Despite the countless processes going on in the cell, and despite the fact that each process might be expected to “go its own way” according to the myriad factors impinging on it from all directions, the actual result is quite different. Rather than becoming progressively disordered in their mutual relations (as indeed happens after death, when the whole dissolves into separate fragments), the processes hold together in a larger unity. http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-unbearable-wholeness-of-beings - moment of death - picture http://cdn-4.spiritscienceandmetaphysics.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/harvardd-2.jpg
In the following paper, Andy C. McIntosh, professor of thermodynamics and combustion theory at the University of Leeds, holds that non-material information is what is constraining the cell to be so far out of thermodynamic equilibrium. Moreover, Dr. McIntosh holds that regarding information as independent of energy and matter 'resolves the thermodynamic issues and invokes the correct paradigm for understanding the vital area of thermodynamic/organisational interactions'.
Information and Thermodynamics in Living Systems - Andy C. McIntosh - 2013 Excerpt: ,,, information is in fact non-material and that the coded information systems (such as, but not restricted to the coding of DNA in all living systems) is not defined at all by the biochemistry or physics of the molecules used to store the data. Rather than matter and energy defining the information sitting on the polymers of life, this approach posits that the reverse is in fact the case. Information has its definition outside the matter and energy on which it sits, and furthermore constrains it to operate in a highly non-equilibrium thermodynamic environment. This proposal resolves the thermodynamic issues and invokes the correct paradigm for understanding the vital area of thermodynamic/organisational interactions, which despite the efforts from alternative paradigms has not given a satisfactory explanation of the way information in systems operates.,,, http://www.worldscientific.com/doi/abs/10.1142/9789814508728_0008
Here is a recent video by Dr. Giem, that gets the main points of Dr. McIntosh’s paper over very well for the lay person:
Biological Information – Information and Thermodynamics in Living Systems 11-22-2014 by Paul Giem (A. McIntosh) – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IR_r6mFdwQM
Dr. McIntosh's contention that 'non-material information' must be constraining life to be so far out of thermodynamic equilibrium has been borne out empirically. Classical Information in the cell has now been physically measured and is shown to correlate to the thermodynamics of the cell:
Maxwell’s demon demonstration (knowledge of a particle’s position) turns information into energy – November 2010 Excerpt: Scientists in Japan are the first to have succeeded in converting information into free energy in an experiment that verifies the “Maxwell demon” thought experiment devised in 1867.,,, In Maxwell’s thought experiment the demon creates a temperature difference simply from information about the gas molecule temperatures and without transferring any energy directly to them.,,, Until now, demonstrating the conversion of information to energy has been elusive, but University of Tokyo physicist Masaki Sano and colleagues have succeeded in demonstrating it in a nano-scale experiment. In a paper published in Nature Physics they describe how they coaxed a Brownian particle to travel upwards on a “spiral-staircase-like” potential energy created by an electric field solely on the basis of information on its location. As the particle traveled up the staircase it gained energy from moving to an area of higher potential, and the team was able to measure precisely how much energy had been converted from information. http://www.physorg.com/news/2010-11-maxwell-demon-energy.html Demonic device converts information to energy – 2010 Excerpt: “This is a beautiful experimental demonstration that information has a thermodynamic content,” says Christopher Jarzynski, a statistical chemist at the University of Maryland in College Park. In 1997, Jarzynski formulated an equation to define the amount of energy that could theoretically be converted from a unit of information2; the work by Sano and his team has now confirmed this equation. “This tells us something new about how the laws of thermodynamics work on the microscopic scale,” says Jarzynski. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=demonic-device-converts-inform
bornagain77
March 10, 2015
March
03
Mar
10
10
2015
09:06 AM
9
09
06
AM
PDT
If someone could just demonstrate that blind and undirected chemical processes can produce a living organism from matter and energy ID would be falsified, along with all arguments from the 2LoT. However we know no one will ever do such a thing because it cannot be done.Joe
March 10, 2015
March
03
Mar
10
10
2015
08:38 AM
8
08
38
AM
PDT
DNA_Jock,
Box: Undirected energy doesn’t explain organizational order.
DNA_Jock: I agree. But it doesn’t preclude it either.
Okay, with the side note that obviously, in many cases it does; hurricanes, explosions and so forth (see OP). Anyway we seem to agree that undirected energy doesn’t cause organizational order. So how does materialism explain the organizational order that we witness on earth?
Box: Materialism cannot offer us an organizing power – only destructive powers like the second law. Now, if you have a substantial counter-argument I suggest that you present it. I refuse to get side-tracked by your semantic games.
DNA_Jock: If you have an argument that doesn’t rest on your inability to understand 2LoT, present it. I’m not the one playing semantic games.
From this I gather that you are saying that the 2nd law is not a destructive power wrt to organization. Present your case. - - - Note that you are only responding to the second part of the argument of the OP (as I understand it): (1). materialism cannot explain organization. (2). moreover the second law is a destructive power wrt organization.Box
March 10, 2015
March
03
Mar
10
10
2015
08:19 AM
8
08
19
AM
PDT
These discussions of entropy are prone to mistakes and sweeping generalizations. These have been pointed out so frequently, that it seems like UD is undertaking some effort to create a special definition of the second law for itself. I would encourage you to take a look at say, MITs free online courses in Thermodynamic. Here is a demo on self organization: Seal a solution of some protein in a vial. Entropy of the sealed system favors the folded (organized and functional) state of the protein. Now leave the vial outside on a hot day. Energy across the boundary (heat) yields the unfolded (denatured) form of the protein. Cool it back off, and the protein will spontaneously fold. In a second vial, I could seal some plant extract. It will produce ordered carbohydrates only with sunlight. So energy is both ordering and disordering? Is the second law so easily violated, or is your understanding of it wrong? Rethink them before declaring evolution dead.REC
March 10, 2015
March
03
Mar
10
10
2015
07:55 AM
7
07
55
AM
PDT
DNA_Jock Thank you also!:)Levan
March 10, 2015
March
03
Mar
10
10
2015
07:50 AM
7
07
50
AM
PDT
Every disorganized cloud of particles organizes into a flat disk, that's why you have flat accretion disks, Saturn rings, solar system, dwarf planets, flat galaxies..all this is possible by force of angular momentum, which initially in the cloud of particles is undirected - every particle in the cloud moves every which way, but over time conservation of angular momentum and the need to reduce the potential energy creates a flat disk. So you have order from chaos created with initial undirected force.Me_Think
March 10, 2015
March
03
Mar
10
10
2015
07:42 AM
7
07
42
AM
PDT
Levan, Thank you for your honesty.DNA_Jock
March 10, 2015
March
03
Mar
10
10
2015
07:36 AM
7
07
36
AM
PDT
Box wrote:
DNA_Jock, Undirected energy doesn’t explain organizational order.
I agree. But it doesn’t preclude it either.
Materialism cannot offer us an organizing power – only destructive powers like the second law. Now, if you have a substantial counter-argument I suggest that you present it. I refuse to get side-tracked by your semantic games.
If you have an argument that doesn’t rest on your inability to understand 2LoT, present it. I’m not the one playing semantic games, my dear. My “if the sun disappeared” question is merely an opportunity for you to demonstrate a basic understanding of the 2LoT. Without that, there can’t be much argument about what 2LoT implies.DNA_Jock
March 10, 2015
March
03
Mar
10
10
2015
07:31 AM
7
07
31
AM
PDT
Yes Jock, I think that there is a creative power behind and only gravity, weak, strong and electro are not enough for all these. Perhaps all four forces are only the parts of something more powerful. I can only speculate about this force but the results are there. SatRings? Perhaps... We even don`t know how precisely they emerged. There are only vague conjectures how could it be possible.Levan
March 10, 2015
March
03
Mar
10
10
2015
07:29 AM
7
07
29
AM
PDT
DNA_Jock, Undirected energy doesn’t explain organizational order. Materialism cannot offer us an organizing power – only destructive powers like the second law. Now, if you have a substantial counter-argument I suggest that you present it. I refuse to get side-tracked by your semantic distractions.Box
March 10, 2015
March
03
Mar
10
10
2015
07:19 AM
7
07
19
AM
PDT
Levan, So your position is that Saturn's rings must be designed because we don't have an answer to the question "why is gravity?". ASSF !DNA_Jock
March 10, 2015
March
03
Mar
10
10
2015
07:15 AM
7
07
15
AM
PDT
Nice try Timothya. It would be my (desperate) attempt as well if I were arguing for your position. Like you I would know that it doesn't make any sense, but there is simply nothing else - semantics and multiverse scenario's aside.Box
March 10, 2015
March
03
Mar
10
10
2015
07:11 AM
7
07
11
AM
PDT
Box wrote:
Okay, “on average” spaceships, libraries, computers and brains “tend to” not spontaneously self-assemble from a pile of rubble. Happy now?
Well, I am rather amused, but you have avoided my point by changing the subject. Niwrad made a statement about 2LoT:
The 2nd law of statistical thermodynamics states that in a closed system any natural transformation goes towards the more probable states.
Do you agree that this statement needs a qualifier in order to be true? And would you be willing to answer may question: If the sun magically vanished tomorrow, in the following year would the entropy of the earth increase or decrease? Why?DNA_Jock
March 10, 2015
March
03
Mar
10
10
2015
07:10 AM
7
07
10
AM
PDT
Joe: March 10, 2015 at 6:24 am "Levan, duh, those other planets either receive too much energy or too little energy from the Sun. Jupiter created a big red spot and Saturn has its pretty rings, after all. :) [sarcasm]" Oh, yeah, I always forget the accident! The Earth is accidentally in Goldi lock zone and some elements accidentally met there and learned how to absorb the energy and accidentally created cells and organisms and once upon a time accidentally created the brain, don`t to mention the things made by accident on the way to us: limbs, ears, eyes, consciousness etc. The problem is not how much energy these planets receive, -you know that some organisms don`t need the solar energy at all,- but why do we have life here.Levan
March 10, 2015
March
03
Mar
10
10
2015
07:04 AM
7
07
04
AM
PDT
timothya In statistical mechanics, when they speak of "systems", speak of something with many atoms. The 2nd law applies to them. A sub-set of them is composed of organized systems (on which the law applies too). Your proton cannot be defined "system" in this sense, so it cannot be a counter-example against the ID argument from the 2nd law.niwrad
March 10, 2015
March
03
Mar
10
10
2015
07:01 AM
7
07
01
AM
PDT
DNA_Jock: "So Saturn’s rings must be designed?" Why not? If we think about the structuring process from the beginning of the Universe to now(chaos-particles-atoms-molecules-cell-organism-brain-technology-.../chaos-nebula-stars-systems-galaxies-clusters-...) we must suppose that there is a constructing power which creates it all. If you think that our beloved gravity made these rings then please explain what the gravity is and why it is here. And please don`t argue with Higgs etc. These theories explain "how" but not "why"Levan
March 10, 2015
March
03
Mar
10
10
2015
06:47 AM
6
06
47
AM
PDT
If anyone is interested, the best experimental estimate of the average decay rate of a proton to a neutron (the least energetic path) is somewhere between 1 in 10**30 and 1 in 10**31 years. In other words, somewhat longer than the best current estimate of the age of our current universe. Evidently not all systems crash. Evidence contradicts Niwrad's claim.timothya
March 10, 2015
March
03
Mar
10
10
2015
06:40 AM
6
06
40
AM
PDT
organization shows always two different aspects: power and control
There has to be control in an organized system. The order formed by protons, neutrons and electrons is not organization as it is defined here.Silver Asiatic
March 10, 2015
March
03
Mar
10
10
2015
06:27 AM
6
06
27
AM
PDT
1 7 8 9 10

Leave a Reply