Al Fresco

It is common for evolutionists to argue that the 2nd law of thermodynamics (2-LOT) does not strictly pertain to the development of more complex biological structures and metabolic systems because living entities represent "open" systems into which energy can be imported. I have used the same argument myself in dealing with creationists who raise the 2-LOT as an objection to evolution.

Regarding this matter, a creationist recently referred me to an AIG website which contains a statement from a Dr. John Ross which reads as follows:

"… there are no known violations of the second law of thermodynamics. Ordinarily the second law is stated for isolated systems, but the second law applies equally well to open systems. … There is somehow associated with the field of far-from-equilibrium thermodynamics the notion that the second law of thermodynamics fails for such systems. It is important to make sure that this error does not perpetuate itself."

Can anyone enlighten me on who this Dr. John Ross is and whether his statement, if legitimate, invalidates the "open system" argument that we evolutionists often use to dismiss the creationist claims about the 2-LOT?

Jinto

I have no idea who this John Ross is, but I think he should be aware that if the second law of thermodynamics actually applied to open systems, then he's busy violating it by typing that sentence.

Undercurrent

This is a little rhetorical game that the creationists play. The traditional (much abridged) statement of the second law of thermodynamics for closed systems is "the entropy of a system is always increasing". Creationists say the evolutionary model has entropy decreasing, therefore evolution is false.

The version of the second law for open systems is "the entropy of a system, plus the entropy shed the system to the environment, is always increasing". Now it applies to open systems, but it doesn't say what the creationists want it to say.

Creationists want the statement for closed systems to apply to open systems. It doesn't. So they rhetorically obfucate the fact that it doesn't.

Dr.GH

You might take a look at the following and judge accordingly:

The second law of thermodynamics and evolution
http://www.2ndlaw.com/evolution.html

and,

Entropy and Evolution
http://www.acchurch.com/reading/evolution.php

Note that the second link is to a Christian Church site

caravelair

doesn't AIG suggest the 2nd law argument as one that should NOT be used when debating against evolutionists? i'm pretty sure it's a part of this list:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home...q/dont_use.asp

if this "john ross" character is implying that the 2nd law applies to all systems, i'd sure like to ask him how he developed from 2 cells into an adult human. the thermodynamic processes of evolution are no different than those that allow one to grow.

Jesus Tap-Dancin' Christ

He's lying and he knows it.

All the second law states is that in a system where no additional energy can enter, the amount of unusable energy (entropy) can never decrease.

There are no violations of this because the only instnace of this occuring is when enrgy is added.

If you add a large amount of energy to any system, you can decrease the entropy of that system. Example: Bose-Einstein condensates. It takes a honking amount of energy to reduce that to a single quantum state. But in the end, that system (the helium) has far less entropy (namely none (or close to it)) than it started with (being a gas tends to have large amounts of entropy associated with it).

Al Fresco

Thanks to all for the input and links to the informative websites.

I particularly like the explanation based on the different statements that the 2-LOT makes regarding open and closed systems. I think it might even be possible to get this rather straightforward concept across to the better educated creationists (although I may be deluding myself). In the context of my rather rudimentary understanding of thermodynamics, this approach seems to me to offer a legitimate way of removing Dr. Ross' statement as an impediment to evolutionary processes.

Thanks again.

ageofreason2000

OK, sorry to muddy the waters.

However my take on the 2nd law of thermodynamics is that matter (molecules) constantly interacts with other matter (molecules) and when heat is applied the nuclear bonds change and as a consequence some molecules are lost to the emptiness of space. Eventually after trillions upon trillions of years all molecules will be so far apart from each other that they can no longer interact with each other and are just speeding of into the nothingness of space (Entropy).

To me this seems acceptable.

However Evolution only takes billions of years (by definition as the earth is only some 5 billion years old the production of life must have occurred in this time).

As a trillion is 1,000 billion there is plenty of time for life to be created and be extinguished and be created and be extinguished, etc. before the 2nd law kicks in and stop all molecules interacting with other molecules.

Using the 2nd law of thermodynamics as a reason against the possibility of evolution is thus, in my considered and reasoned opinion, utter bollocks!

The above is all IMHO and, as a non-scientist, I could be way off the mark, if so please show me the error of my ways (but be gentle I’m a bleeder).

Age

Valentine Pontifex

The Second Law of Thermodynamics applies to all systems.

The statement of the second law as it applies to closed systems (that entropy can never decrease) applies only to closed systems.

About all the information anyone needs on this subject can be found by reading the articles or following the links from

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo.html

ageofreason2000

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Valentine Pontifex
[B]The Second Law of Thermodynamics applies to all systems.[/i]

What ALL systems, thats a rather grand statement, define ALL systems please.

The statement of the second law as it applies to closed systems (that entropy can never decrease) applies only to closed systems.

As in our known universe?
As in a universe that has a fixed amount of matter?
As in the Entropy that can only arise through a universe we can measure and interact with?
Or do you mean something else?


Age