Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Hawkingfan · 10-29-2002, 11:48 AM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Jerry Love:
[QB]Are you asking for the false argument you will be presented with by the Christian?

Yes. And thank you for your answer.

Hawkingfan · 10-29-2002, 12:52 PM

I had an idea in favor of evolution that was not mentioned in the sites sent to me. Since I am no scientist, this may border on goobledygook, but anyway...I thought it interesting that Hawking described entropy in reference to "the arrow of time". Entropy increases with time (fowards or backwards, if we could make time go backwards entropy would still increase, he says). He says that at the singularity of the big bang, the universe was infinitely small and infinitely hot. Also, he states that time did not exist prior to the big bang. These statements are true. This would mean that the total entropy of the infinitely small and hot mass was infinitely small as well (my conclusion) because the universe was not capable of being in a more "ordered" state than it was and time did not exist yet. This means that anything was possible (thus throwing out the idea of a "miracle"). But there is a chance that the property of entropy did not exist at all until after the big bang. However, time had just barely started after the big bang so entropy would have been extremely low, thus allowing for the natural development of the universe.

Liam · 10-29-2002, 03:09 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Hawkingfan:
The second law of thermodynamics states that entropy increases with time. In preparing for a friendly debate with a Christian, I would like to know everyone's thoughts on the following subject: Does the second law of thermodynamics prove that evolution could not have happened? Or in the event that evolution did occur, does the opinion that entropy had to of been "suspended" in order for evolution to take place prove that there is a "God" whose "unseen hand" made it happen?
I will be taking the position of the non-believer (of which I am).

Evening "Fan of Hawking"

It's late, and Am heddin fu ma bid.. but any doubters of 2TD can usually be persuaded (if such a thing is possible) by the words RUST and SNOWFLAKE. Give it a go.. further information available on request.. 'cos I'm knackered (00:20 UK time) <img src="graemlins/boohoo.gif" border="0" alt="[Boo Hoo]" /> Finally got to use that one

G'night all

Liam

[ October 29, 2002: Message edited by: Liam ]

ohitstodd · 10-29-2002, 03:57 PM

Alternatively, you could just toss 'em an ice cube.

HF, if you're looking for a good non-scientist explanation of entropy, as well as a rather fun read..try <a href="http://www.svsu.edu/~slaven/Entropy.html" target="_blank">Dave Slaven's Entropy Page</a>. Microstates and macrostates are discussed in an entertaining manner.

It's fun and educational

Cheers,

Todd

RufusAtticus · 10-29-2002, 05:13 PM

Here is my stock response:

Any person who seriously thinks that 2LoT prevents evolution doesn�t understand either physics, biology or both. No real process can happen that violates the second law of thermodynamics. Since evolution does happen (see reference 1), it cannot violate 2LoT. The second law of thermodynamics states:

Quote:

When real (irreversible) processes occur, the degree of disorder in the system plus the surroundings increases. [emphasis mine] When a process occurs in an isolated system, the state of the system becomes more disordered. The measure of disorder in a system is called entropy S. . . . [In other words] the entropy of the Universe increases in all real processes. (p698, reference 2)

Biological systems are in concordance with this because they use energy from their environment to survive and reproduce. The local reduction of entropy in living organisms is offset by an increase of entropy in the rest of the Universe. (The sun and the heat generated by biochemical reactions accomplish this.) If the second law prevented evolution, it would also prevent life from existing at all.

Quote:

A self organizing system of completely non-intellegent non-living cells eventually into a highly ordered scient being is a very unscientific "faith."

That's neither unscientific or faith, as any ObGyn can tell you. It takes just nine months (sometimes less) to transform a single cell into a living, breathing, scient human being. And how many mutations are need to accomplish that? Zero. I guess babies must violate 2LoT too. :roll:

1. Futyuma D (1997) Evolutionary Biology, 3rd edition. Sinauer Assoc.
2. Serway R A & Beichner R J (2000) Physics for Scientists and Engineers with Modern Physics, 5th edition. Saunders College Publishing

Randy · 10-29-2002, 05:33 PM

Just ask this question

"What specific step required for evolution is prevented by the second law of thermodynamics under any possible conditions?"

Require a specific answer and not just some handwaving generalization about increasing "order". For a process to violate the second law some step in that process must violate the second law, so what is it? It seems simple enough. Just calculate the entropy of the system undergoing the evolutionary change and its surroundings(don't forget the surroundings) before the step and after the step and show that the total entropy of the system and its surroundings is lower after the step. I first saw a variation of this question posted by Tim Thompson on OCW back when we were debating the infamous Jeptha. I have never seen any creationist come up with a specific answer because there is none.

Here is an interesting page by Frank Lambert on disorder and entropy

<a href="http://jchemed.chem.wisc.edu/Journal/Issues/1999/Oct/abs1385.html" target="_blank">http://jchemed.chem.wisc.edu/Journal/Issues/1999/Oct/abs1385.html</a>

And here are two pages by creationist who understand that the second law does not prevent evolution. One is by Doug Craigen who wrote a page that Dr GH linked to.

<a href="http://www.dctech.com/physics/features/0800.php" target="_blank">http://www.dctech.com/physics/features/0800.php</a>

<a href="http://members.aol.com/steamdoc/writings/thermo.html" target="_blank">http://members.aol.com/steamdoc/writings/thermo.html</a>

Your other option is to call him a sadistic equestrian necrophile (he's beating a dead horse) but that may not go over too well.

Randy

Dark Jedi · 10-29-2002, 11:18 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by ohitstodd:
Alternatively, you could just toss 'em an ice cube.

<img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" />

I wonder if they'd get it, though.
<img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />

Peter Soderqvist · 10-30-2002, 02:11 AM

TO HAWKINGFAN

Quote:

You wrote October 29, 2002 12:30 PM: Thank you. After reading the above sites, I agree that it is important to know exactly when the 2nd law applies. It does not apply to open systems where material or energy is being traded with some outside system (i.e. the earth receives energy from the sun). But just playing the advocate, is the universe entirely made up of open systems? And isn't this only pertaining to a small scale "locally" as the site says? Why on a "large scale" does entropy increase? Another good point made at the site is that increased disorder is not equal in meaning to increased entropy.

Soderqvist1: The second law of thermodynamics has said nothing about order, open, or closed system, it says only: The entropy increases in the universe! Mainly because the universe expands, and its fuels in the suns, etc, is burning up itself: Note that, thermal imbalance is a state of low entropy, the opposite of thermal equilibrium (maximum entropy), since the sun is a hot spot in the cold sky, and constitute energy supply of relatively few photons (low entropy) to our plants, and re-radiating it in a high-entropy form (comparatively many infra-red photons) out to the outer space, as waste products! Our feelings of hunger are an indicator that the entropy level in our bodies is too high, and we thus need to refuel again (Calories is the opposite to entropy)! Frankly we are open system when we eat, breath, etc, and output its waste products!

Quote:

You wrote: But why is it that Stephen Hawking says in his book "A Brief History of Time" regarding the 2nd law: "This is why we do not see broken tea cups putting themselves back together, etc." Is he not discussing order and design within the realm of science? The Christian will argue this point when I say that the 2nd law clearly says nothing about "design" or pathways or synthesis or a "predictor of disorder", etc. It was this Hawking quote that started the debate. He will argue the same point when I show him the second site you gave me that says, "The second law concerns energy, not patterns of objects. Intense or concentrated energy tends to spread out and diffuse...It is an "illusion" of disorder that is a "consequence" of dispersing the energy."(emphasis mine) Need more help, please.

Soderqvist1: I have read his book, and this is typical for the creationists to tell only half-truths. Order, and design is not a supernatural phenomenon, so I cannot see any wrong with it, I mean that to put the pieces together again are only ordinary restoration work, and if conscious minded humans can do that, a mindless random mutation, and nonrandom natural selection can algorithmically add different chemical compounds into higher adaptive complexity too!

Quote:

Life in the Universe lecture by stephen Hawking
It is a matter of common experience, that things get more disordered and chaotic with time. This observation can be elevated to the status of a law, the so-called Second Law of Thermodynamics. This says that the total amount of disorder, or entropy, in the universe, always increases with time. However, the Law refers only to the total amount of disorder.

The order in one body can increase, provided that the amount of disorder in its surroundings increases by a greater amount. This is what happens in a living being. One can define Life to be an ordered system that can sustain itself against the tendency to disorder, and can reproduce itself. That is, it can make similar, but independent, ordered systems. To do these things, the system must convert energy in some ordered form, like food, sunlight, or electric power, into disordered energy, in the form of heat.

In this way, the system can satisfy the requirement that the total amount of disorder increases, while, at the same time, increasing the order in itself and its offspring. A living being usually has two elements: a set of instructions that tell the system how to sustain and reproduce itself, and a mechanism to carry out the instructions. In biology, these two parts are called genes and metabolism.
<a href="http://www.hawking.org.uk/lectures/life.html" target="_blank">http://www.hawking.org.uk/lectures/life.html</a>

[ October 30, 2002: Message edited by: Peter Soderqvist ]

Oolon Colluphid · 10-30-2002, 03:16 AM

It may also be worth pointing out that the creationist 2LoT (non-)argument implies that every biologist who accepts evolution (and that�s all of them, to a several-place approximation) is completely ignorant of a very basic bit of physics. And that no physicist has ever pointed this out to them.

IOW, if the 2LoT were really a problem, why hasn�t anyone (apart from those walking encyclopedias of scientific knowledge, creationists) noticed?

It�s an odd conspiracy that can be seen through so easily, and by the average fan of Hovind too, isn�t it?

Oolon

wdog · 10-31-2002, 09:18 AM

hey has anyone got a handle on Prigogine's works regarding this? In my vague understanding, he concluded something like life is actually a consequence of nonequilibrium thermodynamics, let alone prevented by it. If you think about it, we are pretty good at degrading energy, so for the universe to efficiently strive towards its entropy death then it seems logical that entities like us would arise to locally expedite the process. In the net balance of things, our presence actually increases the entropy of the universe.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

10-29-2002, 11:48 AM	#11
Hawkingfan Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Texas Posts: 1,247	[QUOTE]Originally posted by Jerry Love: [QB]Are you asking for the false argument you will be presented with by the Christian? Yes. And thank you for your answer.

10-29-2002, 12:52 PM	#12
Hawkingfan Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Texas Posts: 1,247	I had an idea in favor of evolution that was not mentioned in the sites sent to me. Since I am no scientist, this may border on goobledygook, but anyway...I thought it interesting that Hawking described entropy in reference to "the arrow of time". Entropy increases with time (fowards or backwards, if we could make time go backwards entropy would still increase, he says). He says that at the singularity of the big bang, the universe was infinitely small and infinitely hot. Also, he states that time did not exist prior to the big bang. These statements are true. This would mean that the total entropy of the infinitely small and hot mass was infinitely small as well (my conclusion) because the universe was not capable of being in a more "ordered" state than it was and time did not exist yet. This means that anything was possible (thus throwing out the idea of a "miracle"). But there is a chance that the property of entropy did not exist at all until after the big bang. However, time had just barely started after the big bang so entropy would have been extremely low, thus allowing for the natural development of the universe.

10-29-2002, 03:57 PM	#14
ohitstodd Junior Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: NH USA Posts: 6	Alternatively, you could just toss 'em an ice cube. HF, if you're looking for a good non-scientist explanation of entropy, as well as a rather fun read..try <a href="http://www.svsu.edu/~slaven/Entropy.html" target="_blank">Dave Slaven's Entropy Page</a>. Microstates and macrostates are discussed in an entertaining manner. It's fun and educational Cheers, Todd

10-29-2002, 05:33 PM	#16
Randy Junior Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Cincinnati OH Posts: 27	Just ask this question "What specific step required for evolution is prevented by the second law of thermodynamics under any possible conditions?" Require a specific answer and not just some handwaving generalization about increasing "order". For a process to violate the second law some step in that process must violate the second law, so what is it? It seems simple enough. Just calculate the entropy of the system undergoing the evolutionary change and its surroundings(don't forget the surroundings) before the step and after the step and show that the total entropy of the system and its surroundings is lower after the step. I first saw a variation of this question posted by Tim Thompson on OCW back when we were debating the infamous Jeptha. I have never seen any creationist come up with a specific answer because there is none. Here is an interesting page by Frank Lambert on disorder and entropy <a href="http://jchemed.chem.wisc.edu/Journal/Issues/1999/Oct/abs1385.html" target="_blank">http://jchemed.chem.wisc.edu/Journal/Issues/1999/Oct/abs1385.html</a> And here are two pages by creationist who understand that the second law does not prevent evolution. One is by Doug Craigen who wrote a page that Dr GH linked to. <a href="http://www.dctech.com/physics/features/0800.php" target="_blank">http://www.dctech.com/physics/features/0800.php</a> <a href="http://members.aol.com/steamdoc/writings/thermo.html" target="_blank">http://members.aol.com/steamdoc/writings/thermo.html</a> Your other option is to call him a sadistic equestrian necrophile (he's beating a dead horse) but that may not go over too well. Randy

10-30-2002, 03:16 AM	#19
Oolon Colluphid Contributor Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Alibi: ego ipse hinc extermino Posts: 12,591	It may also be worth pointing out that the creationist 2LoT (non-)argument implies that every biologist who accepts evolution (and that�s all of them, to a several-place approximation) is completely ignorant of a very basic bit of physics. And that no physicist has ever pointed this out to them. IOW, if the 2LoT were really a problem, why hasn�t anyone (apart from those walking encyclopedias of scientific knowledge, creationists) noticed? It�s an odd conspiracy that can be seen through so easily, and by the average fan of Hovind too, isn�t it? Oolon

10-31-2002, 09:18 AM	#20
wdog Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Ohio, USA Posts: 1,547	hey has anyone got a handle on Prigogine's works regarding this? In my vague understanding, he concluded something like life is actually a consequence of nonequilibrium thermodynamics, let alone prevented by it. If you think about it, we are pretty good at degrading energy, so for the universe to efficiently strive towards its entropy death then it seems logical that entities like us would arise to locally expedite the process. In the net balance of things, our presence actually increases the entropy of the universe.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.