GeoTheo

As a YEC, I heard this arguement, that evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics. I never used it personally, since I feared perhaps I would come across somone who was actually familiar with thermodynamics and ask me what the first law was and make me look like an idiot.
But now that I am no longer an anti-evolutionist (still a creationist) I am curious:
Does evolution really violate it? I have seen people post other ways in which the second law is violated, but perhaps that is the wrong approach.
If evolution violated it then wouldn't all reproduction violate it? I mean populations evolve not individuals right? So I don't see how natural selection violates the second law of thermodynamics. All kind of death and entropy occurs. Animals die, people die. Lot's of entropy taking place there. But organisms reproduce and create new life. During this process mutations often occur and result in death. That would be entropy. Some mutations have no net effect in reproductive fitness and a very few bring a reproductive advantage. Even an organism, like a mosquito that can break down a pesticide that kills other mosquitoes, that has greater reproductive fittness, still suffers entropy and dies. That is the individual mosquito dies. But it passes on its DNA. So I don't see the violation. Thoughts?

Starboy

Hi GeoTheo,

All life violates the second law. Life is a non-equilibrium system so equilibrium thermodynamics does not apply. Life exists at the interface between the energy reservoirs. Also it can be shown that life will decrease local entropy. Equilibrium thermodynamics is a red herring as applied to life or living systems.

Starboy

Richiyaado

I think net entropy increases unnaturally whenever creationists claim evolution is prohibited by the 2LoT: it's far greater than can be accounted for by the scant energy expended in substantiating this silly claim.

(edited to change SLoT to 2LoT per KD)

[ July 30, 2002: Message edited by: Richiyaado ]</p>

Kevin Dorner

"Evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics" is another one of those lines that got so tired out and well-debunked that it's on Answers In Genesis' "Arguments Creationists Shouldn't Use" page.

(For a treat, ask any creationism-proponent who uses it what the other laws of thermodynamics are!)

The second law basically says that in a closed system (one without energy or matter coming in or leaving) that entropy increases over time. Entropy can be defined as the energy unavailable for doing work. Work in this case is the function and maintenance of living things.

However, a moment's thought establishes that Earth is not a closed system, which means that 2LoT (as it's commonly abbreviated) does not apply. There's this thing called "the sun!" Any tiny local decrease in entropy is far, far offset by the huge increase in entropy caused by the sun's energy production, all but a billionth of which is wasted to space. So the assertion that evolution (or life itself) somehow "breaks the second law" or "violates conservation" is patently bogus.

[ July 30, 2002: Message edited by: Kevin Dorner ]</p>

DNAunion

DNAunion: What about an "IDist"?

Zeroth law of thermodynamics: If A is in thermal equlibrium with B, and B is in thermal equilibrium with C, then A will be in thermal equilbrium with C if they come into contact.

First law of thermodynamics: Total energy (well, total mass/energy) of the Universe (or any isolated system) is constant/conserved: energy can neither be created nor destroyed, but can be changed into other forms (including into mass).

Second law of thermodynamics: Entropy tends towards a maximum: the total entropy of the Universe (or any isolated system) increases with every physical change that takes place.

Third law of thermodynamics: Can't remember this one off the top of my head...but I think it is derived from studies on different gasses and states that all molecular motion ceases at absolute zero (-273.15 degrees C, or 0 kelvin).

Fourth law of thermodynamics: Not a real law, but Stuart Kauffman wants us to accept it. I'll leave it at that.

Anyway, as others here stated, no, life does not violate the second law of thermodynamics. All living organisms are open systems, taking in matter/energy from their surroundings (for example, we take in food that our bodies then catabolize for energy, which is needed to maintain - or increase - the highly ordered state of our bodies).

[ July 30, 2002: Message edited by: DNAunion ]</p>

Kevin Dorner

I like the summary "Murphy's Three Laws Of Thermodynamics":

1) You can't win.
2) You can't break even.
3) You can't quit the game.

tgamble

You sure about that? Because Sarfati is still useing it.

<a href="http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-thermodynamics.html" target="_blank">http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-thermodynamics.html</a>

<a href="http://www.answersingenesis.org/news/scientific_american.asp?srcFrom=fpr#Thermodynamics " target="_blank">http://www.answersingenesis.org/news/scientific_american.asp?srcFrom=fpr#Thermodynamics </a>

<a href="http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp#tautology" target="_blank">http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp#tautology</a>

What they say is that it shouldn't be claimed that the 2nd law started at the fall.

They wouldn't be so honest as to advise useing an argument that is so convincing to the ignorant!

[ July 30, 2002: Message edited by: tgamble ]</p>

Kevin Dorner

tgamble: You may be right.. the <a href="http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp" target="_blank">AiG Arguments We Think Creationists Shouldn't Use</a> page lists ‘The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics began at the Fall’ as the argument not to use...

Man, I can't believe that they still use that. I'm not the sharpest pencil in the box, and it took me about five seconds to figure out that this was not a legitimate objection...

Synaesthesia

Sarboy,

I'm sorry, that's totally wrong. If life violated the second law, it would be a law, would it?

The net entropy continually increases. Life forms always have a thermal gradient away from them. In other words, when plants take high energy photons, most of the energy will eventually be radiated off in the form of low energy photons.


The third law talks about an ideal situation where a crystal is at -273.15 deg C, the entropy would be defined as 0. Interestingly, some crystals have multiple possible states at such a conditions, and so the entropy wouldn't be zero.

Kevin,
I don't know if that's the best indicator. A lot of IDers still use that damned "theory not fact" angle.

tgamble

Yes, but you actually CARE whether or not it's a legitimate argument.

Call my cynical but I think the list is there not because the arguments are invalid (they've been invalid since they were invented!) but because the rebuttals are so well known and widely available. Therefore, deceiveing people with such arguments is more difficult and could be counter productive. It could show how dishonest AIG really is.

So AIG tries to give the illusion that they have a scrap of honesty by saying that the arguments shouldn't be used. Something REAL scientists have been saying for decades! Except, of course for that stupid "no law before the fall" since the fall is a total myth anyway.