Why evolution is true

Originally posted by RJHinds
However, none of this means that things don't wear down and decay on the earth. We see it happening around us all the time.

So the Second Law of Thermodynamics obviously applies to this earth just as much as Newton's Law of Gravity applies to this earth. That is why they are Laws for earth and not theories. We don't need to even consider what might be different in another part of the universe to determine what are laws on earth.

Another "law" by that definition is that life constantly renews itself and adapts to a
constantly changing environment. Hardly a system in decline.

Originally posted by C Hess
Another "law" by that definition is that life constantly renews itself and adapts to a
constantly changing environment. Hardly a system in decline.

I never heard of that law. I have a strong felling you just made that one up.

http://www.smbc-comics.com/?id=3340#comic

Originally posted by RJHinds
I never heard of that law. I have a strong felling you just made that one up.

By your definition of a law, if it works a certain way on earth, it's a law. Well, life constantly
renews itself, and adapts to changing conditions. So, not exactly a system in decline.

Originally posted by C Hess
By your definition of a law, if it works a certain way on earth, it's a law. Well, life constantly
renews itself, and adapts to changing conditions. So, not exactly a system in decline.

It is not just my definition of a law. It is the scientific definition of a law. That is why they are listed as the "Second LAW of Thermodynamics" and the "LAW of Gravity" in the scientific literature instead of THEORY.

In your case, life may appear to constantly try to adapt and to renew itself, but it is a fact that life forms eventually die and some even become extinct in time because their adaption has limits on it.

Originally posted by RJHinds
It is not just my definition of a law. It is the scientific definition of a law. That is why they are listed as the "Second LAW of Thermodynamics" and the "LAW of Gravity" in the scientific literature instead of THEORY.

In your case, life may appear to constantly try to adapt and to renew itself, but it is a fact that life forms eventually die and some even become extinct in time because their adaption has limits on it.

The second law of thermodynamics is a law only on closed systems where no energy input
comes from outside the system, yet you insist that it applies to earth. Clearly you have your
own second law of thermodynamics that works in a special way on earth. My objection
stands.

Originally posted by C Hess
The second law of thermodynamics is a law only on closed systems where no energy input
comes from outside the system, yet you insist that it applies to earth. Clearly you have your
own second law of thermodynamics that works in a special way on earth. My objection
stands.

The second law of thermodynamics is universally valid. It's just that when you apply it to an open system you have to consider energy transfer and the possibility of entropy being reduced locally, but increased globally.

Originally posted by C Hess
The second law of thermodynamics is a law only on closed systems where no energy input
comes from outside the system, yet you insist that it applies to earth. Clearly you have your
own second law of thermodynamics that works in a special way on earth. My objection
stands.

Yes, and for the benefit of the crazed religious nuts here that just refuse to believe it for religious reasons;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics
"..
The second law of thermodynamics states that the entropy of an isolated system never decreases,
..."

"isolated system" means closed system

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
The second law of thermodynamics is universally valid. It's just that when you apply it to an open system you have to consider energy transfer and the possibility of entropy being reduced locally, but increased globally.

Yes, and, in other words, although the same applies to the Earth and the biosphere because the law applies to all known systems without exception, because the Earth and the biosphere are open systems, you can have increasing thermodynamic order within each as a whole without violating that law. Thus the second law of thermodynamics is irrelevant to any increasing complexity of life only partly because of this.

The other reason why the second law of thermodynamics is irrelevant to any increasing complexity of life is, like I already implied, thermodynamic order has very little to nothing to do with anatomical order or any other kind of biological order and thus one should not be confused with the other like it is being done here ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocation ) -yet another thing the crazed religious nuts here simply don't get. So even in a closed system, you still can have increasing anatomical order and evolution while, at the exactly the same time and without breaking the second law of thermodynamics and without any other contradiction, the thermodynamic order is decreasing.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
The second law of thermodynamics is universally valid. It's just that when you apply it to an open system you have to consider energy transfer and the possibility of entropy being reduced locally, but increased globally.

Maximum entropy is when you have an equilibrium, right? The entropy increase in a closed
system, because the law is that everything moves toward maximum entropy. Even if you
correctly point out that even an open system as a whole is subject to this law, earth is not
excempt from it in the way that rj suggests. He's saying that life on earth which requires
energy to evolve new forms, cannot do so because of this law, but earth is part of an open
system as long as the sun keeps going, and therefore is constantly being fed new energy,
decreasing entropy, thus allowing for evolution (and a host of other natural phenomena).
When the sun eventually dies, then (and only then) can his argument be taken seriously.

Originally posted by C Hess
Maximum entropy is when you have an equilibrium, right? The entropy increase in a closed
system, because the law is that everything moves toward maximum entropy. Even if you
correctly point out that even an open system as a whole is subject to this law, earth is not
excempt from it in the way that rj suggests. He's saying that life on earth which requir ...[text shortened]... mena).
When the sun eventually dies, then (and only then) can his argument be taken seriously.

Contrary to your opinion, one could add energy in the form of a bomb, but that doesn't help organize anything.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Contrary to your opinion, one could add energy in the form of a bomb, but that doesn't help organize anything.

Nor would living close to the sun help organise anything. Your point?

Originally posted by C Hess
Nor would living close to the sun help organise anything. Your point?

The second law of thermodynamics basically says that the universe as a whole gets more disordered and random as time goes on.

Evolution and entropy are opposing and mutually exclusive concepts. If the entropy principle is really a universal law, then evolution must be impossible.

The very terms themselves express contradictory concepts. The word "evolution" is of course derived from a Latin word meaning "out-rolling". The picture is of an outward-progressing spiral, an unrolling from an infinitesimal beginning through ever broadening circles, until finally all reality is embraced within.

"Entropy," on the other hand, means literally "in-turning." It is derived from the two Greek words en (meaning "in" ) and trope (meaning "turning" ). The concept is of something spiraling inward upon itself, exactly the opposite concept to "evolution." Evolution is change outward and upward, entropy is change inward and downward.

That the principles of evolution and entropy are both believed to be universal principles and yet are mutually contradictory is seen from the following authoritative definitions:

"There is a general natural tendency of all observed systems to go from order to disorder, reflecting dissipation of energy available for future transformation—the law of increasing entropy."

As far as evolution is concerned, the classic definition of Sir Julian Huxley is as follows:

"Evolution in the extended sense can be defined as a directional and essentially irreversible process occurring in time, which in its course gives rise to an increase of variety and an increasingly high level of organization in its products. Our present knowledge indeed forces us to the view that the whole of reality is evolution—a single process of self-transformation."

Thus, in one instance, "all observed systems ... go from order to disorder," and in the other, "the whole of reality ... gives rise to an increasingly high level of organization in its products." It seems obvious that either evolution or entropy has been vastly over-rated or else that something is wrong with the English language.

The entropy principle, however, is nothing less than the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which is as universal and certain a law as exists in science.

http://www.icr.org/article/evolution-thermodynamics-entropy/

Originally posted by RJHinds
The second law of thermodynamics basically says that the universe as a whole gets more disordered and random as time goes on.

Indeed it is. Now let's see if you can comprehend the rest of what I've said.
You know, the part about the bloody sun! 😠

(Actually, not more disordered and random, but moving towards maximum
entropy, but I suppose that's a technicality.)

Originally posted by C Hess
Indeed it is. Now let's see if you can comprehend the rest of what I've said.
You know, the part about the [b]bloody sun! 😠

(Actually, not more disordered and random, but moving towards maximum
entropy, but I suppose that's a technicality.)[/b]

Entropy Definition: The measure of the disorder of a system, usually denoted by the letter S. A highly ordered system has low entropy.

Example: A block of ice will increase in entropy as it melts.

http://chemistry.about.com/od/chemistryglossary/a/entropydef.htm