The Second Law of Thermodynamics

Originally posted by dj2becker
I am happy to hear that you were his mentor...

Would a few quotations in support of abiogenesis theory from his 515 books and tons of articles and stories be asking too much from you?

Cause I'm sure you could just give me a couple dozen off hand. His science fiction books were full of abiogenesis theory 😀

Evidence of his personal beliefs on abiogenesis would have 0 impact on this debate (as it is not a debate about Asimov but about abiogenesis), and you know it. I'm not going to waste my time searching through his various books and articles for an exact quote, it would be a huge waste of time for no reason whatsoever. I know what his beliefs were, I suspect you know what his beliefs were and are just being annoying. It is common knowledge he was no fan of religion, why don't you just look up his bio on wikipedia or something and get back to the main debate, no more diversions.

Originally posted by Starrman
I need to do no such thing, stop avoiding the question. For the third time, do you concede that the Theory of Evolution does not violate the second law?

If by evolution you mean an ever increasing complexity in organisms over time, then I would say that defies the 2nd law as it is defined by Asimov.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
The earth is not a closed system. Provided we have a energy input (the sun) localised decreases in entropy can occur. This is manifestly true, as demonstrated by things like plant growth (energy input from the sun builds small molecules (CO2 and H2O) into complex carbohydrates, cell walls etc, or even by a simple process like evaporation, where ...[text shortened]... x system would arise. This was typified by the Miller and Urey experiment (despite its flaws).

The earth is not a closed system. Provided we have a energy input (the sun) localised decreases in entropy can occur. This is manifestly true, as demonstrated by things like plant growth (energy input from the sun builds small molecules (CO2 and H2O) into complex carbohydrates, cell walls etc, or even by a simple process like evaporation, where an energy input (the sun) increases the energy status of a water molecule.

I have agreed that there are special cases where local order can increase at the expense of greater disorder elsewhere. One case is crystallization. The other case is programmed machinery, that directs energy into maintaining and increasing complexity, at the expense of increased disorder elsewhere. Living things have such energy-converting machinery to make the complex structures of life.

However, raw energy cannot generate the specified complex information in living things. Undirected energy just speeds up destruction. Just standing out in the sun won’t make you more complex—the human body lacks the mechanisms to harness raw solar energy. If you stood in the sun too long, you would get skin cancer, because the sun’s undirected energy will cause mutations. (Mutations are copying errors in the genes that nearly always lose information). Similarly, undirected energy flow through an alleged primordial soup will break down the complex molecules of life faster than they are formed.

It’s like trying to run a car by pouring petrol on it and setting it alight. No, a car will run only if the energy in petrol is harnessed via the pistons, crankshaft, etc. A bull in a china shop is also raw energy. But if the bull were harnessed to a generator, and the electricity directed a pottery-producing machine, then its energy could be used to make things.

To make proteins, a cell uses the information coded in the DNA and a very complex decoding machine. In the lab, chemists must use sophisticated machinery to make the building blocks combine in the right way. Raw energy would result in wrong combinations and even destruction of the building blocks.

Abiogenesis could occur, and it's likely, would occur as solar energy provided energy for chemical bonds to form and break, and laws of probability means that the more stable molecules would break apart less readily, meaning, over time, a more complex system would arise. This was typified by the Miller and Urey experiment (despite its flaws).

Compare a living plant with a dead one. Can the simple addition of energy make a completely dead plant live?

A dead plant contains the same basic structures as a living plant. It once used the Sun's energy to temporarily increase its order and grow and produce stems, leaves, roots, and flowers - all beginning from a single seed.

If there is actually a powerful Evolutionary force at work in the universe, and if the open system of Earth makes all the difference, why does the Sun's energy not make a truly dead plant become alive again (assuming a sufficient supply of water, light, and the like)?

What actually happens when a dead plant receives energy from the Sun? The internal organization in the plant decreases; it tends to decay and break apart into its simplest components. The heat of the Sun only speeds the disorganization process.

The Miller and Urey experiment only produced amino acids. But these had to be extracted immediately after formation, otherwise the high energy radiation destroys them as quickly as they are produced.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Only if you explain to me why YOU haven't broken down in accordance with the 2nd law yet.

The statistics have it that 10 out of 10 people tend to grow old and eventually die. The 2nd law at work.

Originally posted by UmbrageOfSnow
Accepted by me and let's say scottishinNZ just for fun. I would like to say accepted by the scientific community but you will turn that into a huge argument about what qualifies as the scientific community and if there is evidence that any particular definition is actually supported, so I'll settle for the two of us.

None of the [b]definitions ...[text shortened]... ou are using the laws of THERMODYNAMICS, your argument must be based on thermodynamics.[/b]

Physicist Lord Kelvin stated it technically as follows: "There is no natural process the only result of which is to cool a heat reservoir and do external work." In more understandable terms, this law observes the fact that the usable energy in the universe is becoming less and less. Ultimately there would be no available energy left. Stemming from this fact we find that the most probable state for any natural system is one of disorder. All natural systems degenerate when left to themselves.

Lord Kelvin as quoted in A.W. Smith and J.N. Cooper, Elements of Physics, 8th edition (New York, New York: McGraw-Hill Publishing, 1972), p. 241.


World-renowned Evolutionist and avid anti-Creationist Isaac Asimov confirmed that:

"Another way of stating the second law then is, 'The universe is constantly getting more disorderly!' Viewed that way we can see the second law all about us. We have to work hard to straighten a room, but left to itself it becomes a mess again very quickly and very easily. Even if we never enter it, it becomes dusty and musty. How difficult to maintain houses, and machinery, and our own bodies in perfect working order: how easy to let them deteriorate. In fact, all we have to do is nothing, and everything deteriorates, collapses, breaks down, wears out, all by itself - and that is what the second law is all about."

[Isaac Asimov, "In the Game of Energy and Thermodynamics You Can't Even Break Even", Smithsonian Institution Journal (June 1970), p. 6 (emphasis added).]

"The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that the amount of available work you can get out of the energy of the universe is constantly decreasing. If you have a great deal of energy in one place, a large intensity of it, so that you have a high temperature here and a low temperature there, then you can get work out of that situation. The smaller the difference in temperature, the less work you can get out of it. Now, according to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, there is always a tendency for the hot areas to cool off and the cool areas to warm up -- so that less and less work can be obtained out of it. Until finally, when everything is one temperature, you cannot get any work out of it, even though all the energy is still there. And this is true for EVERYTHING in general, the universe all over."

Originally posted by UmbrageOfSnow
Evidence of his personal beliefs on abiogenesis would have 0 impact on this debate (as it is not a debate about Asimov but about abiogenesis), and you know it. I'm not going to waste my time searching through his various books and articles for an exact quote, it would be a huge waste of time for no reason whatsoever. I know what his beliefs were, I s ...[text shortened]... look up his bio on wikipedia or something and get back to the main debate, no more diversions.

So as this debate is about abiogenesis and the 2nd law, the question is really this: Has it been demonstrated in a universe where the 2nd law is at work, whether or not a localized decrease in entropy is sufficient to cause life to arise from non life? Surely if abiogenesis did not violate the 2nd law it would be simple to demonstrate life arising from non-life.

Originally posted by dj2becker
I think the real question is whether or not it has been demonstrated that a temporary local decrease in entropy would be sufficient to create life from non-life.

I don't think anyone has given any serious reason why it would not be sufficient, it's just a matter of scale and time. Remember that 'local' can mean on a planetary scale and 'temporary' can mean billions of years. There's enough room in there for quite a large decrease in entropy. Sources of energy include both the sun and the heat from the Earth's core.

--- Penguin.

Originally posted by dj2becker
So as this debate is about abiogenesis and the 2nd law, the question is really this: Has it been demonstrated in a universe where the 2nd law is at work, whether or not a localized decrease in entropy is sufficient to cause life to arise from non life? Surely if abiogenesis did not violate the 2nd law it would be simple to demonstrate life arising from non-life.

Has it been demonstrated in a universe where the 2nd law is at work, that God can exist? Surely if God did not violate the 2nd law then it would be simple to demonstrate that God exists?
Are you starting to see how stupid your claim really is?

Nobody has claimed that "a localized decrease in entropy is sufficient to cause life to arise from non life" as we all know that "a localized decrease in entropy" is a common occurrence and that life is not springing up from non-life at every single place where a localized decrease in entropy occurs.

However you still haven't shown that life from non-life violates the 2nd law. All you have done is expressed your incredulity that it doesn't violate the second law but given no concrete reasons for this other than your own personal ignorance of the fact.

When questioned further earlier in the thread you proceeded to make a string of false claims which I have shown to be false yet you refuse to admit are false but will not give reasons as to why. Instead you tried very hard to ridicule me based on my educational background not including a professorship in physics or chemistry. Your claims in fact showed a remarkable lack of understanding of both physics and chemistry for someone who claims to be pursuing a university degree in the sciences. In fact I strongly suspect that you know the claims to be false but will not admit it either because you are ashamed to do so or you feel it will undermine your argument and that you have other reasons than logic and common sense for trying to uphold your argument.
When I started this thread I thought it possible that you simply didn't understand the 2nd law and had been mislead by some creationist propaganda (as quoted by you in the initial post). However at this point it is obvious that you do understand quite a lot about it but wish to lie and deceive in order to promote your own beliefs.

Originally posted by Penguin
I don't think anyone has given any serious reason why it would not be sufficient, it's just a matter of scale and time. Remember that 'local' can mean on a planetary scale and 'temporary' can mean billions of years. There's enough room in there for quite a large decrease in entropy. Sources of energy include both the sun and the heat from the Earth's core.

--- Penguin.

You have not responded to this:

I have agreed that there are special cases where local order can increase at the expense of greater disorder elsewhere. One case is crystallization. The other case is programmed machinery, that directs energy into maintaining and increasing complexity, at the expense of increased disorder elsewhere. Living things have such energy-converting machinery to make the complex structures of life.

However, raw energy cannot generate the specified complex information in living things. Undirected energy just speeds up destruction. Just standing out in the sun won’t make you more complex—the human body lacks the mechanisms to harness raw solar energy. If you stood in the sun too long, you would get skin cancer, because the sun’s undirected energy will cause mutations. (Mutations are copying errors in the genes that nearly always lose information). Similarly, undirected energy flow through an alleged primordial soup will break down the complex molecules of life faster than they are formed.

It’s like trying to run a car by pouring petrol on it and setting it alight. No, a car will run only if the energy in petrol is harnessed via the pistons, crankshaft, etc. A bull in a china shop is also raw energy. But if the bull were harnessed to a generator, and the electricity directed a pottery-producing machine, then its energy could be used to make things.

To make proteins, a cell uses the information coded in the DNA and a very complex decoding machine. In the lab, chemists must use sophisticated machinery to make the building blocks combine in the right way. Raw energy would result in wrong combinations and even destruction of the building blocks.

Compare a living plant with a dead one. Can the simple addition of energy make a completely dead plant live?

A dead plant contains the same basic structures as a living plant. It once used the Sun's energy to temporarily increase its order and grow and produce stems, leaves, roots, and flowers - all beginning from a single seed.

If there is actually a powerful Evolutionary force at work in the universe, and if the open system of Earth makes all the difference, why does the Sun's energy not make a truly dead plant become alive again (assuming a sufficient supply of water, light, and the like)?

What actually happens when a dead plant receives energy from the Sun? The internal organization in the plant decreases; it tends to decay and break apart into its simplest components. The heat of the Sun only speeds the disorganization process.

The Miller and Urey experiment only produced amino acids. But these had to be extracted immediately after formation, otherwise the high energy radiation destroys them as quickly as they are produced.

Originally posted by dj2becker
I have agreed that there are special cases where local order can increase at the expense of greater disorder elsewhere.

Do you agree that an increase in order is often an increase in entropy?

Originally posted by twhitehead
Has it been demonstrated in a universe where the 2nd law is at work, that God can exist? Surely if God did not violate the 2nd law then it would be simple to demonstrate that God exists?
Are you starting to see how stupid your claim really is?

Nobody has claimed that "a localized decrease in entropy is sufficient to cause life to arise from non life" nd quite a lot about it but wish to lie and deceive in order to promote your own beliefs.

Has it been demonstrated in a universe where the 2nd law is at work, that God can exist? Surely if God did not violate the 2nd law then it would be simple to demonstrate that God exists?
Are you starting to see how stupid your claim really is?

Your strawman is really pathetic. Try again.

Nobody has claimed that "a localized decrease in entropy is sufficient to cause life to arise from non life" as we all know that "a localized decrease in entropy" is a common occurrence and that life is not springing up from non-life at every single place where a localized decrease in entropy occurs.

So how then is abiogenesis possible within the framework of the 2nd law?


However you still haven't shown that life from non-life violates the 2nd law. All you have done is expressed your incredulity that it doesn't violate the second law but given no concrete reasons for this other than your own personal ignorance of the fact.

And you must have been reading with your eyes closed.

Compare a living plant with a dead one. Can the simple addition of energy make a completely dead plant live?

A dead plant contains the same basic structures as a living plant. It once used the Sun's energy to temporarily increase its order and grow and produce stems, leaves, roots, and flowers - all beginning from a single seed.

If there is actually a powerful Evolutionary force at work in the universe, and if the open system of Earth makes all the difference, why does the Sun's energy not make a truly dead plant become alive again (assuming a sufficient supply of water, light, and the like)?

What actually happens when a dead plant receives energy from the Sun? The internal organization in the plant decreases; it tends to decay and break apart into its simplest components. The heat of the Sun only speeds the disorganization process.

What more do I need to say?

Originally posted by dj2becker
If there is actually a powerful Evolutionary force at work in the universe, and if the open system of Earth makes all the difference, why does the Sun's energy not make a truly dead plant become alive again (assuming a sufficient supply of water, light, and the like)?

Who has claimed that there is something called "a powerful Evolutionary force at work in the universe" and what do you understand by that?

Why should the suns energy make a dead plant come alive again. Just because something is possible without violating the 2nd law doesn't mean it will happen.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Who has claimed that there is something called "a powerful Evolutionary force at work in the universe" and what do you understand by that?

Why should the suns energy make a dead plant come alive again. Just because something is possible without violating the 2nd law doesn't mean it will happen.

So you mean to say that abiogenesis does not violate the 2nd law, but it does not mean that it will happen?

Originally posted by twhitehead
Do you agree that an increase in order is often an increase in entropy?

Now I see where you have fallen out of the bus.

Entropy is a measure of the disorder or randomness in a closed system. This means that an increase in entropy is an increase in disorder. A decrease in entropy implies an increase in order.

Originally posted by dj2becker
So you mean to say that abiogenesis does not violate the 2nd law, but it does not mean that it will happen?

Yes.