Originally posted by dj2beckerSo do open systems not have entropy?
Entropy: A measure of the disorder or randomness in a closed system.
http://www.answers.com/topic/entropy
Your rocket-ship jocks are showing.
Since you know so much about entropy:
Suppose there is a closed system with two objects at random locations in it. Over time they are pulled towards each other. As they move towards each other, is the entropy changing?
1 edit
Originally posted by dj2beckerAbiogenesis requires a particular set or sets of conditions including the right mix of chemicals temperature etc as well as enough quantity and time.
Ah, so reason would you give for abiogenesis not happening?
For example it would not take place in the centre of a ball of steel that is held at 5 degrees kelvin.
Originally posted by dj2beckerMake up your mind. A few posts ago you just gave a different definition.
Entropy: Inevitable and steady deterioration of a system or society.
http://www.answers.com/topic/entropy
This applies to an open or closed system, and you are just willfully ignoring this fact. Suit yourself. You are probably living on Mars by the look of things.
What point is a discussion if you keep changing the meaning of words you are using?
It is partially a universal law of decay; the ultimate cause of why everything ultimately falls apart and disintegrates over time.
Please define "decay", as by my understanding of the word, your statement is false.
You have already agreed in earlier posts that a water molecule does not "fall apart" or "decay" over time.
Nothing stays as fresh as the day one buys it;
So how does one buy it? How did it get nice and "fresh" for you to buy?
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
Originally posted by twhiteheadSo do open systems not have entropy?
So do open systems not have entropy?
Since you know so much about entropy:
Suppose there is a closed system with two objects at random locations in it. Over time they are pulled towards each other. As they move towards each other, is the entropy changing?
Entropy applies to all systems and you know that.
Entropy is also defined as: "Inevitable and steady deterioration of a system or society."
http://www.answers.com/topic/entropy
Suppose there is a closed system with two objects at random locations in it. Over time they are pulled towards each other. As they move towards each other, is the entropy changing?
What does the pulling?
Originally posted by dj2beckerSo your definition was incomplete / wrong?
Entropy applies to all systems and you know that.
Entropy is also defined as: "Inevitable and steady deterioration of a system or society."
http://www.answers.com/topic/entropy
Yes, that is another definition and not a restatement of the same definition. Can you decide which definition you are using and stick to it. That particular definition is not the one used in the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics by the way.
What does the pulling?
Gravity.
DJ: Undirected energy or not doesn't matter. None of us are trying to say that the 2nd law of Thermodynamics requires abiogenesis or evolution to have happened. Whether they happened or not is IRRELEVANT.
You are claiming that they violate a law of physics, making it absolutely impossible. We have pointed out numerous times that there is imput of energy to Earth, making it a non-closed system, so decreases in entropy are possible on Earth, just not in the universe as a whole. How directed this energy is does not matter. It doesn't need to be sufficient to cause life (although it may well be), all that matters is that increases in entropy are possible on the Earth, even though they are not possible in the universe as a whole. Given this, whatever skewed definition of entropy you use, it is still possible for it to go backwards on Earth. So the decreases in entropy needed for abiogenesis or evolution do not violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics as it does not apply. Q.E.D.
P.S. I thought we put this whole closed system business to rest pages ago, don't start bringing it up again now, you know darn well that the Earth is not a closed system. The universe is closed, things that are part of the universe are not inherently closed for the very fact that there are other things in the same, larger, closed system for things to interact with. If Earth were a closed system, we would not be able to recieve light from the sun or other stars.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
Originally posted by twhiteheadYes, that is another definition and not a restatement of the same definition. Can you decide which definition you are using and stick to it. That particular definition is not the one used in the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics by the way.
So your definition was incomplete / wrong?
[b]Entropy is also defined as: "Inevitable and steady deterioration of a system or society."
http://www.answers.com/topic/entropy
Yes, that is another definition and not a restatement of the same definition. Can you decide which definition you are using and stick to it. That particular definition is ...[text shortened]... e used in the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics by the way.
What does the pulling?
Gravity.[/b]
The 2nd Law is not as simple as you might imagine it to be. There are many different aspects of entropy that are defined differently but still apply to the 2nd Law.
Gravity.
The system would not be closed, because Gravity acts as an external force.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
Originally posted by UmbrageOfSnowIf the energy from the sun causes dead material to decay, why would it suddenly cause life to form?
DJ: Undirected energy or not doesn't matter. None of us are trying to say that the 2nd law of Thermodynamics requires abiogenesis or evolution to have happened. Whether they happened or not is IRRELEVANT.
You are claiming that they violate a law of physics, making it absolutely impossible. We have pointed out numerous times that there is i ...[text shortened]... arth were a closed system, we would not be able to recieve light from the sun or other stars.
PS: When did I say that the earth is a closed system?
Originally posted by dj2beckerWe are talking about the Second Law of Thermodynamics are we not? Or is it some other 2nd Law you are talking about?
The 2nd Law is not as simple as you might imagine it to be. There are many different aspects of entropy that are defined differently but still apply to the 2nd Law.
I fail to see how a law of Thermodynamics can apply to a definition which talks about society.
The system would not be closed, because Gravity acts as an external force.
So any system in which Gravity exists is not a closed system?
Please explain how gravity is an "external" force in a closed system.
But didn't you recently say that the 2nd law applies to open systems as well?
Does abigenesis violate the 2nd Law in the presence of Gravity?
Originally posted by dj2beckerIt doesn't matter how the energy from the sun affects living material. We can explain that you are wrong about it only causing decay because it is undirected, but that is a meachism argument. Let's settle this one thing at a time.
If the energy from the sun causes dead material to decay, why would it suddenly cause life to form?
PS: When did I say that the earth is a closed system?
Originally posted by Starrman
The earth is not a closed system.
Originally posted by dj2becker
But the universe is, according to Scotty, and the earth is inside the universe.
Regardless of how life formed, it could not have violated the second law of thermodynamics as that law did not apply to the planet (Earth) that life evolved on. Therefore, the second law of thermodynamics does not preclude abiogenesis or evolution as you previously claimed.
Originally posted by UmbrageOfSnowi really haven't got the patience to read this thread from the start. But it seems that some people are forgetting that the second law of thermodynamics is about isolated systems. and isolated systems don't interchange matter nor energy with its surroundings... so the second law of thermodynamics doesn't apply to humans nor the earth.
It doesn't matter how the energy from the sun affects living material. We can explain that you are wrong about it only causing decay because it is undirected, but that is a meachism argument. Let's settle this one thing at a time.
Regardless of how life formed, it could not have violated the second law of thermodynamics as that law did not apply ...[text shortened]... nd law of thermodynamics does not preclude abiogenesis or evolution as you previously claimed.
if this was mentioned before i'm sorry.
Ps: I'm quoting you for no particular reason!
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
3 edits
Originally posted by UmbrageOfSnowTo create any kind of upward, complex organization in a closed system requires outside energy and outside information. You however maintain that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics does not prevent Evolution on Earth, since this planet receives outside energy from the Sun. Thus, you suggest that the Sun's energy helped create the life of our beautiful planet. However, is the simple addition of energy all that is needed to accomplish this great feat?
It doesn't matter how the energy from the sun affects living material. We can explain that you are wrong about it only causing decay because it is undirected, but that is a meachism argument. Let's settle this one thing at a time.
Regardless of how life formed, it could not have violated the second law of thermodynamics as that law did not apply ...[text shortened]... nd law of thermodynamics does not preclude abiogenesis or evolution as you previously claimed.
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.
Since when does the 2nd law not apply to a closed system?
The idea is that evolution, as a march from simple life forms to complex, violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Invoking the open systems mantra is designed to deflect criticisms of that nature. But in reality, open systems are just as prone to the second law as closed systems. It is simple to prove this is the case, and thus to show you that your claim is all wet.
Originally, entropy was defined in terms of heat, particularly:
dS = dQ/T
where dS is the change in entropy, dQ is the change in heat, and T is temperature.
We can express this definition of entropy in terms of energy instead of heat by noting that heat energy is
E = kT
(where k is Boltzmann’s constant).
Expressing this as a differential, we trivially obtain:
dE = k dT.
Since
k dT = dQ,
we can equate dE = dQ.
So it is that by adding energy into a system from the outside (what is meant by the term
“open system&rdquo😉, we add heat and the entropy increases; that is, adding energy (dE > 0) means
heat is added (dQ > 0), and so, by the definition of entropy (first equation above),
dS > 0.
Thus we see that adding energy into a system does not increase the order (decrease the entropy) but instead, increases the entropy (disorder). In other words, adding energy to a room from the outside, by means of a tornado, for example, increases the entropy (disorder) of the
room.
1 edit
Originally posted by dj2beckerYes I suggest that the Sun's energy helped create life. If that is enough or not does not matter to the question at hand. You are using a law of physics to claim abiogenesis and evolution are impossible. We've shown that the law of physics you cite does not apply to these processes. So whatever mechanism we propose for the formation of life on Earth does not violate the second law. End of debate. We can argue about how abiogenesis works and if you think that is plausible, but just admit that you were wrong before. The 2nd law of thermodynamics does not preclude evolution or abiogenesis.
To create any kind of upward, complex organization in a closed system requires outside energy and outside information. You however maintain that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics does not prevent Evolution on Earth, since this planet receives outside energy from the Sun. Thus, you suggest that the Sun's energy helped create the life of our beautiful planet. Ho ...[text shortened]... this great feat?
Copy and Paste BS
Copy and Paste BS
Copy and Paste BS
Copy and Paste BS