Entropy - "again"

[UTEOTW]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
However - the problem remains "the same". You have NO "Down", no level of "disorder" to account for EITHER the formation of a solar SYSTEM or the self-organizing principle for creating a human brain, or the self organizing principle to created the simplest little single cell - .

There is no "DOWN" from your "mean" (lots o cold gas) from to which you can descend and thus get "net zero" entropy. Obviously.

If this is so obvious, then surely you will have no problem explaining what in the world you mean by all of this rambling.

As the molecular cloud collapses the entropy of the universe increases evan as the cloud becomes more organised. The energy from the sun provides an incredible amount of energy that will allow for local decreases in entropy even as the entropy of the universe increases. The is no problem with entropy as far as any of this is concerned. If you believe that there is a problem please show some proof rather than asserting than you must be correct. If you are going to make an incredible claim then at least have a smidgen of evidence.

 

[Paul of Eugene]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
"Nice" but it does not work with the hot gas sitting in our local area of space.

There is just no way to "get the brain and a space shuttle" to pop out of that gas in a true model of "entropy".

No amount of "disorder" from the "mean of the gas" can account for the "order" of the human brain and space shuttles popping out the other side. Period.

Bob

Careful there, Bob. You've almost said that even God couldn't make a gas molecular cloud from which would eventually pop out the space shuttle. God could make a cloud that would, without further manipulation, eventually pop out a man bearing space shuttle, couldn't he? If He wanted to do it?

 

[BobRyan]

The statement stands. The disorder that is "required" by the law of Entropy does not exist in the case of the cloud of gas.

SINCE the human brain and a space shuttle DON't pop out of one side of that "statistical mean condition" there is NO requirement (from the standpoint of entropy and the closed system of our local area of space) to have a "level of disorder" cancelling that almost infinite level of order to net "Zero" entropy.

God has already settled the matter "For in SIX days the GOD MADE the heavens and the earth and the sea and ALL that is in them, and rested the seventh-day" Exodus 20:11

So when He says that He "blessed it" and "Sanctified it" And that we are to keep IT - He is locking the entire sequence INTO our own weekly cycle - same meaning, same concept, same word, same author, same text. PURE exegesis.

And as Richard Dawkins notes "Apparently meant to be taken that way".

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

If this is so obvious, then surely you will have no problem explaining what in the world you mean by all of this rambling.

As the molecular cloud collapses the entropy of the universe increases evan as the cloud becomes more organised. The energy from the sun provides an incredible amount of energy that will allow for local decreases in entropy even as the entropy of the universe increases. The is no problem with entropy as far as any of this is concerned. If you believe that there is a problem please show some proof rather than asserting than you must be correct. If you are going to make an incredible claim then at least have a smidgen of evidence.

Enropy in the closed system "REMAINS" at "net zero" in spite of your efforts to rewrite that law.

Evolutionism is itself a denial of hard science.

However you are right in that IF the universe "ORGANIZED ITSELF into solar systems and galaxies" then ENTROPY of the entire system is INCREASING rather than remaing at "net zero" - and of course we have "science" to tell us that "such is not the case".

Bob

 

[The Galatian]

However you are right in that IF the universe "ORGANIZED ITSELF into solar systems and galaxies" then ENTROPY of the entire system is INCREASING rather than remaing at "net zero" - and of course we have "science" to tell us that "such is not the case".

So if a temperature gradient in the Atlantic "organizes itself" into the highly complex storm system called a hurricane, then the entropy of the entire system is increasing?

Nonsense.

 

[Paul of Eugene]

All right you guys. Get the direction about entropy you are arguing about right.

Entropy is a "positive" measure for chaos, a "negative" measure for order.

So when Hurricans spontaneously form, entropy has increased because there is more disorder involved than in the previous state. The disorder is not just in the hurricane spiral structure; its also in the heat released and radiated to space, of course.

And when life evolves, entropy has increased because there is more disorder involved than in the previous state. The disorder, however, need not be in the living organism. Living creatures habitually shed lots of entropy into the surrounding environment and keep a relatively level amount of entropy within themselves.

 

[UTEOTW]

Bob

I'm just going to have to plead ignorance here. I have no clue what you are trying to say or what you are trying to show. Asking for better information just gets more.. well I'm still not sure what it gets.

Just suffice it to say that you have not shown any step along the way that would violate the 2LOT or cause any kind of entropy problem. Local decreases in entropy are allowed as long as the entropy of the system (the universe) increases. What's the problem?

 

[Peter101]

BobRyan,

See what three authors of textbooks think about thermodynamics and evolution. Hint: they think the creationists are all wet. For more details see:

http://www.ntanet.net/Thermo-Internet.htm

Do you want to argue with three experts and tell them they are wrong?

 

[BobRyan]

Peter - here is a "classic example" of the "non-compelling" nature of that response.

(1) "All natural processes occur in a direction such that there is an increase in entropy (disorder, randomness)."

Alberty: This statement applies only to an isolated system; specifically one of constant internal energy and volume. Living systems do not operate in isolated systems. Usually they operate at constant temperature and pressure, and so the Gibbs energy G is minimized.

Alberty simply begs the question by drawing an arbitrary boundary for living systems. HAD he observed that our solar system comprises an isolated system for ALL life on earth - he would be forced to agree with the point he is so desperately trying to dodge.

(2) "Thermodynamically speaking, all isolated systems (and the Universe is accepted as an isolated system) proceed toward a state of equilibrium."

Alberty: I do not agree that the universe is an isolated system in the thermodynamic sense.

OF course SHOWING that the ENTIRE univers is NOT a closed system when taken as a whole is NOT attempted SINCE no proof of such a wild statement could be given. Thank you Alberty!!

Bottom line. Trying to argue your way "against" entropy is hopeless Peter. And there are a very great number of scientists on both sides of the isle that agree with that.

Bob

 

[Peter101]

>>>>>Alberty simply begs the question by drawing an arbitrary boundary for living systems. HAD he observed that our solar system comprises an isolated system for ALL life on earth - he would be forced to agree with the point he is so desperately trying to dodge.<<<<<<

No, you are mistaken. It is the combination of the earth and solar system having to obey the 2nd law, as a system, that allows evolution to proceed unhindered by thermodynamics, in a small part of that system. The key point is that is the total system that must proceed to greater entropy and not every part of it. Portions of a system are allowed to become more organized, if that is more than offset by other portions producing greater entropy.

Alberty by the way, probably has never before commented on this issue. I think you overestimate his interest in this issue. It does not matter much to him, or to most other authors of thermodynamics text. As far as I know these three have never before commented on the record. But when asked about he gives a truthful answer.

The bottom line is that these three authors of textbooks on thermodynamics know far more than you do about the subject, since it is obvious that you have never taken a course in thermodyanmics.

 

[Peter101]

>>>>>Bottom line. Trying to argue your way "against" entropy is hopeless Peter. And there are a very great number of scientists on both sides of the isle that agree with that.<<<<

Again you mistate the facts. Can you give us the names of two authors of thermodynamics texts who view evolution as in conflict with thermodynamics? I mean two authors whose books on the subject are in use in classrooms around the world. The three authors mentioned in the link clearly state that they disagree with your viewpoint. Can you provide any authors of equal distinction, who agree with you?

 

[UTEOTW]

Bob, you just countered your own arguement.

Its the entropy of the system that has to increase. Even if you want to take the solar system as an isolated system, which it is not, local decreases in entropy are allowed as long as the entropy of the whole increases. The decrease in entropy by the process of life is countered by a greater increase in the entropy of the system.

 

[Paul of Eugene]

BobRyan, earlier:

Alberty simply begs the question by drawing an arbitrary boundary for living systems. HAD he observed that our solar system comprises an isolated system for ALL life on earth - he would be forced to agree with the point he is so desperately trying to dodge.

This is a major mistake. The solar system does NOT comprise an isolated system for the purposes of analyzing entropy. Scads of entropy leave the solar system all the time by means of radiation, both from the sun and as radiation heat loss from the planets.

ALL INTERESTED PARTIES should purchase the current issue of Scientific American. The article there on the "holographic universe" has LOTS to say about entropy, including the sometimes controversial statement that entropy in physics and entropy in shannon communication theory can indeed be equated, when suitable understood. There should be enough seed statements there to engender LOTS of comments and, alas, misunderstandings.

 

[BobRyan]

quote:Web link
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Creation accepting view)
(1) "All natural processes occur in a direction such that there is an increase in entropy (disorder, randomness)."

(Evolutionist - atheist view)

Alberty: This statement applies only to an isolated system; specifically one of constant internal energy and volume. Living systems do not operate in isolated systems. Usually they operate at constant temperature and pressure, and so the Gibbs energy G is minimized.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bob said --
Alberty simply begs the question by drawing an arbitrary boundary for living systems. HAD he observed that our solar system comprises an isolated system for ALL life on earth - he would be forced to agree with the point he is so desperately trying to dodge.

This is NOT a case of my arguing against INCREASED entropy - it is a case of Alberty arguing against it.

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by Paul of Eugene:
BobRyan, earlier:

Alberty simply begs the question by drawing an arbitrary boundary for living systems. HAD he observed that our solar system comprises an isolated system for ALL life on earth - he would be forced to agree with the point he is so desperately trying to dodge.

Paul --
This is a major mistake. The solar system does NOT comprise an isolated system for the purposes of analyzing entropy. Scads of entropy leave the solar system all the time by means of radiation, both from the sun and as radiation heat loss from the planets.

Alberty was arguing against increased entropy - I was not.

Paul

ALL INTERESTED PARTIES should purchase the current issue of Scientific American. The article there on the "holographic universe" has LOTS to say about entropy, including the sometimes controversial statement that entropy in physics and entropy in shannon communication theory can indeed be equated, when suitable understood. There should be enough seed statements there to engender LOTS of comments and, alas, misunderstandings.

Thanks.

Paul's Article says --
The second law of thermodynamics summarizes the familiar observation that most processes in nature are irreversible: a teacup falls from the table and shatters, but no one has ever seen shards jump up of their own accord and assemble into a teacup. The second law of thermodynamics forbids such inverse processes. It states that the entropy of an isolated physical system can never decrease; at best, entropy remains constant, and usually it increases. This law is central to physical chemistry and engineering; it is arguably the physical law with the greatest impact outside physics.

Thanks again.

Bob

 

[Paul of Eugene]

Hmmmm. Trying to follow these posts is an exercise in tackling a lot of entropy.

Entropy always increases, that is the 2nd law of thermodynamics, often abbreviated 2LOT for these discussions. Some say that this prohibits evolution because evolution brings increased order over time. But the reasoning is faulty because nothing about the 2LOT prohibits a reduction in entropy in a specific place or object as long as entropy elsewhere is allowed to increase to a greator extent as a consequence. The increase in entropy can be widely seperated from the objects that have reduced entropy, and the second law is not violated. So, in principle, order can come about where order did not exist before. All heat engines work on this principle. Your car moter generates lots of excess entropy in the form of heat that is dissapated and you don't really care, as long as you get the orderly transporation of yourself to the desired location. The bald declaration that 2LOT prohibits the kind of increasing order seen in evolution then is simply a canard, but it rears its head frequently in the debates against evolution.

I think this speaks in opposition to BobRyan's posts, but his writing is not real clear to me.

 

[NeilUnreal]

If entropy prohibited local increases in order, reality itself would be unimaginably different and life as we know it would probably be impossible -- evolution or no evolution.

-Neil

 

[BobRyan]

Indeed - the NT Christian argument from scritpure is that "Christ UPHOLDS all things by HIS Power" Col 1:16 so we would "expect" to see negative entropy in local areas where He is supernaturally maintaining a living system.

However - the scientific view would be to conclude that the solar system and the one living planet in it - should constitute a "Closed system" as far as that life is concerned (no outside energy) and that the total entropy should be increasing over time since energy loss via radiant energy alone would account for that loss - and corresponding increase in entropy.

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Paul --
Entropy always increases, that is the 2nd law of thermodynamics, often abbreviated 2LOT for these discussions. Some say that this prohibits evolution because evolution brings increased order over time. But the reasoning is faulty because nothing about the 2LOT prohibits a reduction in entropy in a specific place or object as long as entropy elsewhere is allowed to increase to a greator extent as a consequence.

Ahhh finally we come full circle and are ready to re-read my opening point. The fact that using the gas in our local area of space as the "mean" off of which we must "Account for" the "increase" in order and information (i.e. the "Decrease" in entropy) represented by the distance of human brain and space shuttle forming on the 3rd planet (of the solar system formed by that gas). We need a "net increase" in entropy for the entire system - where the STARTING point is the cold gas of space in this local area of space.

Getting to the net increase means that we MORE than offset the "distance" measured by the gap between the high end (human brain and space shuttle) vs the starting point "mean" of cold gas in space. From there we must find a "Balancing" degree of reduced information or reduced order that in fact MORE than accounts for the devopment of the complex solar system, living planet, humans and space shuttles.

We seem to have come full circle.

Bob

 

[Elena]

However - the scientific view would be to conclude that the solar system and the one living planet in it - should constitute a "Closed system" as far as that life is concerned (no outside energy) and that the total entropy should be increasing over time since energy loss via radiant energy alone would account for that loss - and corresponding increase in entropy.

EF That's incorrect. 2lot applies to the entire Universe. Local decreases in entropy include galaxies and solar systems. However, our sun is losing energy, but the earth gains this energy (albeit temporarily) and can use that energy to create local decreases in entropy. No matter how one views 2lot (local increases or decreases in entropy), it is always the del S[sub]Universe[/sub] that increases. Nothing in 2lot precludes evolution. In fact, such a claim is absurd (even by creationists) because they accept evolution within some ill-defined limit.