Impossible evolutionary steps?

If the total amount of energy in the universe is constant how can it be converted into entropy?

 

We can look at it simply...the simplest form of animal life is the amoeba, a little blob of protoplasm which has the ability to move, to shape its cytoplasm into pseudopodia(false feet) which it uses to move across a surface, and has no definite shape of its cytoplasm. According to evolution, the amoeba evolved into the paramecium, the common pond-scum creature, which has a definite shape and "body parts" such as a gullet for food intake.(the amoeba simply engulfs any smaller particle of organic matter it encounters with whatever portion of its cytoplasm that's nearest the food.)

The problem is...If the amoeba evolved into a "better" creature, WHY ARE THERE STILL AMOEBAS?

 

"Yes, I have identified a problem."

What specifically is the problem?

Observation tells us, and thermodynamics allows, for local decreases in entropy to happen all the time so longas the total entropy of the universe remains constant.

You seem unable to tell us how entropy can prevent life from changing with time without disallowing life at all.

Thus far you have merely presented a problem that does not seem to have a consequence.

This is where discussions about entropy and evolution always go. You relate entropy to disorder and you contradict yourself and say that they are different. You say entropy poses a problem, yet you are unable to give us an example of what that problem is.

The truth is that you cannot answer because entropy does not prevent mutations, it does not prevent selection, it does not prevent stasis, it does not prevent genetic drift, it does not prevent gene flow, it does not prevent recombination. Nothing having to do with the process of evolution is prevented by entropy and your inability to provide an example of something that is prevented is proof positive of that fact. If you had such an example, you would have given it by now.

"No, life is not impossible. It exists because God has created it."

Not what I meant. But I thnk you knew that.

If order cannot come from disorder, then how does life manage to bring together raw materials and raw energy and mold them into something useful which then allows life to perpetuate itself. You say this is not possible. SO are you asserting that every living organism requires constant supernatural attention to remain alive because it is not thermodynamically possible or do you admit that the chemistry of life seems to do just fine despite your complaints?

 

"If the total amount of energy in the universe is constant how can it be converted into entropy?"

Entropy is that energy which is no longer available to do work.

"The problem is...If the amoeba evolved into a "better" creature, WHY ARE THERE STILL AMOEBAS? "

Just because part of a population evolves to exploit another niche does not mean that every memebr has gone extinct. It is perfectly capable of continuing to exploit the niche it is in.

It is like asking why my parents are still here since I am alive.

 

What specifically is the problem?

Observation tells us, and thermodynamics allows, for local decreases in entropy to happen...</font>[/QUOTE]Entropy is just a mathematical quantity that defines heat content divided by temperature (Q/T). It increases when things are heated up, and it decreases when things are cooled down, but when heat is transferred from a hot body to a cold body, the overall effect is an increase in entropy. Some of the heat (but not all of it) can be converted to work during the transfer, but as the temperature difference decreases, the proportion of heat that can be converted into work decreases, so the system becomes useless. This is how entropy is a measure of uselessness.

The connection with disorder is not just entropy, it's the whole thermodynamic process, and the impact of energy transfer in an uncontrolled manner.

Now, it's getting past midnight here in the UK and I'm not staying up all night going through all the definitions piece by piece. If you want to know more about it you can read my book:

Impossible Theology: The Christian Evolutionist Dilemma.
www.annomundi.co.uk/bible/impossible_theology.htm

Mutations are, to a large extent, a consequence of the distribution of energy. The Sun gives off heat, and at the same time it throws out all sorts of nasty radioactive particles that cause mutations. In that case, mutations are part of the thermodynamic process, and are just another example of the relentless march from order to disorder. Mutations do not contribute to evolution. In fact they are a reason why evolution should NOT happen, because they continuously destroy the information in the genome.

Not what I meant. But I thnk you knew that.</font>[/QUOTE]No, I didn't know. I can't assume that someone believes in God's creative power just because they appear on Baptist Debate Forums (Baptist Only).

God created everything perfect, but death came because of the fall, and since then everything has gradually deteriorated. People used to live for almost a thousand years, but after the flood their lives were shortened because of the depleted gene pool. Now we only live for about 70 years because our genes are so messed up, and if it was not for modern medicine, we would only live till about 50. If this was allowed to continue for a few thousand more years, humanity would become extinct because we would not live long enough to produce another generation.

And now I'm off to bed. Bye for now.

Mike

 

Huh? Why not just say they happen randomly, as replication is not always perfect?

Well, the theory is that under selective pressure, mutations that hinder reproduction don't get reproduced as much and mutations that help reproduction get reproduced more.

Thus, mutations plus reproduction plus selection all together are absoluteley ESSENTIAL to the theory of evolution.

Now, you claim the theory doesn't work. So far, we have not seen you explain why not. We keep getting a restatement it won't work, that's all.

 

"Mutations are, to a large extent, a consequence of the distribution of energy..."

Mutations provide new genetic sequences which can then be selected by some of the other processes which I mentioned. Harmful mutations are eliminated while beneficial ones are preserved.

You are aware of how the arrangement of the genetic code facilitates this, are you not. Mutations are not harmful quite as often as you would insinuate. Mutations to the third codon in each three base pair group will lead to the substituation of a very similar amino acid (if not the same amino acid) allowing for minor changes to the code. Substitutions in the second position will lead to more of a change which can be positive or negative. Only changes to the first position leads to major changes which are generally harmful but not always. This also ignores such steps as duplications, frame shifts and recombination into chimeric genes.

"God created everything perfect, but death came because of the fall, and since then everything has gradually deteriorated."

You are still not adressing how life can create order from raw materials and energy through natural chemical processes if your assertions are true.

Of course, you are also not providing any specific problems that entropy causes for evolution either. It sounds good, but you have no details. Your assertions sound convincing to those predisposed to your way of thinking but they have no substance. You cannot point to a single step in evolution prevented by entropy. Pages of dancing around that issue demonstrate such.

 

I have seen Entropy defined as a measure of the increased unavailability of the energy of a system for useful work, however, I have never seen it defined as "that energy which is no longer available to do work." Perhaps you actually have more than one textbook on Thermodynamics.

I would be interested in a reference to your definition. That is, unless you have developed a new concept of Entropy.

 

Then, please, give us one step in the evolution of man from our last common ancestor with the other apes that is prohibited by 2LOT and tell us why that particular step is prohibited. If entropy really is a problem, then it should not be a very difficult request.

And there are many textbooks on thermodynamics, but I would like to see one that attempts a different statement of the second law. </font>[/QUOTE]In my initial post on this thread I wrote: The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that order cannot spontaneously arise out of disorder which is required for evolution to occur. Transition from a state of disorder to a state of order requires a decrease in entropy, again a violation of the Second Law. I later stated that there were three aspects or means of stating the Second Law:

1. As a measure of the increased unavailability of the energy of a system for useful work. [Classical Thermodynamics].
2. As a measure of the increased disorder, randomness, or probability of the arrangement of the components of the system. [Statistical Thermodynamics]
3. As a measure of the increasingly confused information in the transmission of the coded message through a system. [Informational thermodynamics]

Isaac Asimov, who I believe is an evolutionist, has stated: "That is one way [that is, decreasing availability of energy] of stating what is called the Second Law of Thermodynamics. It is one of many ways; all of them are equivalent although some very sophisticated mathematics and physics are involved in showing the equivalence." In the game of Energy and Thermodynamics, page 8.

Asimov also writes: 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 up 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 deteroriate. In fact, all we have to do is do nothing, and everything deteriorates, collapses, breaks down, wears out, all by itself - and that is what the Second Law is all about. In the game of Energy and Thermodynamics, page 6.

In regards to your question and considering the equivalence of the three aspects of the Second Law it is obvious that evolution is prohibited by the Second Law since order cannot arise spontaneously from disorder, information cannot be transmitted without increased confusion or loss of information.

 

You state: "the theory is that under selective pressure, mutations that hinder reproduction don't get reproduced as much and mutations that help reproduction get reproduced more."

Isn't this actually just a self gratifying assumption. Gascoigne is correct. Mutations are a good example of the application of the Second Law to the transfer of information.

 

Unfortunately many professing Christians have compromised the Biblical teaching of creation with the claims of evolution and embraced a concept called ‘theistic evolution’ teaching that God uses evolution to accomplish His creative purposes. The term ‘theistic evolution’ is self contradictory since the fundamental postulates of evolution are unlimited time and chance without design. The following remarks by leading evolutionists [from The Modern Creation Trilogy by Henry M. and John. D. Morris] show the absurdity of theistic evolution.

Nobel prize winning biologist Jacques Monod writes:

“Natural selection is the blindest most cruel way of evolving new species. .... I am surprised that a Christian would defend the idea that this is the process which God more or less set up in order to have evolution.”

Evolutionist A. J. Mattell is even more perceptive:

“Those liberal and neo-orthodox Christians who regard the creation stories as myths or allegories are undermining the rest of Scripture, for if there was no Adam there was no fall; and if there was no fall, there was no hell; and if there was no hell, there was no need of Jesus as Second Adam and Incarnate Savior, crucified and risen. As a result the whole biblical system of salvation collapses. .... Evolution thus becomes the most potent weapon for destroying the Christian faith.”

And that is all I have to say on this subject. I have learned that discussion with an evolutionist, even those who claim to be Christians, is as useful as shoveling manure against a tidal wave.

 

"I have seen Entropy defined as a measure of the increased unavailability of the energy of a system for useful work, however, I have never seen it defined as "that energy which is no longer available to do work." Perhaps you actually have more than one textbook on Thermodynamics."

I think that if you re-read the two statements you will find them equililent. Saying that the energy is increasingly unavailable to do work is the same as saying that the energy is no longer available to do work.

You may want to look up the rest of the second Asimov statement you quoted. In it he EXPLICITLY states why entropy is not a problem for evolution. Since you quoted him as an expert, you should be willing to accept his opinion in the matter. Look it up. If you cannot find it, I will provide it tomorrow for you. You have been the victim of dishonest quoting by YE leaders. Not that unusual.

"In regards to your question and considering the equivalence of the three aspects of the Second Law it is obvious that evolution is prohibited by the Second Law since order cannot arise spontaneously from disorder, information cannot be transmitted without increased confusion or loss of information."

You have done nothing to tie in the information definition you quoted as actually being part of the second law.

You have not shown any particular step that is denied possibility by entropy.

You have ignored that the second law actually allows for local decreases in entropy so long as the entropy of the universe increases.

In short, you have yet to show a problem. Because there is none.

 

For those who are impatient with this banter, as I am, here it is in a nutshell. The 2LOT says things don't become more complex without energy. We don't live in a closed system, we get energy from the sun.

To say that evolution is impossible because of the 2LOT, you have to say babies growing into children and then adults is impossible. You have to say that water turning into complex snowflakes is impossible. Basically, all of nature around you disproves the silly 2LOT argument of the Creationists.

 

(sigh) OK Old Regular, let me spell out for you just how information can come about in evolution.

Start with a life form that uses dna coding the genome and lets have a few mutations come along.

So far, we have merely a degredation of the genome. BUT - we let the critters reproduce a few generations.

Those critters with mutations that hinder their reproduction and survival . . suffer the hindrance and don't reproduce or survive as well. The mutations die out with them.

Those critters with mutations that help their reproduction and survival (and that's precious few of the mutations, we all know that!) reap the benefit of having those mutations and those mutations build up over time as a result.

So, in time, the differential result of which mutations become estabilshed and which mutations died out give us new information, that is new, alternative ways of building the genome to reproduce our critters.

Now you will notice that at no point can you spot anything in this develpment of new information that is contrary to the laws of thermodynamics. The whole argument against evolution from the second law of thermodynamics is merely playing with words.

 

The problem with the evolutionist science is that the only people who understand evolution and science are Bible literalists.

 

"Evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics."

This shows more a misconception about thermodynamics than about evolution. The second law of thermodynamics says, "No process is possible in which the sole result is the transfer of energy from a cooler to a hotter body." [Atkins, 1984, The Second Law, pg. 25] Now you may be scratching your head wondering what this has to do with evolution. The confusion arises when the 2nd law is phrased in another equivalent way, "The entropy of a closed system cannot decrease." Entropy is an indication of unusable energy and often (but not always!) corresponds to intuitive notions of disorder or randomness. Creationists thus misinterpret the 2nd law to say that things invariably progress from order to disorder.

However, they neglect the fact that life is not a closed system. The sun provides more than enough energy to drive things. If a mature tomato plant can have more usable energy than the seed it grew from, why should anyone expect that the next generation of tomatoes can't have more usable energy still? Creationists sometimes try to get around this by claiming that the information carried by living things lets them create order. However, not only is life irrelevant to the 2nd law, but order from disorder is common in nonliving systems, too. Snowflakes, sand dunes, tornadoes, stalactites, graded river beds, and lightning are just a few examples of order coming from disorder in nature; none require an intelligent program to achieve that order. In any nontrivial system with lots of energy flowing through it, you are almost certain to find order arising somewhere in the system. If order from disorder is supposed to violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics, why is it ubiquitous in nature?

The thermodynamics argument against evolution displays a misconception about evolution as well as about thermodynamics, since a clear understanding of how evolution works should reveal major flaws in the argument. Evolution says that organisms reproduce with only small changes between generations (after their own kind, so to speak). For example, animals might have appendages which are longer or shorter, thicker or flatter, lighter or darker than their parents. Occasionally, a change might be on the order of having four or six fingers instead of five. Once the differences appear, the theory of evolution calls for differential reproductive success. For example, maybe the animals with longer appendages survive to have more offspring than short-appendaged ones. All of these processes can be observed today. They obviously don't violate any physical laws.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html#thermo

See also:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo.html

 

A good overall Christian view of 2LOT:

http://members.aol.com/steamdoc/writings/thermo.html

http://www.charleswood.ca/reading/evolution.php

The consequences of Creationism:

http://www.aps.org/apsnews/1100/110018.cfm

 

&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;Things either get worse or no worse, but they don't get better, and that's why evolution is incompatible with thermodynamics.&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;

Mike, being a chemical engineer, you ought to understand thermodynamics better than you do. Check the link below to find out what several authors of thermodynamics textbooks think about your claim.

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

 

&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that order cannot spontaneously arise out of disorder which is required for evolution to occur. Transition from a state of disorder to a state of order requires a decrease in entropy, again a violation of the Second Law. &lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;

No, the Second law does not state that order cannot arise spontaneously out of disorder and no, the real 2nd law is not in conflict with evolution. By the way, contrary to your claim order arises out of disorder every day.