Impossible evolutionary steps?

[UTEOTW]

"Your definitions are all wrong. You don't know what is meant by a closed system. When you find out, tell me what is the difference between a closed system and an isolated system."

It depends on whose defintions you want to use.

Some use "isolated" and "closed" interchangeably. In this case, these are systems in which neither energy nor matter cross the boundary.

Some then differentiate between the two. "Isolated" comes to mean a system in which neither energy nor mass is transferred in or out while "closed" means that only energy is transferred across the boundary.

I see where you are going with this. However, if you choose to use the second set of definitions then you are still missing the boat because the total entropy of a system is only required to increase if it is an isolated system.

In the second set of definitions, where a closed system allows for energy transfer but not mass transfer across the boundary, the entropy of the closed system can still decrease because it is capable of passing energy across the boundary.

If you chose the second set you must then say that entropy can only increase in an isolated system. For in a closed system, where energy can pass the boundary, entropy can decrease.

And I think we could have a discussion over how much mass transfer across the boundary is required for it to even be closed. Since the earth does exchange some mass with space, it is in the strictest sense an open system. If you take the first definition for closed and isolated, then the earth is still an open system solely because of the exchange of energy.

By differentiating between closed and isolated you can at least try and make a cse that the system is closed by the entropy requirement then only holds for an isolated system.

 

[Mike Gascoigne]

Originally posted by UTEOTW:
It depends on whose defintions you want to use.

Best to define your terms up front, otherwise nobody knows what you mean.

Mike

 

[UTEOTW]

We can bog down on definitions, but whatever definitions you choose, entropy is only required to increase for systems that exchange neither mass nor energy across their boundary. So the earth is not limited to only increasing entropy. Of course, even if it were, this would not apply to smaller systems within the boundary of the earth. Every living system is exchanging both matter and energy with the enviroment so there is no requirement for the entropy of these systems to be only increasing. Furthermore, these systems do not operate at equilibrium conditions which throws another complication into the whole discussion.

But the short of it is that the earth exchanges energy with the universe so there is no requirment that its entropy only increase.

And nothing about entropy has yet been shown to prevent any of the mechanisms of evolution.

 

[Phillip]

Snow flakes don't count. Snowflake shapes are a result of the shape of the crytallization of ice. Due to molecular shape, the snowflake is forced to a six pointed symmetrical random shape. Due to the symmetry the randomness makes for very beautiful patterns.

This is true with any crystalline substance or crystal growth, symmetry and shape are functions of the shape of the molecule and the way that molecule binds with other molecules to form crystaline structures.

Let's don't use this as an example. If it shows anything it shows that heat transfers from the water to the colder surrounding atmosphere according to the laws of thermodynamics. Nothing more.

 

[UTEOTW]

It is an example because it is a case where the entropy of a system spontaneously decreaes. You are correct about why it happens, but that is beside the point. If you are going to dismiss it because you understand the underlying reason for the decrease, then you will do the same for all other examples. Except, perhaps, for example that are revelant to life processes.

 

[Mike Gascoigne]

Originally posted by UTEOTW:
And nothing about entropy has yet been shown to prevent any of the mechanisms of evolution.

Wrong. I have shown that you can't have photosynthesis without plants.

Now, if you have a very large budget, and you can pay me a lot of money, I could go through every chemical process that is alleged to have occured at every stage of evolution. It would be a mammoth task, because there are an immense number of processes occurring just in one species. But I could add up the Gibbs free energies of all the reactants and products and see if they come out feasible. This would produce many volumes of documentation but I would be prepared to do it (and set up a reasearch unit with a large staff) if you have got the money.

However, I've made it simple by giving you the example of photosynthesis. This is the only way up Thermodynamic Hill, and all the other processes are just sliding down again.

Mike

 

[OldRegular]

Originally posted by UTEOTW:
"Can you present one example where order spontaneously arises out of disorder? "

I think manchester gave you several above.

Let's do a simple one. Water freezing. Liquid water is jostling around. It has fairly high entropy. When it cools, a natural process, it will form crystals. These crystal orient themselves into a regular ordered way. The are very ordered and have lower entropy. This is a way in which an ordered system and a local decrease in entropy happen spontaneously.

Surely you jest. Water freezes spontaneously!!!!! I suppose water boils spontaneously also!!!!!!

Originally posted by UTEOTW:
"The Second Law applies throughout the universe, not just the earth, therefore your argument about the earth not being a closed system is fallacious."

Only the entropy of a closed system is required to increase. The earth is not a closed system. It is in exchange of energy and mass both with the rest of the universe. It is an open system. Therefore the entropy of the earth or even of a small part of the earth can decrease so long as the entropy of the universe increases.

Again I assume you jest. Who has stated that the earth is a closed system? I repeat an earlier quote for your edification:

Harvard scientist John Ross, in a letter to Chemical and Engineering News [July 7, 1980], writes: "There are no known violations of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Ordinarily the Second Law is stated for isolated systems, but the Second Law applies equally well to open systems. . . There is somehow associated with the field of far from equilibrium phenomena the notion that the Second Law of Thermodynamics fails for such systems. It is important to make sure that this error does not perpetuate itself."

 

[UTEOTW]

"Wrong. I have shown that you can't have photosynthesis without plants."

First, I was unaware that photosynthesis was a mechanism for evolution.

Second, I doubt that photosynthesis was the first reaction (well, actually using the sugar produced from photosynthesis) that provided energy to living organisms. This would have likely been a chemical reation with components of the enviroment of the first life.

So, no, you have yet to demonstrate that entropy prevents any of evolutions mechanisms.

 

[UTEOTW]

"Surely you jest. Water freezes spontaneously!!!!! I suppose water boils spontaneously also!!!!!! "

The boiling of water increases its entropy. It requires an input of energy to happen. Water does evaporate without boiling however this is still an increase in entropy.

Last night my dog's water dish froze. I did nothing. The water in that dish just decreased in entropy through purely natural processes.

"Harvard scientist John Ross, in a letter to Chemical and Engineering ..."

Who said that the second law does not apply for an open system? You misunderstand. However, the key point is that there is no requirement for the entropy of an open system to increase.

Only a system which is not exchanging mass or energy is required to only increase in entropy.

 

[OldRegular]

Originally posted by UTEOTW:
"Surely you jest. Water freezes spontaneously!!!!! I suppose water boils spontaneously also!!!!!! "

The boiling of water increases its entropy. It requires an input of energy to happen. Water does evaporate without boiling however this is still an increase in entropy.

Last night my dog's water dish froze. I did nothing. The water in that dish just decreased in entropy through purely natural processes.

"Harvard scientist John Ross, in a letter to Chemical and Engineering ..."

Who said that the second law does not apply for an open system? You misunderstand. However, the key point is that there is no requirement for the entropy of an open system to increase.

Only a system which is not exchanging mass or energy is required to only increase in entropy.

"Spontaneous" means [Websters New Universal Unabridged Dictionary]
1. coming or resulting from natural impulse or tendancy.
2. independent of external agencies, self acting.

Do you use air conditioning in Alabama or are your homes spontaneously cooled? Wish that happened in South Carolina, in fact think of all the energy we could save if it happened in other states.

 

[UTEOTW]

First, spontatneous has a very specific definition in thermosynamics which must be separated from any lay definiton.

Second, that water froze all on its own. No air conditioning at all. Its going to be about 16 tonight. Brrr.

Finally, in the case of AC, you are taking heat and forcing it to be trnasferred from the cooler area, the inside, to the warmer area, the outside. This is not favorable and requires work to accomplish.

 

[OldRegular]

Originally posted by UTEOTW:
First, spontatneous has a very specific definition in thermosynamics which must be separated from any lay definiton.

Second, that water froze all on its own. No air conditioning at all. Its going to be about 16 tonight. Brrr.

Finally, in the case of AC, you are taking heat and forcing it to be trnasferred from the cooler area, the inside, to the warmer area, the outside. This is not favorable and requires work to accomplish.

The water did not freeze all on its own. That statement is foolish. It froze because its temperature dropped below 32 degrees F through heat transfer to its surroundings, a thermodynamic event. It is not a spontaneous event! Get real!!!

 

[Phillip]

Originally posted by UTEOTW:
It is an example because it is a case where the entropy of a system spontaneously decreaes. You are correct about why it happens, but that is beside the point. If you are going to dismiss it because you understand the underlying reason for the decrease, then you will do the same for all other examples. Except, perhaps, for example that are revelant to life processes.

Why do you say it is a decrease in entropy. It is a decrease in energy, but just because the molecules quit moving due to heat and freeze forming a crystaline structure certainly doesn't have anything to do with entropy. If anything, it is more stationary than it was when it was liquid. I do not think the "state" of a compound or element has much to do with entropy. If changes were made such as iron oxidizing, then you have entropy.

This is no more than already shaped molecules changing their state to a solid and forming a pattern based simply on the shape of the molecule.

 

[Phillip]

Originally posted by UTEOTW:
So, God created created the genomes of eukaryotes to have a few percent of their genome to be inserts of DNA from retroviruses. Not only that, but he made creatures that would be thought of as closely related through evolution have the same inserts. For example, man and the other apes share the same set of inserts. The same strings and at the same locations. Even better, if you trace the pattern of mutations in these viral inserts, you find that the pattern is just the same as you get when tracing morphology...or coding DNA...or pseudogenes.

The complexity certainly sounds like intelligent design to me. The viral inserts are no more "strange" than bacteria carrying on the manufacture of certain enzymes and vitamins in the gut, and keeping yeast and fungus in check.

In fact, the more technical you get, the more obvious that a designer was behind all of this. Since God created life, he chose to use DNA as the blue-print to turn RNA into the enzymes and machines that provide all of the extremely complex functions of a single cell.

Just one cell is such an amazing work of art. An entire factory performing functions and then reproducing itself.

If you were to find a car factory in the desert of New Mexico, you would see the design and recognize it. Right here in front of your face, you are ignoring the design of God.

Just because God used like functions in some animals and didn't in other is just a guess. All of the things you mentioned are simply items that evolutionists have tried to fit into their neat little theory of naturalism.

Without God in the picture, "evolution" IS a Requirement. There is nothing else. You yourself have taken God out of the equation. Even an allegorical Genesis is in conflict with this theory. Instead of interpreting it the way you claim, I propose that you must throw it out completely to maintain your theory; otherwise, explain why Genesis 1:1 through (say) Genesis 1:21 is to teach us?

Do you believe the Old Testament was completely inspired by God? Or put together from a bunch of myths?

 

[Phillip]

Originally posted by Mike Gascoigne:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by UTEOTW:
And nothing about entropy has yet been shown to prevent any of the mechanisms of evolution.

Wrong. I have shown that you can't have photosynthesis without plants.

Now, if you have a very large budget, and you can pay me a lot of money, I could go through every chemical process that is alleged to have occured at every stage of evolution. It would be a mammoth task, because there are an immense number of processes occurring just in one species. But I could add up the Gibbs free energies of all the reactants and products and see if they come out feasible. This would produce many volumes of documentation but I would be prepared to do it (and set up a reasearch unit with a large staff) if you have got the money.
Mike </font>[/QUOTE]Mike and I would come to a few conclusions concerning your machine.

1) Entropy would be increasing as the equipment gets older and starts corroding and falling apart. It certainly is not going to get better. If a tornado comes along, it will not mutate to make itself better able to survive against high winds.

2) You STILL don't have "LIFE".

3) It is unlikely your factory will reproduce itself.

4.) A designer would be required, the wind certainly isn't going to blow raw materials together to do these functions.

 

[Benfranklin403]

Just a couple of points from someone who has had several courses in thermodynamics. Ice certainly has less entropy than a similar mass of liquid water. Natural processes routinely involve materials going to a state of lower entropy. The formation of ice from water is one such example.

Evolution is not prohibited by the 2nd law. Those who say that the second law is a problem for evolution do not understand thermodynamics.

 

[Phillip]

Originally posted by UTEOTW:
Let's do a simple one. Water freezing. Liquid water is jostling around. It has fairly high entropy. When it cools, a natural process, it will form crystals. These crystal orient themselves into a regular ordered way. The are very ordered and have lower entropy. This is a way in which an ordered system and a local decrease in entropy happen spontaneously.

UTEOTW, even this example surprises me. You seem much smarter than this. The "order" is already set by the physical shape of the molecules, the molecules have no choice but to settle together in six pointed shapes simply because of their shape.

All that has exchanged by lowering the temperature is removing the energy that causes those initially shaped molecules jostling around.

This is a very sad example of entropy increase, and you complain about the YEC people trying to come up with a hypothesis that fits their theory. You are doing no better with THIS particular example. See if you can give a better example.

 

[Benfranklin403]

Just a couple of points from someone who has had several courses in thermodynamics. Ice certainly has less entropy than a similar mass of liquid water. Natural processes routinely involve materials going to a state of lower entropy. The formation of ice from water is one such example.

Evolution is not prohibited by the 2nd law. Those who say that the second law is a problem for evolution do not understand thermodynamics.

 

[Phillip]

Originally posted by Benfranklin403:
Just a couple of points from someone who has had several courses in thermodynamics. Ice certainly has less entropy than a similar mass of liquid water. Natural processes routinely involve materials going to a state of lower entropy. The formation of ice from water is one such example.

Evolution is not prohibited by the 2nd law. Those who say that the second law is a problem for evolution do not understand thermodynamics.

Those who believe in macro-evolution do not understand "LIFE". Why don't you tell us about yourself as we all have. UTEOTW did a fine job of his background and experience and so have we. Would you do the same?

Please tell us just what parts of the Bible that you think are literal and what parts are not. Do you believe in Adam and Eve. When did man get a soul? Do you believe Jesus fed 5000 with two fishes and some bread? Do you believe Jesus made Lazarus rise from the dead?

Why do you believe the OT is an allegory and the NT isn't?

Let's hear your beliefs and experience so we will know where you come from, we are all good friends debating here. Though we may not agree.

 

[Phillip]

By the way, we are getting off subject here.

Let's talk about a bacteria's flagellum. Particularly a Eukaryote which is composed of two central single microtubules surrounded by a cylinder of nine double microtubules, all covered by a plasma membrane.

This entire systems works very similar to an electric motor with a stator and rotor.

Neither one of these devices does ANYTHING to improve a bacteria by themselves. This is a very complex little system to move bacteria around, but it works well and as I said, you cannot show ANY improvement by the development of the individual components, which is opposite any evolution theory.