A Non-Inflammatory Evolution Question

[Rousseau]

I was pondering something last night, and perhaps some of the "evolutionists" on this board can help me out with it.

Most of the vocal evolutionists on this board are also big believers in physics, especially as pertaining to time. Stephen Hawking ("Einstein's intellectual successor") believes (correct me if I'm wrong) that time is defined by the increase of entropy. For instance, imagine a teacup falling off a table. In the "past" it is whole, in the "future" it is not...and increase in entropy has occured that is irreversible. Please, if I'm wrong about any of this, let me know (like I have to give you permission...).

Now, for the purposes of discussion let's assume for the moment that pure evolution is correct...that proteins spontaneously formed billions of years ago to form the first life on this planet, and organisms have been evolving ever since. It would seem to me, then, that evolution has been moving against increasing entropy, in fact, that the entire basis of evolution is the creation of more ordered forms of life. The first proteins formed single-celled organisms, from whence came multi-cellular organisms, and so on.

Now, I'm not trying to debunk either theory here, because I know that the people who proposed them, and many of the people who support them, are infinetly smarter than I am, and I'm probably not the first person to notice that evolution seems to be moving against entropy. But it does seem curious to me, that's all.

------------------
"History will be kind to me, for I intend to write it." -Winston Churchill

[Nu Vo Da Da]

Entropy only operates within closed systems. The origins of life on earth predicate an influx in energy from the sun, and thus are an open system. The sun produces this energy by entropic decay on a large scale. If the sun+earth is considered to be the system in question, then the formation of life on earth is an insignificant reversal of entropy compared to the sun's decay, and the net output of the system is entropic.

In other words, life isn't anti-entropic unless it is able to exist and form without the constant addition of energy from another source.

[manhattan]

As you can imagine, Rousseau your idea has been proffered before. Spend some time with this article from the Talk.origins archive and let us know if you have any questions. IMO, that will keep any subsequent debate on a slightly higher level.

------------------
NYC IRL III
is on April 15th. Do you have what it takes?

[andros]

Firstly, please bear in mind that abiogenesis and evolution are two separate and very different theories.

In a nutshell, the Second Law of Thermodynamics (Entropy) occurs in the long term and within a closed system. If the universe is bounded, we'll eventually see heat death--long-term entropy within a closed system. However, since the Earth is not a closed system (we're constantly receiving energy from the sun, for example), the SLoT is not really applicable to evolution.

Plus, evolution does not always mean increasing complexity. It means viability. Otherwise, single-celled organisms would have died out eons ago.

-andros-

[andros]

Dammit, I would have had you guys if I hadn't gotten that phone call.

[Boris B]

I agree with what's previously been said, but I'd like to add that I think evolution is possible even within a closed system. If energy quit coming in from outside, a lot organisms might die, leaving other organisms to compete for a shrinking supply of bioavailable energy. Thus competition would probably be increased. Evolution could continue in such a system for a while, though of course it would cease when the last (or perhaps the second-to-last) organism went extinct.

In fact, if you take the universe as a whole, this is true. The whole place is suffering slow heat death, but us little evolving being can eat and drink for a while. Naturally, the universal scale is too big for it to matter much, but I think I should assert that the universe itself can be considered a closed, increasingly entropic system.

[CalifBoomer]

Check out this book "New Story, New God." The author is saying much the same thing, based on science.

You can hear an interview with the author Here. Scroll down to 3/28/2000.

::

[tomndebb]

CalifBoomer, can you summarize the points made in that book? There is no review at Amazon and my connection is not supporting audio at the moment.

Is Pakula trying to raise Rousseau's question? Or trying to describe the science that demonstrates that earth is an open system?

------------------
Tom~

[JonF]

I'd like to pick a nit here ...

Many times I've seen, here and elsewhere, the statement that "The second law of thermodynamics applies only to closed systems". This statement is incorrect.

One way of stating the second law is "the entropy of a closed system must either remain constant or increase". It is not obvious from this particular statement how the second law applies to open systems, but it indeed does. Another way of stating the second law (obviously not as suitable for text-based discussions) is:

[img]http://www.britannica.com/bcom/art/00143/07.gif[\img]

(I hope that works ...)

where the summation terms on the left side of the equals sign represent entropy flow into and out of the system. For a closed system these terms are zero.

See The Second Law of Thermodynamics.

Just to point out how weird it can get: in graduate shool, many many moons ago, I took a thermo course that was partially taught by a professor who specialized in non-equilibrium thermodynamics (which makes classical thermodynamics look as simple as the addition table). I wish I could remember his statement of the second law. His statement of the first law was:

"Any interaction between two systems in which either system could have been replaced by a weight falling in a gravitational field is work."

and his statement of the second law was equally arcane ...

And my favorite way of stating the three laws is, even though it's not particularly rigorous:

1. You can't win; the best you can do is break even.

2. You can't break even.

3. You can't get out of the game.


------------------
jrf

[JonF]

Damn, try again:

http://www.britannica.com/bcom/art/00143/07.gif

------------------
jrf

[hardcore]

JonF: Ah, yes... thermodynamics, or as we so affectionately called it in college, thermogoddammics.

In a closed system, the left side of your equation reduces to zero, and the equation becomes:

dS=q/T

where dS= the change in entropy, q is the flow of heat, and T is the absolute temperature.

Now how creationists get from this and apply it to evolution is beyond me. They typically try to extrapolate that systems cannot spontaneously go from a less-ordered state to a more-ordered state. But in fact, this happens all the time -- water freezes into ice, salt crystals form, seeds become flowers. All that is required is an energy flow, and as Boris B pointed out, this can happen even in a closed system.

[wevets]

hardcore: Indeed!

Not only do we know that systems can go from a less ordered to a more ordered state, in biological systems we know where the energy that drives the building of more ordered compounds comes from. We know that photons are captured by the photosystems in chlorophyll and other pigments, we know that organic compounds are broken down (producing "less ordered" waste products) for energy to sustain the system, and we know that none of this violates the laws of thermodynamics... and yet there are those who say it does. I'm afraid that I don't really understand their thought process on this point.
-Steve

------------------
"Banned by the Space Pope"

[Sterra]

so the sun causes evolution?

[David B]

Rousseau: I'm gonna turn you in for false advertising -- you said this was a "Non-Inflammatory" question!

You also said:

Most of the vocal evolutionists on this board are also big believers in physics, especially as pertaining to time.

I've never heard of anybody "believing" in physics or time. Time keeps going, whether I believe in it or not (much like evolution). Physics just, well, is. Strange word choice -- I guess that's what I'm trying to say. But others have already addressed your question.

------------------
"Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection is, to my mind, the most beautiful in all of science."
-- Susan Blackmore, The Meme Machine

[hardcore]

Asmodean, I wouldn't say that the sun causes evolution. The same sun shines on the other planets in our solar system, yet it is unlikely any evolution is taking place there (though I am still holding out for Europa).

But the sun does provide most of the necessary energy on earth for evolution.

[Smeghead]

My attempt at clarification:
Even in a closed system, which the universe may or may not be, a localized increase in order is fine, as long as it is balanced by a larger decrease in order elsewhere.
So you could, in a way, say that the sun fuels evolution. The sun is a giant disorder-producing machine. Any order produced here is more than made up for there.

A little more detailed explanation:
On a molecular level, complexity is represented by molecules, like proteins, that are thermodynamically unfavorable. All else being equal, the macromolecules of life would tend to fall apart by themselves. We make up for that by deliberately destroying ordered molecules - ATP, for instance - and using that energy to build and maintain the other molecules. So where does ATP (and other energetic molecules) come from? Ultimately, the energy for creating ATP comes from the sun, through photosynthesis. There are a very few exceptions near deep sea vents, where all the energy comes from radioactive decay in the earth's core, but that's not really relevant.

Clear? Of course it is!

[Monty]

Originally posted by hardcore:
Now how creationists get from this and apply it to evolution is beyond me.

"Leap of Faith," of course.

Now here's the rub: They're willing to have "The Truth as They See It [trademark]" believed by THEM on "Faith Alone [trademark]" but, for the rest of us and our children (especially for our children), it must be forced down their throats in the public schools "For Their (our children's) Own Good [trademark]."

Fucking hypocrites.