evolution and 2nd law of thermodynamics

imported_guy

hello people, i just started studying thermodynamics in college, and came across the evolution vs creationism arguments (i have no idea how it made me laugh my head off for a while) some of which say that evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics, i did some research and unfortunately i couldnt find any proper scientific sites on this

heres one http://www.aboundingjoy.com/2ndlaw-fs.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy_and_life this is a nice article from wikipedia though not very detailed and explains little

so can anyone explain in normal english how the two go togather?

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CF/CF001.html

This explains it (and pretty much all creationist arguments) pretty well.

Long story short: the sun.

Turtwig

Right well you need an ID proponent to explain how their argument actually works as they usually tend to dodge the explanation:(

Anyhu from what I could grasp it goes something like this:

Entropy by the second law is always increasing in an isolated system. Therefore if we consider the universe as an isolated system and the entropy contained within is always increasing. Hence by this fact we concluding that systems within the universe are always tending towards disorder rather than order...hence forth as evolution leads to more ordered systems we are left to conclude that either the 2nd law is wrong, or our concept of entropy is wrong or EVOLUTION is wrong.

For some reason, even after that questionable logic the conclusion is drawn that evolution MUST be wrong.


Here's the nonsense in more detail if you want to read on it,
http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=245

Also, as we're not discussing science per say, mods feel free to delete my post if you deem it unscientific (which I certainly agree it is):)

ZorbaTehZ

Whoever wrote the article needs to understand the distinction between evolution and abiogenesis - he seems to be getting the two mixed-up towards the end of the article.

The crux of the argument he makes (although his wording is painfully bad) is that the 2nd Law states that things ought to become more disordered rather than ordered, which he claims is in opposition to evolution because things become organised.

He is wrong on two accounts at least, 1.) clearly the earth and everything on it could not in any way be classified as a a closed system or as a something that is "left to itself" 2.) he doesn't understand that entropy need not be the same everywhere in the system, ie. a local increase in entropy can be offset by a decrease somewhere else in the system.

John

ZorbaTehZ wrote: »

2.) he doesn't understand that entropy need not be the same everywhere in the system, ie. a local increase in entropy can be offset by a decrease somewhere else in the system.

And not only that, as time tends towards infinity, increases in order such as life, crystals, etc. will in turn tend toward disorder.

Capt'n Midnight

If the second law of thermodynamics prevented things becoming more complex then there would be no free oxygen in the air.

There would be no macromolecules either.

The existance of creationists sould therefore be impossible, unless of course the second law refers to the average level of entrophy.



TBH it's a bit like saying that if you pour water it won't splash :rolleyes:

imported_guy

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

TBH it's a bit like saying that if you pour water it won't splash :rolleyes:

pour it at an angle then haha :P

but i think ZorbaTehZ and John explained it good

thanks guys