Evidence that the Second Law of Thermodynamics is wrong?

Dear Lord, if you exist, spare us from 2LOT trolls...

Bringing up the 2nd law of thermodynamics (2lot) is a clever ploy, for very few people understand it, and any argument based on the 2lot therefore sounds like quibbling over fine points between two groups of experts. That is, it sounds like there really is a "scientific controversy", and it is "only fair to have open discussion between the two sides of the controversy."

May I simply point out, rather, that the 2lot applies also to intelligent designers. It was discovered precisely because the very clever engineers of the 19th century ran into limitations on what they were able to do. They couldn't make "perpetual motion machines of the 2nd kind".

Therefore, if anyone discovers a violation of the 2lot, we can feel confident that the explanation for that violation is not to be found in the activity of intelligent designers.

This is, of course, merely pointing out once again that the advocates of intelligent design do not have an answer to the very question that they are raising.
Which is an instance of the observation that ID does not have an answer to any question.

As a rule, when I see this argument used, the IDiot tends to simply state that complexity can not come from simplicity. It violates the 2nd law.

Have any of these people been to a child birthing? From a single sperm and a single egg we get babies. That's about as complicated as any 747.

Creationist claims that there cannot be a LOCAL decrease in entropy demonstrate either extreme dishonesty or complete lack of ignorance of thermodynamics.

Also, presumably, since life does require energy input to be maintained, the ongoing reproduction and growth of organisms does represent a local decrease in entropy at some scale.

But this would be the case whether or not life was evolving. The facts that reproduction results in offspring that vary from parents, and that natural selection of phenotypes and other factors such as genetic drift can cause variation in allele frequency in population, don't necessarily seem to suggest increased consumption of energy/extra decrease of local entropy. It takes energy and presumably local decrease in entropy to reproduce and survive; it doesn't necessarily take EXTRA energy/local entropy decrease to evolve. Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't (the chemistry behind mutations is complex but they are spontaneous events).

Perhaps the 2LOT argument is not merely wrong about 2LOT, but also entirely irrelevant. It may actually amount to an argument that life itself does not exist.

Ah, so now the DI is promoting 2LOT denial: all power to the big tent!

If Granville Sewall is right, the growth of the weeds is a violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

Now let's see, all we have to do to fool the ignorant rubes is make a few nebulous statements conflating the terms energy, entropy and information (without ever actually defining these terms mind you) and everyone will be fooled. Brilliant!

Why these charlatans always think that they can bring down hundreds of years of scientific advancement with a few simple word games and absolutely no evidence or experimentation is beyond me. Why anyone would fall for this kind of tripe is another matter altogether.

It is a well-known prediction of the second law that, in a closed system, every type of order is unstable and must eventually decrease, as everything tends toward more probable states. Not only will carbon and temperature distributions become more disordered (more uniform), but the performance of all electronic devices will deteriorate, not improve. Natural forces, such as corrosion, erosion, fire and explosions, do not create order, they destroy it. The second law is all about probability, it uses probability at the microscopic level to predict macroscopic change: the reason carbon distributes itself more and more uniformly in an insulated solid is, that is what the laws of probability predict when diffusion alone is operative.

— Granville Sewell

If archeologists of some future society were to unearth the many versions of my PDE solver, PDE2D , which I have produced over the last 20 years, they would certainly note a steady increase in complexity over time, and they would see many obvious similarities between each new version and the previous one.

— Granville Sewell

carlsonj said: Unless, of course, there is intervention of an intelligent designer capable of violating SLOT.

harold said: Creationist claims that there cannot be a LOCAL decrease in entropy demonstrate either extreme dishonesty or complete lack of ignorance of thermodynamics.

http://books.google.com/books?id=s7twnshsNW8C&printsec=frontcover&dq=E.+O.+Wiley+second+law&source=bl&ots=SGeXb9DMh0&sig=bSsA1IE_b6TNSgkGGtv1YnOgC5Q&hl=en&ei=3b19S-upAciWtged2PihBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CBQQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=&f=false

Has anyone read this book?

Granville is a fascinating example of how much trouble the creationists and intelligent design proponents have of getting people who are actually productive in their fields (although in the case of Behe it looks like he was productive until he got involved). Let's look at Granville's publication record according to Mathscinet, which covers pretty much all mathematics in the Western hemisphere

We have two items about his software (which he can't resist plugging any here), one from 1983 and the other from 1985. We have a paper from 1988 about making graphs look pretty and easy to see on computer screens. We have two marginally large works. One is a review work/textbooks on the state of PDE research from 2005, but that is a second edition. Original is from 1988. The other is a textbook on computational linear algebra from 2005. The textbooks seem to be well-received judging from a quick Google search for reviews, two of which note that Granville uses the textbook in his own classes (memo to Granville, you are not Serge Lang). It seems like his productivity isn't exactly high. No real research since the 1980s.

Hmm, I may need to take my comment back slightly. I just looked also at Granville's resume (linked to from his homepage http://www.math.utep.edu/Faculty/sewell/ )and it looks like if one moves outside pure math his productivity doesn't look as bad, with some papers in metallurgy and geology. The result doesn't look nearly as bad. He doesn't look impressive at all. Seems more like a mediocre academic than someone with a poor record.

Also apparently he's been pushing some form of ID for a while. There appears to be some sort of postscript to "Analysis of a Finite Element Method: PDE/PROTRAN" which the DI claims is pro-ID. That's from 1985. If anyone can track down a copy I'd be interested in seeing what it says.

With time, the second law came to be interpreted more and more generally, and today most discussions of the second law in physics textbooks offer examples of entropy increases (order decreases, since we are defining order to be the opposite of entropy) which have nothing to do with heat conduction or diffusion, such as the shattering of a wine glass or the demolition of a building.

— Granville Sewell

Confusing entropy with disorder is ridiculous. It has nothing to do with order/disorder and if it did entropy increases order.
Example: add hot water to a cup of cold water the initial state is quite disorderly but over time it becomes a uniform temperature due to entropy.
And discounting the sun? The sun adds 0.174 exajoules to Earth every second. That means every 10 minutes it add more energy than that consumed by the US every year (105 EJ).

Dude, if you've really overturned the second law of thermodynamics, you need to email the President of Physics.

How would it help the antievolution activists to show that the 2nd law was wrong, anyway? That wouldn't rule out evolution, it would just rule out one of their oldest arguments. At least, to anyone who's paying attention that's what it would do.

Besides, entropy is about the distribution of energy states among atomic (or subatomic) particles, not the arrangements of those particles in molecules.

Henry

Joe, their argument will simply be that God "the designer" (nudge, wink), created the weeds in the first place, they're just doing what they were designed to do.

Not agreeing, just saying.

Mike, not exactly. From a mathematical perspective entropy really is deeply related to permutation issues. Boltzmann entropy and Gibbs entropy are both defined specifically in terms of permutations, and there are some of the oldest forms of entropy known. And yes, some formulations of Shannon information theory aren't just similar to the entropy equations, but actually identical. And the analogy is actually a helpful one in some contexts (such as for example in making Landauer principle argumens which are sort of related to understanding why Maxwell's demon doesn't work).

Note also that we need to be careful when we talk about just "entropy" as a general issue because there are actually multiple definitions used by physicists. All the often used defintions agree closely if one is dealing with a well behaved object, such as a gas that is close to ideal. However, they branch off quickly from there, not so much from disagreement of values (although in the case of Boltzmann v. Gibbs that does happen) so much as that some of them are just not meaningful in certain contexts. Thus for example, the definitions of entropy used for most classical purposes will break down in contexts where there is quantum mechanical behavior but we have other definitions that pick up the slack in those cases.

Disclaimer: I'm a math grad student not a physicist, so some of the above may be wrong.

These mathematicians are a funny lot. They happily start with a few axioms and start proving theorem after theorem that were all consistent with those axioms even if it has absolutely no connection to reality.

Italian mathematician Giovanni Girolamo Saccheri set about to prove that Euclidean geometry is the only possible geometry. He started with a postulate that basic axioms of Euclid are not true and proved theorem after theorem, looking for a violation of the starting axioms to finally say, "Since this can not be true, our assumption Euclidean axioms are wrong also can not be true. So Euclidean geometry is the only True Geometry". He never could. Every theorem he proved was consistent. He died thinking he was a miserable failure. But what he had done was to have invented an entirely new branch of mathematics, "Non Euclidean geometry". Of course we dont have a single example of non euclidean geometry existing, none physicists could detect. But that still that non euclidean geometry is a vibrant and active field.

So let this mathematician also start with the axiom that second law of thermody is false, and go on to prove a new field of mathematics. Since 2lot is the only physical law that obeys an arrow of time, (all other physical laws work forward as well as backward in time) he will have a fertile field where water flows uphill, heat flows from cool to hot bodies, even faster than light travel may be possible.

But that will not make it real or physical any more than non Euclidean geometry.

Sorry guys, yesterday I was roped in to sit in an all day meeting a French mathematician who kept talking about Kryolov sub spaces and singular value decomposition till we all keeled over.

Joshua Zelinsky said: Mike, not exactly. From a mathematical perspective entropy really is deeply related to permutation issues. Boltzmann entropy and Gibbs entropy are both defined specifically in terms of permutations, and there are some of the oldest forms of entropy known.

A side note here is that this book was published by the Dishonesty Institute Press (who/what?). The DI has apparently gone into the business of publishing their own nonsense. This allows them to publish their religious tracts as science, their creationism as science, and also they can claim their materials are peer reviewed (by fellow creationits of course), thus giving them an air of legitmacy to their followers and answering the claims of the real scientific community that they have no peer-reviewed materials. This must be a strategy linked to their 2010 wedge efforts.

Ravilyn Sanders said: Sorry guys, yesterday I was roped in to sit in an all day meeting a French mathematician who kept talking about Kryolov sub spaces and singular value decomposition till we all keeled over.

If someone disses your experimental results, just say, "They're as repeatable and verifiable as Felsenstein's Weeds." In this way, you can demonstrate a complete lack of ignorance.

Phillip Moon said: As a rule, when I see this argument used, the IDiot tends to simply state that complexity can not come from simplicity. It violates the 2nd law. Have any of these people been to a child birthing? From a single sperm and a single egg we get babies. That's about as complicated as any 747.

Yes there is a Flea in the comment threads of my local newspaper who is a YEC/bible literalist. He repeats all the old creationist canards and 2LOT is a favorite. Yesterday I got the giraffe neck one. Yawn.

I'd love to know how many creationists believe that human inventors can evade the 2nd law. My impression is that many of them don't realize that genuine intelligent design, i.e. what engineers do for a living, is as constrained by thermodynamics as any other process in the universe.

Dan said: The permutation issues arise only for the ideal gas and, as we all know, no gas is ideal.

A good discussion about why disorder is a poor metaphor for entropy is presented by Professor of Chemistry Frank L. Lambert at http://entropysite.oxy.edu/

Joshua Zelinsky said: Mike, not exactly. From a mathematical perspective entropy really is deeply related to permutation issues. ...

The reason these thermodynamic arguments persist so long, and despite so much debunking, is probably simple: they're one of the few arguments where the creationist god is not an option, it is absolutely required, and evolution is either impossible and so didn't happen, or is impossible without the creationist god.

For the average non-physicist creationist (and even for those who ARE physicists), the claim that their god MUST be involved, because evolution would defy fundamental laws without it, is obviously intoxicating. I think this is a sort of creationist version of physics envy.

Krylov subspaces

You may be familiar with the fact that thermodynamics can be taught without any regard to the details of the “internal states” of a system. One can divide up the energy budget into “heat” or “internal energy” and energy that goes into doing mechanical work. The “working medium” can hold energy, and we can do empirical measurements to determine how much the medium can store energy in the form of “heat”. Then the entire subject can be reduced to a set of partial derivatives on multivariable functions that give the relationships among things like temperature, volume, pressure; all macroscopic parameters of the system. Some courses can be taught in an almost axiomatic fashion.

carlsonj

[me:] If Granville Sew[e]ll is right, the growth of the weeds is a violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

Unless, of course, there is intervention of an intelligent designer capable of violating SLOT. So, in conclusion, if you are having problems with weeds in your yard, it is clearly a punishment from God The Intelligent Designer. HTH.

feralboy12 Dude, if you’ve really overturned the second law of thermodynamics, you need to email the President of Physics.

fnxtr said: Joe, their argument will simply be that God "the designer" (nudge, wink), created the weeds in the first place, they're just doing what they were designed to do. Not agreeing, just saying.

Flint said: The reason these thermodynamic arguments persist so long, and despite so much debunking, is probably simple: they're one of the few arguments where the creationist god is not an option, it is absolutely required, and evolution is either impossible and so didn't happen, or is impossible without the creationist god.

“your reply is so pathetic, and your ignorance of the deep, substantial connections between the IT and TD notions of entropy (ever heard of Maxwell's Demon?) is so obvious that I am quite happy to let you boil in your prejudice broth. :( "

Joe Felsenstein said: Hard to see how these material entities (the weeds), even if created by supernatural entities, could then be designed so as to violate the SLOT by growing! (If SLOT is true, that is, and if Granville Sewell's argument is correct ...)

Mike Elzinga said:

Joe Felsenstein said: Hard to see how these material entities (the weeds), even if created by supernatural entities, could then be designed so as to violate the SLOT by growing! (If SLOT is true, that is, and if Granville Sewell's argument is correct ...)

Devil weeds.

Steve Morrison said: Krylov subspaces

Joshua Zelinsky said: Mike,

You may be familiar with the fact that thermodynamics can be taught without any regard to the details of the “internal states” of a system. One can divide up the energy budget into “heat” or “internal energy” and energy that goes into doing mechanical work. The “working medium” can hold energy, and we can do empirical measurements to determine how much the medium can store energy in the form of “heat”. Then the entire subject can be reduced to a set of partial derivatives on multivariable functions that give the relationships among things like temperature, volume, pressure; all macroscopic parameters of the system. Some courses can be taught in an almost axiomatic fashion.

Hmm, was vaguely aware of that but hadn't heard a statement that explicit before to that effect. That makes sense. The rest of your post also helps clarify stuff a bit. I guess I'm too used to thinking in terms of the counting issues since from a mathematicians perspective that's where a lot of the interesting stuff is happening (and for other analogs we care about like topological entropy which really stretches the use of the word). Thanks, that helped a lot.

Mike Elzinga said: The second law of thermodynamics is NOT about order. Entropy is NOT about order.

Ryan Cunningham said:

Phillip Moon said: As a rule, when I see this argument used, the IDiot tends to simply state that complexity can not come from simplicity. It violates the 2nd law. Have any of these people been to a child birthing? From a single sperm and a single egg we get babies. That's about as complicated as any 747.

I use the EXACT same argument. "Wait. Don't all your arguments apply equally well to development? Are you arguing that the second law forbids a single cell to grow into a person?"

Of course we dont have a single example of non euclidean geometry existing, none physicists could detect.

Joshua Zelinsky said:

Dan said: The permutation issues arise only for the ideal gas and, as we all know, no gas is ideal.

As I understand it, the issue arises if one wants the approximate entropy of a near-ideal gas to actually behave asymptotically how it should. Indeed, the whole permutation thing comes in what amounts to the non-ideal case. In an ideal gas Boltzmann and Gibbs entropy agree. It is only in the non-ideal case that we care about permutations. Am I missing something here?

Mike Elzinga said:

Joshua Zelinsky said: Mike, not exactly. From a mathematical perspective entropy really is deeply related to permutation issues. ...

Josh, Entropy refers to the number of energy microstates that are consistent with the macrostate of the system (its temperature, pressure, volume, magnetization, etc.) It is actually the logarithm of that number multiplied by Boltzmann’s constant(S = k_B ln W, where W is the number of microstates). The enumeration of those states gets into the technical issues of counting, and that is often where the confusion starts because there are lots of individual cases one can play with. It also depends on whether one is considering a classical system or a quantum mechanical system. Then there are the issues of energy distributions, Boltzmann, Bose-Einstein, and Fermi-Dirac. But the form of that relationship (the logarithm along with Boltzmann’s constant) gives it a tight relationship to the absolute temperature of the system and the way that number of microstates changes with total energy. And it eventually all ties together with the older thermodynamic calculations. I don’t want to drive away people here.

Steve Morrison said: Krylov subspaces

Mike Elzinga said: Every time I have encountered an ID/creationist and pointed out their problem with not only thermo, but other scientific concepts as well, it’s as though their entire nervous system shuts off... ...This is what I have seen for over 40 years now. I don’t know if it can be changed.

I have been watching this shtick for over 40 years, and it is one of the most exasperating displays of gut-bustingly, determined stupidity imaginable. The second law of thermodynamics is NOT about order. Entropy is NOT about order.

Consider a completely uniform state and a completely chaotic state: which has the most entropy, probability, order, information, and complexity?

TomS said: A great many of the creationist arguments against evolution apply with at least as much force against reproduction and development. So much so, that whenever I hear a creationist argument I automatically check whether it works just as well as an argument for Scientific Storkism (or the "Big Top" version that doesn't identify the Stork: "Intelligent Delivery").

Dave Thomas said: Indeedly! I recommend the related article Strengths and Weaknesses that we posted at NMSR back in 2008. Cheers, Dave

Bob O'H said:

Of course we dont have a single example of non euclidean geometry existing, none physicists could detect.

Stand on the equator, and draw 2 parallel lines. Then extrapolate them, and they meet at the poles. The surface of a globe is an example of elliptical geometry.

The Discovery Institute Press has published a book by Granville Sewell,...

It seems to me the most influential IDers now are Meyer and Behe, and perhaps to a lesser extent Dembski and Berlinski. I'm fairly confident that if any of them were asked in a debate if the Second Law violates evolution they would without hesitation reply: "no it doesnt" ...... End of Discussion...we should not waste our time with crank arguements that the main IDers themselves wouldnt touch.

Flint said: The reason these thermodynamic arguments persist so long, and despite so much debunking, is probably simple: they're one of the few arguments where the creationist god is not an option, it is absolutely required, and evolution is either impossible and so didn't happen, or is impossible without the creationist god. For the average non-physicist creationist (and even for those who ARE physicists), the claim that their god MUST be involved, because evolution would defy fundamental laws without it, is obviously intoxicating. I think this is a sort of creationist version of physics envy.

raven said: Nothing to add. I too have defied the Second Law of Thermodynamics by growing from a single cell to an adult. This would be more impressive if my cats hadn't been able to do the same thing.

The Discovery Institute Press has published a book by Granville Sewell,...

I'm surprised that the DI had the nerve or confusion to actually publish such an obviously stupid and wrong YEC argument. It does not do their credibility any good if they keep trying to pretend they are promoting science. My impression is that the DI is going back to pure YECism, xian Dominionism, and extreme fundie xianity. This is a recipe for being marginalized to the lunatic fringes, not that they aren't already well on the way there.

RodW said: It seems to me the most influential IDers now are Meyer and Behe, and perhaps to a lesser extent Dembski and Berlinski. I'm fairly confident that if any of them were asked in a debate if the Second Law violates evolution they would without hesitation reply: "no it doesnt" ...... End of Discussion...we should not waste our time with crank arguements that the main IDers themselves wouldnt touch.

I met Behe once and I have assisted other Intelligent Design Movement advocates in writing books. I have to say, Behe is an intelligent gentleman.

raven said: Nothing to add. I too have defied the Second Law of Thermodynamics by growing from a single cell to an adult. This would be more impressive if my cats hadn't been able to do the same thing.

The Discovery Institute Press has published a book by Granville Sewell,...

I'm surprised that the DI had the nerve or confusion to actually publish such an obviously stupid and wrong YEC argument. It does not do their credibility any good if they keep trying to pretend they are promoting science. My impression is that the DI is going back to pure YECism, xian Dominionism, and extreme fundie xianity. This is a recipe for being marginalized to the lunatic fringes, not that they aren't already well on the way there.

I honestly agree that Panspermia is more Scientific of an explanation than God did it.

Dan said: I don't want to drive away people either, but I do want to add that the above treatment holds only for the microcanonical ensemble. For the canonical, grand canonical, and other ensembles different definitions apply. The formula correct for all ensembles is S = -k_B SUM p_i log p_i where p_i is the probability of occupying microstate i. And since ideality has come up, I want to remind everyone the Fermi-Dirac and Bose-Einstein statistics apply only to non-interacting particles.

As a former Scientist myself... I do happen to agree with some sort of Intelligent Design as a form of Natural Science, and don’t think there is anything wrong with that as well.

we as Intelligent Design Movement advocates are trying to separate ourselves from the Young Earth Creation movement.

Donald Pabst said:

RodW said: I'm fairly confident that if any of them [Behe etc...] were asked in a debate if the Second Law violates evolution they would without hesitation reply: "no it doesnt" [quote snipped]

I think it does, and fellow university professors do as well.

Donald Pabst said: As a former Scientist myself, I find it difficult that you guys misunderstand the Creation Science side of the argument. I might not agree with Biblical creationism, but I do happen to agree with some sort of Intelligent Design as a form of Natural Science, and don't think there is anything wrong with that as well.

raven said:

As a former Scientist myself... I do happen to agree with some sort of Intelligent Design as a form of Natural Science, and don’t think there is anything wrong with that as well.

Think you may have just contradicted yourself there. Scientist and Intelligent Design don't belong in the same sentence.

I might not agree with Biblical creationism, but I do happen to agree with some sort of Intelligent Design as a form of Natural Science, and don’t think there is anything wrong with that as well.

I recall seeing Sewell's book on numerical solutions to ODES/PDES, browsed through it, thinking maybe I wanted a copy, and then I noticed there was an Appendix D: Can "ANYTHING" Happen in an Open System?. He briefly says to apply the book's theorem X for yourself to living systems, and you'll have a clearcut disproof of evolution.

Golly, he couldn't bother writing it out. Needless to say, I did not buy it. I later realized I recognized his name. Springer-Verlag had published his mathematical diatribe against evolution in "The Mathematical Intelligencer" (the article is on Sewell's webpage). It was garbage.

william e emba said: He briefly says to apply the book's theorem X for yourself to living systems, and you'll have a clearcut disproof of evolution.

Henry J said: What is wrong with ID as science is that the concept doesn't explain anything.

Dan said: The formula correct for all ensembles is S = -k_B SUM p_i log p_i where p_i is the probability of occupying microstate i.

Donald Pabst said: As a former Scientist myself, I find it difficult that you guys misunderstand the Creation Science side of the argument. I might not agree with Biblical creationism, but I do happen to agree with some sort of Intelligent Design as a form of Natural Science, and don't think there is anything wrong with that as well.

But there are ID arguments that are science. Those are the negative arguments about evolutionary biology not being able to explain phenomenon X.

Violating the Second Law of Thermodynamics, as Sewell understands it, is as simple as pie. Or at least as easy as baking a cake. The classical definition of change in Entropy S for a change in the state of a substance that happens at temperature T and requires a heat input of Q is that S ==Q/T (where '==' is used to mean "defined as", not just equal to). The second law then states that if the substance is in a closed system with no other influences on it other than that heat input, then S is always positive, i. e., the entropy of the substance can only increase.

So, let's bake a cake. This requires heat input at a certain temperature, which is why we put the batter in the oven set at 350 degrees fahrenheit. The liquid batter changes into the solid cake greatly increasing its order (Creationists and IDers always like to use the example of adding heat to ordered solid ice to melt it into disordered liquid water, or to somewhat disordered water to produce highly disordered gaseous steam, both of which processes involve an increase in thermodynamic entropy, to show that entropy increases always lead to greater disorder.) Damn, Entropy increases and order increases - It obviously must be a Devil's food cake.

Henry J said: (in response to my statement that)

But there are ID arguments that are science. Those are the negative arguments about evolutionary biology not being able to explain phenomenon X.

But that's not an attempt to provide an explanation; that's an attempt to reduce confidence in an already existing explanation. Besides, even if they did somehow "prove" that known processes were insufficient to account for known species, all that would prove is that there's an unknown process. To actually support "ID", one would need to show some consistently observed pattern that would be a logical consequence of some version of "life was engineered", but that wouldn't be expected otherwise.

Mike Elzinga said: But the real issue is why matter condenses; and it is no coincidence that the subfield of condensed matter physics is call that instead of just solid state physics. So here again we are up against teaching basic physics concepts to laypersons without the use of math. Generally the bookkeeping of energy seems to be the best approach, but now we talk about kinetic energy, potential energy, total energy and falling into wells and staying in the wells instead of bouncing back out. I got very satisfying feedback on my presentations and lecture series; so at least on a local level, I and others seemed to help.

Mike Elzinga -

I just want to note one thing with respect to the excellent discussion of thermodynamics here.

As I tried to articulate in my first comment, and as has come up a couple of times again in the thread, the creationist line of argument here is not only wrong but also self-contradictory (a common combination).

The creationist argument from thermodynamics cannot possibly be right, as reproduction and development of life would also be impossible if it were. Not only is it wrong, but it is not even specific to biological evolution either. It actually argues against all sorts of things that even creationists don't deny.

(The first time I saw a creationist make a thermodynamics argument, I told him that I possessed some high tech devices that could violate 2LOT as he understood it, namely an ice cube tray and a freezer.)

Flint -

Yes, it is true that "proving 'by logic' that evolution must be impossible despite all the evidence" is always popular among creationists. That is because this tactic is compatible with both laziness and avoidance of cognitive dissonance. By not actually bothering to even address biology, they get to avoid both the hard work of studying and the discomfort of seeing any actual evidence for biological evolution.

Of course, certain types, like Luskin and Wells, are actually capable of going through the motions of getting degrees in biology, solely to claim the credentials in service of their science-denying agenda. But not everyone is cut out for that intense a level of deception of self and others, and cognitive dissonance.

Eric Finn said: Let me give you a little feedback. You may then decide, how well you have performed. I will make four statements for you to evaluate.

It is a well-known prediction of the second law that, in a closed system, every type of order is unstable and must eventually decrease, as everything tends toward more probable states. Not only will carbon and temperature distributions become more disordered (more uniform), but the performance of all electronic devices will deteriorate, not improve. Natural forces, such as corrosion, erosion, fire and explosions, do not create order, they destroy it. The second law is all about probability, it uses probability at the microscopic level to predict macroscopic change: the reason carbon distributes itself more and more uniformly in an insulated solid is, that is what the laws of probability predict when diffusion alone is operative.

harold said: The creationist argument from thermodynamics cannot possibly be right, as reproduction and development of life would also be impossible if it were. Not only is it wrong, but it is not even specific to biological evolution either. It actually argues against all sorts of things that even creationists don't deny.

They are particularly effective when they can juxtapose statements that "ID isn't science" with statements that experiments can be done that refute ID.

no. the experiments disproving ID are innumerable in the literature already.

by using their very own terminology/approach, each and every successful test of a hypothesis regarding evolutionary theory is a disproof of ID.

Joe, you're being suckered.

ID cannot even formulate a testable hypothesis without evidence of how a purported designer can and DOES operate within the natural world.

It simply is insufficient to formulate a logical construct, call it a "hypothesis", and say that it's testable.

again, there simply is no real world evidence whatsoever to utilize to even begin to formulate a testable hypothesis regarding intelligent design.

again, and I've said this before, you seem easily suckered by their logical arguments that have nothing to do at all with real world testability.

Ichthyic said:

[I had said:] They are particularly effective when they can juxtapose statements that "ID isn't science" with statements that experiments can be done that refute ID.

no. the experiments disproving ID are innumerable in the literature already. by using their very own terminology/approach, each and every successful test of a hypothesis regarding evolutionary theory is a disproof of ID. Joe, you're being suckered. ID cannot even formulate a testable hypothesis without evidence of how a purported designer can and DOES operate within the natural world. It simply is insufficient to formulate a logical construct, call it a "hypothesis", and say that it's testable. again, there simply is no real world evidence whatsoever to utilize to even begin to formulate a testable hypothesis regarding intelligent design. again, and I've said this before, you seem easily suckered by their logical arguments that have nothing to do at all with real world testability.

AnswersInGenitals said: Violating the Second Law of Thermodynamics, as Sewell understands it, is as simple as pie. Or at least as easy as baking a cake. The classical definition of change in Entropy S for a change in the state of a substance that happens at temperature T and requires a heat input of Q is that S ==Q/T (where '==' is used to mean "defined as", not just equal to). The second law then states that if the substance is in a closed system with no other influences on it other than that heat input, then S is always positive, i. e., the entropy of the substance can only increase. So, let's bake a cake. This requires heat input at a certain temperature, which is why we put the batter in the oven set at 350 degrees fahrenheit. The liquid batter changes into the solid cake greatly increasing its order (Creationists and IDers always like to use the example of adding heat to ordered solid ice to melt it into disordered liquid water, or to somewhat disordered water to produce highly disordered gaseous steam, both of which processes involve an increase in thermodynamic entropy, to show that entropy increases always lead to greater disorder.) Damn, Entropy increases and order increases - It obviously must be a Devil's food cake.

Since most of us will not live to 100, we’ll succumb to the 2nd Law eventually.

phantomreader42 said:

raven said:

As a former Scientist myself... I do happen to agree with some sort of Intelligent Design as a form of Natural Science, and don’t think there is anything wrong with that as well.

Think you may have just contradicted yourself there. Scientist and Intelligent Design don't belong in the same sentence.

Well, he did say he was a FORMER scientist. So thank you, Donald Pabst, for admitting that you have abandoned science, and that ID is not, never has been, and never will be science.

raven said:

Since most of us will not live to 100, we’ll succumb to the 2nd Law eventually.

According to one way of looking at life, we are just DNA's way of reproducing itself and spreading. The DNA of myself and my cats have been doing this for 3.7 billion years. We are tough, competent, lucky survivors of a chain stretching back a long ways. It won't last forever but it could easily last billions of more years. The galaxy appears to be empty right now. We could spread out and own it all if we want.

Joe Felsenstein said: The statements that they make that you are referring to that need information about the motives, means, and opportunity of the Designer, are the positive claims of ID as to what Design has done. Those are not testable.

Mike Elzinga -

You are entirely right about how a modern, "sophisticated" creationist would respond to the ice cube tray example.

Although the exchange in question took place since the invention of ID (*I actually wasn't really involved with creationists before about 1999*), it took place in the pre-Dover environment, when many "amateurs" were still active. That particular person merely responded by not using any more thermodynamics arguments when addressing me.

I'm sure he did use them when addressing others. As we all know, the implied logical objective of the creationist is to "win" each individual exchange, and "truth" is implicitly "whatever the 'winner' can force the other guy to admit". Arguments are not intended to be "true" or "false" in the way we understand the terms, but as tactics.

henry said: Since most of us will not live to 100, we'll succumb to the 2nd Law eventually.

Now the statement that evolution can’t have occurred because it contradicts the Second Law is one of the hoariest old creationist myths. When you hear it you know you are dealing either with someone who does not understand science, or else someone who does understand science but is actively, and dishonestly, trying to get you not to understand science.

— Joe Felsenstein

Donald Pabst said:

raven said: Nothing to add. I too have defied the Second Law of Thermodynamics by growing from a single cell to an adult. This would be more impressive if my cats hadn't been able to do the same thing.

The Discovery Institute Press has published a book by Granville Sewell,...

I'm surprised that the DI had the nerve or confusion to actually publish such an obviously stupid and wrong YEC argument. It does not do their credibility any good if they keep trying to pretend they are promoting science. My impression is that the DI is going back to pure YECism, xian Dominionism, and extreme fundie xianity. This is a recipe for being marginalized to the lunatic fringes, not that they aren't already well on the way there.

As a former Scientist myself, I find it difficult that you guys misunderstand the Creation Science side of the argument. I might not agree with Biblical creationism, but I do happen to agree with some sort of Intelligent Design as a form of Natural Science, and don't think there is anything wrong with that as well.

Joe Felsenstein said:

Ichthyic said:

[I had said:] They are particularly effective when they can juxtapose statements that "ID isn't science" with statements that experiments can be done that refute ID.

no. the experiments disproving ID are innumerable in the literature already. by using their very own terminology/approach, each and every successful test of a hypothesis regarding evolutionary theory is a disproof of ID. Joe, you're being suckered. ID cannot even formulate a testable hypothesis without evidence of how a purported designer can and DOES operate within the natural world. It simply is insufficient to formulate a logical construct, call it a "hypothesis", and say that it's testable. again, there simply is no real world evidence whatsoever to utilize to even begin to formulate a testable hypothesis regarding intelligent design. again, and I've said this before, you seem easily suckered by their logical arguments that have nothing to do at all with real world testability.

There is some disconnect here. I am not saying that they can formulate any testable hypotheses. They find statements by evolutionary biologists that ID isn't science, that it does not make any testable predictions. Then they find statements by biologists, sometimes even the same biologists, that say that one can test ID and reject it. They then make fun of the obvious contradiction. What one can do is take negative arguments by ID advocates, and test them. Those negative arguments (about how it is impossible for evolution to do X or to do Y) are scientific arguments, and they can be tested. And they are commonly rejected. The statements that they make that you are referring to that need information about the motives, means, and opportunity of the Designer, are the positive claims of ID as to what Design has done. Those are not testable. We have to make this distinction. You aren't making it.

TomS said:

Joe Felsenstein said: The statements that they make that you are referring to that need information about the motives, means, and opportunity of the Designer, are the positive claims of ID as to what Design has done. Those are not testable.

But the point is that the advocates of ID have no positive claims about what "design" has done. Or what it has not done. Or what it can or cannot do. And as to their "scientific" claims about what evolution cannot do: Yes, I agree that we can evaluate those claims. But we can also point out that they are not able to make the corresponding affirmative claim: That ID can do it, much less did do it. (Except in the trivial sense that ID can do anything, as well as its opposite.)

Arthur Hunta said: Think about this the next time you shake up a few trillion trillion molecules of salad oil and water. Think about the bolded statements in particular, and stare in amazement as these bajillions of molecules assemble into a perfectly ordered system, one set of molecules choosing the top of the vessel and the other the bottom.

How long will Henrietta Lacks' DNA keep replicating (HeLa cell culture)? Is she immortal?

So I say they have a positive claim, and you say they don’t, but we’re not really disagreeing. They have no positive claim that’s a scientific hypothesis.

— Joe Felsenstein

Scott said: That brings up an interesting question. When one talks about 2LOT and a "closed" system, must that system be closed wrt all forms of energy, or just "heat" energy? In this experiment the oil and water separate (become "ordered") in the presence of a gravitational (acceleration) gradient. The two would not tend to separate in orbit, for example (at least in that way). So, is the stoppered, insulated flask "closed" in the 2LOT sense when in a gravity well?

Kevin B said:

Scott said: That brings up an interesting question. When one talks about 2LOT and a "closed" system, must that system be closed wrt all forms of energy, or just "heat" energy? In this experiment the oil and water separate (become "ordered") in the presence of a gravitational (acceleration) gradient. The two would not tend to separate in orbit, for example (at least in that way). So, is the stoppered, insulated flask "closed" in the 2LOT sense when in a gravity well?

That's not really a very helpful way of looking at it. The oil and water separate because the total potential energy of the arrangement where the denser water is below the oil is less than that of the mixed oil and water. Because the mixture is mobile and able to separate out, it does so. The "left-over" potential energy is converted into the kinetic energy of the constituents in motion, and finally the "excess" energy is converted into heat. Although it would normally be assumed that the motion of the Earth resulting from the mass of the oil and water is small enough to be ignored, nevertheless it is there; if the cause of the gravitational field is external to the boundary of the system being considered, that system cannot be "closed". And the 2LOT is about "energy" not "heat energy".

Scott said:

Arthur Hunta said: Think about this the next time you shake up a few trillion trillion molecules of salad oil and water. Think about the bolded statements in particular, and stare in amazement as these bajillions of molecules assemble into a perfectly ordered system, one set of molecules choosing the top of the vessel and the other the bottom.

That brings up an interesting question. When one talks about 2LOT and a "closed" system, must that system be closed wrt all forms of energy, or just "heat" energy? In this experiment the oil and water separate (become "ordered") in the presence of a gravitational (acceleration) gradient. The two would not tend to separate in orbit, for example (at least in that way). So, is the stoppered, insulated flask "closed" in the 2LOT sense when in a gravity well?

surface tension and hydrogen bonds?

Sometime or other, some intelligent agent(s) designed something, and then somehow manufactured that thing, all the while leaving no independent evidence of the design process or the manufacturing process, and no independent evidence of the presence or even the existence of the designing and manufacturing agent(s).

RBH said: This is the 'positive' ID claim:

Sometime or other, some intelligent agent(s) designed something, and then somehow manufactured that thing, all the while leaving no independent evidence of the design process or the manufacturing process, and no independent evidence of the presence or even the existence of the designing and manufacturing agent(s).

More easily summarized as "Lo, a miracle!"

Test that, science man!

And miracles, by definition, are not science - there's nothing to test.

RBH said: This is the 'positive' ID claim:

Sometime or other, some intelligent agent(s) designed something, and then somehow manufactured that thing, all the while leaving no independent evidence of the design process or the manufacturing process, and no independent evidence of the presence or even the existence of the designing and manufacturing agent(s).

Test that, science man!

Joe Felsenstein said: So I say they have a positive claim, and you say they don't, but we're not really disagreeing. They have no positive claim that's a scientific hypothesis.

Two examples from me.

1)A Big ball of water (planet) cools in quite empty place of cold space. Entropy decreases, icy mountains grow up. (At least in my flask in freezer). Impossible ? Shouldn't mountains always decrease in corrupted ID/ICR world ? ;)

2) Complexity under sun-light. Mix sodium sulfate and aluminium sulfate with water and let crystallize. You'd get very complex
molecule [NaAl(SO4)2·12H2O or Na2SO4·Al2(SO4)3·24H2O]where there are up to 96 atoms.
Impossible in ID/ICR-world ?
In nature there are minerals alum-(Na), mendozite and tamarugite.(At least latter).
No DNA or info is needed for complexity increase.

MrrKAT said: Two examples from me. 1)A Big ball of water (planet) cools in quite empty place of cold space. Entropy decreases, icy mountains grow up. (At least in my flask in freezer). Impossible ? Shouldn't mountains always decrease in corrupted ID/ICR world ? ;) 2) Complexity under sun-light. Mix sodium sulfate and aluminium sulfate with water and let crystallize. You'd get very complex molecule [NaAl(SO4)2·12H2O or Na2SO4·Al2(SO4)3·24H2O]where there are up to 96 atoms. Impossible in ID/ICR-world ? In nature there are minerals alum-(Na), mendozite and tamarugite.(At least latter). No DNA or info is needed for complexity increase.

TomS said:

Joe Felsenstein said: So I say they have a positive claim, and you say they don't, but we're not really disagreeing. They have no positive claim that's a scientific hypothesis.

I quite agree. I would say that they have a claim, in the sense of advertising: "new, improved".

Just Bob said:

henry said: Since most of us will not live to 100, we'll succumb to the 2nd Law eventually.

Umm... but a FEW of us WILL live to 100! So we won't have to succumb to the 2nd Law? Forgive me for literally interpreting your words.

John Kwok said: It's for the very reason you noticed that ID has been referred to as "Madison Avenue advertising-styled Intelligent Design creationism":

TomS said:

Joe Felsenstein said: So I say they have a positive claim, and you say they don't, but we're not really disagreeing. They have no positive claim that's a scientific hypothesis.

I quite agree. I would say that they have a claim, in the sense of advertising: "new, improved".

henry's moved the goalposts. What a surprise.

He gave us the usual creo malarky, that the USA was founded as a Christian nation. It was pointed out to him that most of the Founders were deists, and mostly only nominally Christians, and that the founding documents not only made no specific reference to Christianity, but they forbade the State from favouring any religion.

Now here henry is again, telling us that most of the population were Protestant Christian, and that this means the same thing.

Only it doesn't. In 1776 the people of the United States were mostly Christians, true, and I believe that a simple majority were Protestants, but they founded an avowedly secular nation, not a Christian one. Part of the covenant that they made among themselves was that no creed would be a State creed, no church a State church, no-one favoured or disadvantaged by religious belief, and that in matters of religion the State would preserve an impartial neutrality.

The USA is not a Christian nation. It is a secular State, and all the maunderings and foolish antihistory of religious whackaloons like henry will not change the fact.

henry said:

John Kwok said: It's for the very reason you noticed that ID has been referred to as "Madison Avenue advertising-styled Intelligent Design creationism":

TomS said:

Joe Felsenstein said: So I say they have a positive claim, and you say they don't, but we're not really disagreeing. They have no positive claim that's a scientific hypothesis.

I quite agree. I would say that they have a claim, in the sense of advertising: "new, improved".

By the way, here is what Gordon Wood on Ushistory.org stated on an online interview. 6th answer, may 8, 1999 american revolution His book, "The Radicalism of the American Revolution," won the Pulitzer Prize in 1991. shs I thought our founding fathers were deists. Did that carry over to the general population? Prof. Wood No. The leaders and most educated tended to be deists -- they saw God as the great mover and were doubtful of the divinity of Christ. But most people were devout Protestant believers. Deism is confined to the elite. Wood recognized the Christian nature of most of the people at the beginning of our nation, which continues even today but to a lesser degree.

henry said: Since most of us will not live to 100, we'll succumb to the 2nd Law eventually.

RBH said: This is the 'positive' ID claim:

Sometime or other, some intelligent agent(s) designed something, and then somehow manufactured that thing, all the while leaving no independent evidence of the design process or the manufacturing process, and no independent evidence of the presence or even the existence of the designing and manufacturing agent(s).

Test that, science man!

1. Whether the negative claims of ID are science or can be dismissed as “not science”. We're in agreement about the not-science nature of the positive claims.
2. Whether agreement has been reached about “order” and the Second Law.

henry said:

Just Bob said:

henry said: Since most of us will not live to 100, we'll succumb to the 2nd Law eventually.

Umm... but a FEW of us WILL live to 100! So we won't have to succumb to the 2nd Law? Forgive me for literally interpreting your words.

There is no living person who is 200 so we'll all succumb to the 2nd law.

henry said:

Just Bob said:

henry said: Since most of us will not live to 100, we'll succumb to the 2nd Law eventually.

Umm... but a FEW of us WILL live to 100! So we won't have to succumb to the 2nd Law? Forgive me for literally interpreting your words.

There is no living person who is 200 so we'll all succumb to the 2nd law.

Joe Felsenstein said: I think that what needs to be discussed on this thread is 1. Whether the negative claims of ID are science or can be dismissed as “not science”. We're in agreement about the not-science nature of the positive claims. 2. Whether agreement has been reached about "order" and the Second Law.

I think there's a much simpler response to Sewell's claim (well, other than the deserved "pbbbbbt"). Ask him to build a perpetual motion machine of the second kind. I mean seriously: if they think intelligent agents can violate the 2nd law, they could make gazillions patenting refrigerators which run on nothing except room heat.

henry said:

John Kwok said: It's for the very reason you noticed that ID has been referred to as "Madison Avenue advertising-styled Intelligent Design creationism":

TomS said:

Joe Felsenstein said: So I say they have a positive claim, and you say they don't, but we're not really disagreeing. They have no positive claim that's a scientific hypothesis.

I quite agree. I would say that they have a claim, in the sense of advertising: "new, improved".

By the way, here is what Gordon Wood on Ushistory.org stated on an online interview. 6th answer, may 8, 1999 american revolution His book, "The Radicalism of the American Revolution," won the Pulitzer Prize in 1991. shs I thought our founding fathers were deists. Did that carry over to the general population? Prof. Wood No. The leaders and most educated tended to be deists -- they saw God as the great mover and were doubtful of the divinity of Christ. But most people were devout Protestant believers. Deism is confined to the elite. Wood recognized the Christian nature of most of the people at the beginning of our nation, which continues even today but to a lesser degree.

John Kwok said: Obviously you missed what Wood said, since, I do recall that it was the American political elite - strongly influenced by the French and (especially) Scottish Enlightenment - which were responsible for both the Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution (And henry, thanks. This is the first time an IDiot has quote-mined a college professor of mine.):

henry said:

John Kwok said: It's for the very reason you noticed that ID has been referred to as "Madison Avenue advertising-styled Intelligent Design creationism":

TomS said:

Joe Felsenstein said: So I say they have a positive claim, and you say they don't, but we're not really disagreeing. They have no positive claim that's a scientific hypothesis.

I quite agree. I would say that they have a claim, in the sense of advertising: "new, improved".

By the way, here is what Gordon Wood on Ushistory.org stated on an online interview. 6th answer, may 8, 1999 american revolution His book, "The Radicalism of the American Revolution," won the Pulitzer Prize in 1991. shs I thought our founding fathers were deists. Did that carry over to the general population? Prof. Wood No. The leaders and most educated tended to be deists -- they saw God as the great mover and were doubtful of the divinity of Christ. But most people were devout Protestant believers. Deism is confined to the elite. Wood recognized the Christian nature of most of the people at the beginning of our nation, which continues even today but to a lesser degree.

Joe Felsenstein said:

RBH said: This is the 'positive' ID claim:

Sometime or other, some intelligent agent(s) designed something, and then somehow manufactured that thing, all the while leaving no independent evidence of the design process or the manufacturing process, and no independent evidence of the presence or even the existence of the designing and manufacturing agent(s).

Test that, science man!

I think that what needs to be discussed on this thread is

1. Whether the negative claims of ID are science or can be dismissed as “not science”. We're in agreement about the not-science nature of the positive claims.
2. Whether agreement has been reached about “order” and the Second Law.

But what should not be discussed here is whether the U.S. is a Christian Nation®. All that should go to the Bathroom Wall. I am but a humble Guest Contributor so I can't do that -- maybe someone else can. I will just add that PT has a problem with people feeding the trolls, just because they enjoy stomping on them so much -- the result is that lots of useful threads get disrupted.

One of the skills of the creationists is in moving the discussion off-topic.

They'd rather the conversation be about anything other than the inanity of creationism.

John Kwok said:

Joe Felsenstein said: But what should not be discussed here is whether the U.S. is a Christian Nation®. All that should go to the Bathroom Wall. I am but a humble Guest Contributor so I can't do that -- maybe someone else can. I will just add that PT has a problem with people feeding the trolls, just because they enjoy stomping on them so much -- the result is that lots of useful threads get disrupted.

Joe, I completely agree with your assessment. But I greatly resent it when a creo troll starts quote-mining one of my college professors. I hope you understand my rationale for rebutting that moron:

Getting this thread back on track; here is a little exercise that you can use to check your understanding of thermodynamics.

Go to this ID/creationist website and look at the various arguments.

How many arguments can you find that distort the concepts of thermodynamics (warning; there are a lot of them packed into this one page)?

Dissect each misconception and find a reasonably good colloquial way to describe the misconception.

Then find a better colloquial scientific description that corrects the misconception.

Because there are so many rapid-fire distortions and misconceptions on just this page alone, you can begin to see how 40+ years of practice by ID/creationists has subtly injected these memes into the public consciousness.

In fact, sometimes these misconceptions are so subtle, many scientists overlook them, and the misconceptions slip by without correction (for example, the misconception by henry that living things “succumb eventually” to the 2nd law).

As I mentioned on one of my earlier comments, my past experience indicates that the use of mathematics will not help the layperson. You need to look for classical or semi-classical explanations and easily observable examples from condensed matter physics and chemistry that people can use to get the general idea.

It’s a good exercise; and it differs from many of the counter-examples from biology in which one simply draws attention to things ID/creationists ignore or simply deny. In this case, one is dealing with conceptual understanding.

Joe Felsenstein said:

John Kwok said:

Joe Felsenstein said: But what should not be discussed here is whether the U.S. is a Christian Nation®. All that should go to the Bathroom Wall. I am but a humble Guest Contributor so I can't do that -- maybe someone else can. I will just add that PT has a problem with people feeding the trolls, just because they enjoy stomping on them so much -- the result is that lots of useful threads get disrupted.

Joe, I completely agree with your assessment. But I greatly resent it when a creo troll starts quote-mining one of my college professors. I hope you understand my rationale for rebutting that moron:

The problem is, everyone has a good reason, and in all these cases the troll has said something unusually outrageously wrong. As TomS said, creationists are skillful at moving the discussion off-topic. We are aiding and abetting them. If I were moderating, the Bathroom Wall would be used more, to try to curb this.

(for example, the misconception by henry that living things “succumb eventually” to the 2nd law)

Here is another set of toy examples of the concept of entropy.

However, this is an example of where conflation with disorder can occur. Be very careful to think about the energy states of these configurations.

Just Bob said: Whoa, deep, man! Our declne and death isn't because we run out of heat, or can't keep it in anymore, or because our molecules "want to" become more disorganized. Hey, I'll bet there's no less "information" in the atoms of a corpse than in the living body, even as those atoms dissipate back into the rest of the natural world. IANAS (I am not a scientist), so colloquial is about all I can manage. So how am I doing, Physics Guy?

Mike Elzinga said: Here is another set of toy examples of the concept of entropy. However, this is an example of where conflation with disorder can occur. Be very careful to think about the energy states of these configurations.

“Because they can move flexibly, the nonrigid clusters have high vibrational entropy,” explained Manoharan.

Mike Elzinga said: Getting this thread back on track; here is a little exercise that you can use to check your understanding of thermodynamics. Go to this ID/creationist website and look at the various arguments. How many arguments can you find that distort the concepts of thermodynamics (warning; there are a lot of them packed into this one page)? Dissect each misconception and find a reasonably good colloquial way to describe the misconception. Then find a better colloquial scientific description that corrects the misconception.

eric said: I think there's a much simpler response to Sewell's claim (well, other than the deserved "pbbbbbt"). Ask him to build a perpetual motion machine of the second kind. I mean seriously: if they think intelligent agents can violate the 2nd law, they could make gazillions patenting refrigerators which run on nothing except room heat.

TomS said:

eric said: I think there's a much simpler response to Sewell's claim (well, other than the deserved "pbbbbbt"). Ask him to build a perpetual motion machine of the second kind. I mean seriously: if they think intelligent agents can violate the 2nd law, they could make gazillions patenting refrigerators which run on nothing except room heat.

ISTM that this is the cleanest rebuttal to any "design" invocation of the 2LOT. No mathematics needed. Perfectly clear. Accurate. Intelligent designers can't get around the 2LOT.

Joe Felsenstein said: The problem is, everyone has a good reason, and in all these cases the troll has said something unusually outrageously wrong. As TomS said, creationists are skillful at moving the discussion off-topic. We are aiding and abetting them. If I were moderating, the Bathroom Wall would be used more, to try to curb this.

I don't think anyone has addressed the quasi-interesting, or at least less obviously wrong (to me) aspects of Sewell's mathematical argument.

In Sewell's mathematical index, he defines some equations for the diffusion of heat and the entropy flux, related to the total entropy change in the system. The math doesn't look wrong to me, but the interpretation does.

Number one: Sewell defines U as local temperature, then J is heat flux vector, and St is (time derivative) of entropy.

But then, later on, he says he can also define an entropy S for ANYTHING, such as "carbon entropy", related to the diffusion of carbon.

OK, now Mike will complain that entropy is not disorder (re: placement of objects in space) so more "carbon entropy" does not necessarily correspond to a uniform diffusion of carbon.

But here's my point: when Sewell substitutes U(temp) with some other like U(carbon), he writes "we can let U(x, y, z, t) represent the concentration of carbon diffusing in a solid
(Q is just U now)", then MAYBE his equations D.1 and D.2 are the same (basically, U is carbon density so J is now carbon flux). But if U(carbon)=Q(carbon), then his equation D.3 can't be right. Can it? Because 2nd Law specifically says that the change in entropy is change in heat over temperature, like in D.2.

But now in D.2, the U in the denominator is no longer temperature like it should be, now it's carbon density. Therefore D.2 no longer holds. Why should D.2 relate change in "carbon entropy", to the integral over a closed surface of carbon flux (dotted with normal vector) divided by carbon density U? Not intuitive to me at all. That would never work, for say, electrical charge, where by Gauss' Law, the integral over a closed surface of charge flux (dotted with normal vector) is just change in total charge. Nothing in the denominator.

Without Equation D.2, the rest of his talk about defining an unlimited number of different kinds of entropy, falls apart.

Furthermore, I can think of a simple experimental counter-example: gravy. I heat gravy on the stove, and forget to stir it. It lumps up. The starch molecules stick together, driven by attractive forces. This is definitely a local DECREASE in "carbon entropy"; the carbon atoms are now LESS DIFFUSE and more lumped up.

However, following Sewell's logic, the only way you can have a local decrease in "carbon entropy" is if (he says) "carbon order" is flowing in from the outside. How the hell is "carbon order" flowing INTO my pot full of gravy? Heat goes in the bottom and radiates off the top and sides, but it's a metal pot surrounded by air. No rearrangement of carbon OUTSIDE the gravy pot.

And this points up the main bogus element of his mathematical discussion: he describes the OUTFLOW of entropy from an open system as an INFLOW of order. This is bull. When a snowflake crystallizes (local entropy decrease), it radiates off the latent heat of crystallization. Heat goes off as IR radiation or whatever. Stuff goes out. NOTHING NEEDS TO ENTER AT ALL.

I know his interpretation is wrong. But I want to know about Equations D.3 and higher: do they really apply for all kinds of entropy such as "carbon entropy"?

diogenes said: I know his interpretation is wrong. But I want to know about Equations D.3 and higher: do they really apply for all kinds of entropy such as "carbon entropy"?

Dale Husband said: Have you looked at the Bathroom Wall lately? It is now up to 1947 Comments, and many of them consist of some troll called IBeleiveInGod being fed constantly by several people. I quit following the mayhem after a week or so.

Joe Felsenstein said:

Dale Husband said: Have you looked at the Bathroom Wall lately? It is now up to 1947 Comments, and many of them consist of some troll called IBeleiveInGod being fed constantly by several people. I quit following the mayhem after a week or so.

I think that's great. The Wall drains off both the trolls and their feeders, neither of whom we need here.

Mike Elzinga said: Depending on the ID/creationist you encounter, I suspect from my previous experience that this won’t make a dent in their misconceptions. They would argue that human actions or inanimate matter don’t violate the 2nd law.

I see that the "refrigerator" rebuttal could be interpreted two ways, and ought to be made clearer.

As I intended it, it is that the only examples of designers that we know of are also bound by the 2LOT. Therefore, introducing an "intelligent designer" does not account for any supposed violation of the 2LOT. Not without additional description of such designers, and the boosters for designers prominently avoid such descriptions.

Introducing intelligent designers to explain something that we know very well intelligent designers can't do is a loser from the start.

TomS said: As I intended it, it is that the only examples of designers that we know of are also bound by the 2LOT.

Mike Elzinga, your lucid descriptions of the 2LOT have helped clarify my own understanding. The visual image of "energy wells" is particularly useful and should also benefit my students next time I teach intro Bio. Thanks!

I don't comment often, but for all the articulate contributors like Mike on this blog, know that your collective efforts are appreciated.

Vaughn

It isn't exactly true that creationists say only life can violate 2LOT. The sneakier argument goes: 2LOT always applies...and you CAN have a local decrease in entropy as when living things grow...but, they add, ONLY IF SOME KIND OF MYSTICAL "information" is already present in the system.
This argument combines the "rape of thermodynamics" with the "rape of information theory" argument.

Now this is a sneakier idea than just saying you can't violate 2LOT. They're redefining their own 2LOT to say it's really about an undefined, faux-Shannon "information."

For example, here the great Henry Morris rapes thermodynamics:
"In any ordered system, open or closed, there exists a tendency for that system to decay to a state of disorder, which tendency can only be suspended or reversed by an external source of ordering energy directed by an informational program and transformed through an ingestion-storage-converter mechanism into the specific work required to build up the complex structure of that system."

And here one David Malcolm rapes thermodynamics : "...the trap people fall into is thinking that all that is required for evolution to occur is the input of energy into the system. Nothing could be further from the truth. The vital component is for INFORMATION (i.e. organization) to be added to the system."

But of course creationist information is a mystic undefined property, so I call it "info shminfo" (let's not confuse it with Shannon information.)

Now, returning specifically to the title and original subject of this post, Sewell has no evidence, experimentally or theoretically, that 2LOT is wrong. Actually, what Sewell is trying to do is claim the arbitrary invention of an unlimited number of laws of physics: a 2LOT for "carbon order", a 2LOT for "chromium order", and on and on for every kind of molecule.

But notice how the creationists are upping the ante. Sewell is not just saying that evolution (and growth of living things) violates ONE law of physics. He's saying it violates an UNLIMITED NUMBER OF LAWS OF PHYSICS.

Are Mike and I the only ones who have problems with Sewell's equation D.3 in his technical appendix?

eric said: Call them on it; can natural intelligences violate 2LOT or not?

eric said: Mike E. thinks that creationists interpret 2LOT this way too. I somewhat disagree. While creationists may not explicitly claim humans can violate 2LOT, its implied by their argument. Humans can, for instance, genetically engineer plants and animals for entirely new traits, which is exactly the sort of change that creationists claim nature can't do.

In a recent Mathematical Intelligencer article [Sewell 2000], after outlining the specific reasons why it is not reasonableto attribute the major steps in the development of life to natural selection,I asserted that the idea that the four fundamental forces of physics alone could re-arrange the fundamental particles of Nature into spaceships, nuclear power plants,and computers, connected to laser printers, CRTs, keyboards, and the Internet, appears to violate the second law of thermodynamics in a spectacular way.

Vaughn said: Mike Elzinga, your lucid descriptions of the 2LOT have helped clarify my own understanding. The visual image of "energy wells" is particularly useful and should also benefit my students next time I teach intro Bio. Thanks! I don't comment often, but for all the articulate contributors like Mike on this blog, know that your collective efforts are appreciated. Vaughn

The discovery that life on Earth developed through evolutionary “steps”, coupled with the observation that mutations and natural selection—like other natural forces—can cause (minor) change, is widely accepted in the scientific world as proof that natural selection—alone among all natural forces—can create order out of disorder, and even design human brains with human consciousness. Only the layman seems to see the problem with this logic.

"Only the layman seems to see the problem with this logic."

Lord, save us from laymen who "see the problem with...logic" that scientists in that field fail to see. If we depended on laymen's logic, then the world would still be flat and unmoving. I mean, any peasant can see that it's flat and not going anywhere. After all, if it were round, the folks on the bottom would fall off, and if it were flying that fast, we'd all be blown off. It's just logical.

The answer to the second law complaint, is two-fold.
The earth is an open system, and, most importantly,
the part of the system that consists of the biosphere is not in equilibrium. All of the 2nd law "analyses" are equilibrium thermodynamics arguments.

Dr. Sewell's mathematical examples are all "flow with no turbulence" representations. Biology is a nonequilibrium, nonlinear system, so if you wanted a fair comparison, an analogy to flow with turbulence would be more apt.

John Stockwell said: Dr. Sewell's mathematical examples are all "flow with no turbulence" representations. Biology is a nonequilibrium, nonlinear system, so if you wanted a fair comparison, an analogy to flow with turbulence would be more apt.

One of their main arguments is the unproven claim that, even in an open system, you can only have a local decrease in entropy if some "info shminfo" (not Shannon information) is in the system.

Usually, when physicists try to show counter-examples of a local decrease in entropy, they mention some kind of man-made machine (like a hydraulic ram pump) that harnesses heat or energy to do some work. The creationists refute this by saying that machines are intelligently designed and have indefinable info shminfo that makes the local entropy decrease possible. That's not the 2LOT, but they say it is.

But this is disproven by the following example: if the Earth were dead, no life, no creationist information or info shminfo; and if all the water had run into the oceans and was salt water; the sun would still evaporate water, rain would still fall, mountain lakes would form, and fresh water would be (partially) separated from salt water. So even on a lifeless planet, there would be local decreases in entropy.

Mike Elzinga said: But turbulence is crucial in shuttling compounds formed in highly energetic environments into more “quiescent” environments in which they can remain intact. A lot of chemical processing depends on just this kind of turbulence.

Joe Felsenstein said: Pardon my naïvete, but even without turbulence, particles will tend to move away from areas where they have greater thermal motion and collect in areas where they have less. It's just a basic property of diffusion processes.

Diogenes said: So even on a lifeless planet, there would be local decreases in entropy.

Mike Elzinga said: Airplanes are assembled by violating the “law of entropy” is how the argument goes.

The ID/creationists have too often dragged the discussion onto their own turf where their own misconceptions abound.

— Mile Elzinga

Diogenes said: Usually, when physicists try to show counter-examples of a local decrease in entropy, they mention some kind of man-made machine (like a hydraulic ram pump) that harnesses heat or energy to do some work. The creationists refute this by saying that machines are intelligently designed and have indefinable info shminfo that makes the local entropy decrease possible.

Dan said: Creationists (e.g. Henry Morris) say things like "evolution is like water running uphill".

ID and Creationist, otoh, always seem to go downhill...

Mike Elzinga said: - snip - Then we often see a viscous phase and finally a solid phase in which quantized sound waves (phonons) begin to sweep any relatively free charge carriers along in the direction of temperature gradients and carry energy through the material to any container in which the material resides.

Vaughn said: OK. "Phonons" is not a term I have encountered before. The Wikipedia entry was not helpful. Mike, can you give a brief description of these particle/waves or direct me to an introductory level (high school would be best as it has been a looong time since college physics) description of phonons? Thanks. Vaughn

diogenes said: I don't think anyone has addressed the quasi-interesting, or at least less obviously wrong (to me) aspects of Sewell's mathematical argument. In Sewell's mathematical index, he defines some equations for the diffusion of heat and the entropy flux, related to the total entropy change in the system. The math doesn't look wrong to me, but the interpretation does. [snip!] I know his interpretation is wrong. But I want to know about Equations D.3 and higher: do they really apply for all kinds of entropy such as "carbon entropy"?

stevaroni said: Water goes uphill all the time.

Vaughn said: OK. "Phonons" is not a term I have encountered before. The Wikipedia entry was not helpful. Mike, can you give a brief description of these particle/waves or direct me to an introductory level (high school would be best as it has been a looong time since college physics) description of phonons? Thanks. Vaughn

A light bulb just turned on over my head! It was the transferring of energy via phonons that had me puzzled. Perhaps I shouldn't admit this in public (my excuse is I spend most of my time thinking about biological phenomena, not physical phenomena [sheepish grin]), but I had never made the connection that waves, be they sound waves in gases or phonons in solids represent a transfer of energy. Duh! That illustrates why I try to be patient with my students - the above connection only took me 20 years to make; I think I owe my students a bit of leniency if they don't "get it" in a single semester.

Thanks to both Eric and Mike for turning on that mental light.

Vaughn

SWT said: He starts going off the rails when tries to appropriate his result in D.4 for diffusion due to composition gradients using a simple change of interpretation. The entropy production associated with mass transfer is the product (mass flux).div(chemical potential/T) (neglecting extenal forces). ...When you do the analysis correctly, you get the correct units and you don't have to resort to silly things like "carbon entropy." Entropy is entropy is entropy; it doesn't come in different flavors. What's most interesting to me in Sewell's narrative, though, is that he seems to grasp that entropy production can be balanced by a flow of entropy out of a system (this is what D.4 means for the simple case of heat conduction) but doesn't seem to belive the consequences of that result.

Technical details aside though, it's growth and metabolism that produces entropy and dumps it into the environment. Any entropy associated with evolution is insignificant compared to that. So the 2nd law can't prevent evolution without preventing growth in the first place.

Besides, if the 2nd law was wrong, that in itself would kill any arguments that try to use it to establish or disestablish something else.

Henry

Henry J said: Technical details aside though, it's growth and metabolism that produces entropy and dumps it into the environment. Any entropy associated with evolution is insignificant compared to that. So the 2nd law can't prevent evolution without preventing growth in the first place. Besides, if the 2nd law was wrong, that in itself would kill any arguments that try to use it to establish or disestablish something else. Henry

SWT said: He starts going off the rails when tries to appropriate his result in D.4 for diffusion due to composition gradients using a simple change of interpretation.

I thought of an analogy to what Sewell has done in this Appendix D.

The Pythagorean Theorem for right triangles with sides of length a and b and hypotenuse of length c says that

c² = a² + b².

This is “universally true”; it is an unimpeachable law of the universe.

So all we have to do is replace a with the weight of an individual, b with the individual’s age, and c with the individual’s IQ and we have the universal law that allows us to find a person's IQ from his/her age and weight!

So all we have to do is replace a with the weight of an individual, b with the individual’s age, and c with the individual’s IQ and we have the universal law that allows us to find a person’s IQ from his/her age and weight!

Mike Elzinga said:

John Stockwell said: Dr. Sewell's mathematical examples are all "flow with no turbulence" representations. Biology is a nonequilibrium, nonlinear system, so if you wanted a fair comparison, an analogy to flow with turbulence would be more apt.

And this is also an important example of what happens as matter condenses and starts behaving collectively. One of the favorite “arguments” by ID/creationists is that the influx of energy – usually sunlight or radiation – breaks up what forms (ah ha; they admit some things form). But turbulence is crucial in shuttling compounds formed in highly energetic environments into more “quiescent” environments in which they can remain intact. A lot of chemical processing depends on just this kind of turbulence.

1. So was it OK to say that growth of the weeds were a (local) decrease in entropy? (I'd guess yes -- they certainly increased their energy content).
2. Mike Elzinga wrote that

   Living organisms of any type, of any era in evolutionary history, take in energy and expel energy with the net result that the entropy of the environment in which the organism exists increases.

   But I suspect it is also OK to note that the growth of the weeds, by catching some energy from the sun and delaying its loss to the surroundings, actually does not increase entropy overall, but somewhat delays its increase. Don't all object at once!
3. I predict that some day we will also know how to bookkeep a connection between energy flows, increase of entropy and (cringes and ducks behind the sofa) some relevant measure of the “adaptive information” that has accumulated in the biosphere by evolution and growth of populations. Note I said “some day”, not right now.

Joe Felsenstein said: I predict that some day we will also know how to bookkeep a connection between energy flows, increase of entropy and (cringes and ducks behind the sofa) some relevant measure of the adaptive information that has accumulated in the biosphere by evolution and growth of populations. Note I said some day;, not right now.

You guys are all dumb as a box of rocks.

You can apply heat all day long to a lava lamp and even a simple cube of lava will never be formed. You might get something that approaches a sphere once in a while, but not a cube.

Blind application of heat (energy) is not sufficient to form anything interesting and is usually destructive, like 99.999999999% of the time.

Prove me wrong. Now.

I'm getting tired of this 'earth isn't a closed system' BS; as if that is enough to explain how life started. It's not. What if I expand my sphere of the system boundary to include both the earth and the sun. Now wtf are you going to do? It's a closed system.

Prove me wrong. Now.

Dr. Blow Troll said: Blind application of heat (energy) is not sufficient to form anything interesting and is usually destructive, like 99.999999999% of the time. Prove me wrong. Now.

I'm getting tired of this 'earth isn't a closed system' BS; as if that is enough to explain how life started. It's not. What if I expand my sphere of the system boundary to include both the earth and the sun. Now wtf are you going to do? It's a closed system. Prove me wrong. Now.

The weeds in my garden have already. Apply sunlight to them and they grow.

You utterly failed to notice that the discussion was not about “explaining how life started”.

The whole goal of all lifeforms everyday is: "How the hell can I keep from getting destroyed by the sun today? What tools do I have at my disposal to harness the sun for my own good, instead of getting fried by it?"

Henry J said: Hey, does that mean I can raise my IQ by eating lots of burgers and fries?

Dr. Blow Troll said: Until somebody can utterly explain how life got started with some energy flying around, this whole discussion is utterly useless, since the start of life is where the real action is and where the main violation of the 2nd Law would occur.

Joe Felsenstein said: So was it OK to say that growth of the weeds were a (local) decrease in entropy? (I'd guess yes -- they certainly increased their energy content)

But I suspect it is also OK to note that the growth of the weeds, by catching some energy from the sun and delaying its loss to the surroundings, actually does not increase entropy overall, but somewhat delays its increase.

Blind application of heat (energy) is not sufficient to form anything interesting and is usually destructive, like 99.999999999% of the time.

I’m getting tired of this ‘earth isn’t a closed system’ BS; as if that is enough to explain how life started. It’s not. What if I expand my sphere of the system boundary to include both the earth and the sun. Now wtf are you going to do? It’s a closed system.

Joe Felsenstein said: But I suspect it is also OK to note that the growth of the weeds, by catching some energy from the sun and delaying its loss to the surroundings, actually does not increase entropy overall, but somewhat delays its increase. Don't all object at once!

Dr. Blow Torch said: You guys are all dumb as a box of rocks. You can apply heat all day long to a lava lamp and even a simple cube of lava will never be formed. You might get something that approaches a sphere once in a while, but not a cube. Blind application of heat (energy) is not sufficient to form anything interesting and is usually destructive, like 99.999999999% of the time. Prove me wrong. Now. I'm getting tired of this 'earth isn't a closed system' BS; as if that is enough to explain how life started. It's not. What if I expand my sphere of the system boundary to include both the earth and the sun. Now wtf are you going to do? It's a closed system. Prove me wrong. Now.

Dr. Blow Torch said: You can apply heat all day long to a lava lamp and even a simple cube of lava will never be formed. You might get something that approaches a sphere once in a while, but not a cube. Blind application of heat (energy) is not sufficient to form anything interesting and is usually destructive, like 99.999999999% of the time. Prove me wrong. Now.

Joe Felsenstein said: I predict that some day we will also know how to bookkeep a connection between energy flows, increase of entropy and (cringes and ducks behind the sofa) some relevant measure of the “adaptive information” that has accumulated in the biosphere by evolution and growth of populations. Note I said “some day”, not right now.

Dr. Blow Torch said: Blind application of heat (energy) is not sufficient to form anything interesting....

Dr. Blow Torch said: You can apply heat all day long to a lava lamp and even a simple cube of lava will never be formed. You might get something that approaches a sphere once in a while, but not a cube.

Eric Finn said: Let’s discuss a similar (although not truly analogous) case of iron rusting. We can use tabulated values for the entropies of iron (solid), oxygen (gas) and rust (solid) to find out that the entropy of rust is lower than the combined entropies of oxygen gas and iron. A spontaneous chemical reaction violates the second law of thermodynamics? Well, not quite so. We should concentrate on keeping track of the energy and it turns out that energy is released in the reaction.

Dr. Blow Torch said: The whole goal of all lifeforms everyday is: "How the hell can I keep from getting destroyed by the sun today? What tools do I have at my disposal to harness the sun for my own good, instead of getting fried by it?"

Dr. Blow Chunks said: Blind application of heat (energy) is not sufficient to form anything interesting and is usually destructive...

Dr. Blow Chunks said: Until somebody can utterly explain how life got started with some energy flying around, this whole discussion is utterly useless, since the start of life is where the real action is and where the main violation of the 2nd Law would occur.

Dr. Blow Chunks said: They [weeds growing] have the machinery to _not_ blindly apply the energy.

Dr. Blow Torch said: Blind application of heat (energy) is not sufficient to form anything interesting and is usually destructive, like 99.999999999% of the time. Prove me wrong. Now.

Dr. Blow Torch said: You guys are all dumb as a box of rocks. You can apply heat all day long to a lava lamp and even a simple cube of lava will never be formed. You might get something that approaches a sphere once in a while, but not a cube. Blind application of heat (energy) is not sufficient to form anything interesting and is usually destructive, like 99.999999999% of the time. Prove me wrong. Now. I'm getting tired of this 'earth isn't a closed system' BS; as if that is enough to explain how life started. It's not. What if I expand my sphere of the system boundary to include both the earth and the sun. Now wtf are you going to do? It's a closed system. Prove me wrong. Now.

Re: the comments responding to Dr. Blow Torch:

OK, I was guilty of it myself, but **please** do not feed the troll!!

But but but, trolls gotta eat! Otherwise they'd become an endangered species!11!!!one!

Diogenes said: Do you have a reference for the fact that rust has lower intrinsic entropy than iron+oxygen? If you had a reference, it'd be great. You could debate the creos, wait for them to say, "Iron rusting is increasing disorder..." and then you go "GOTCHA!!"

To my understanding, it boils down to noting that complex molecules can form, if there is energy available.

Henry J said: Besides, if the 2nd law (or anything else) prevented complex molecules from forming, there wouldn't be growth or reproduction. Henry J

Can the issue be boiled down to "The 2LOT can not be violated (like all the rest of 'natural law') except by magic?

Even from the classical perspective, where we don’t have to know about the details of the “working medium” within the plant, this doesn’t make sense. The integral of dQ/T is into the system, and that is an increase of entropy if the net flux is into the system. If the plant dumps more energy than it takes in at the same temperature, then its entropy decreases.

And yes, it appears to delay the increase in the entropy of the environment – at least according to this crude mental picture.

Typo. I meant to write:

“and the rocks are simply heated by the sun.”

Joe Felsenstein said: And we compare this to a situation where everything is the same except that there are rocks there instead of plants, and the rocks are simply heated by the run. In which of these case is there more increase in entropy?

Let me try to put in another point about the difference between energy and entropy. When we talk about delays in energy exchanges, this does not imply delays in entropy “exchanges.” Energy can be stored and carried from place to place; it can be absorbed and released at different times.

Entropy, on the other hand, refers to one of the states of a system. Even though we can play around with “entropy flows”, we are always talking about the instantaneous state of a system and its surroundings.

If we pick small enough time intervals in which temperatures have not had time to change – i.e. they are effectively constant - then mathematically energy and entropy can be treated the same. But they mean completely different things; be sure you understand the difference.

I didn’t read Eric reply very carefully, so I missed the fact that he said entropy while thinking of energy.

I was distracted because I was also looking at this “discussion” on UD during this discussion; trying to analyze the misconceptions over there. Good grief; what a mess of confusions and conflations!

Joe Felsenstein said: These appear to be different conclusions. [...] Suppose the plants grow by simply making more of the same stuff, and that this goes along with them containing more energy (proportionally). And we compare this to a situation where everything is the same except that there are rocks there instead of plants, and the rocks are simply heated by the run. In which of these case is there more increase in entropy?

Mike Elzinga said: I think the difference between what I said and what Eric said is only a slight quibble.

Mike Elzinga said: I didn’t read Eric reply very carefully, so I missed the fact that he said entropy while thinking of energy.

when a rabbit eats the plant (and destroys the structure of our nice system),

... and then the fox eats the rabbit and then the fox dies and the maggots eat the fox carcass... ad infinitum.

Eric Finn said: It is very hard to see, how thermodynamics could be any obstacle to evolution, or even for abiogenesis.

Mike Elzinga said:

Eric Finn said: It is very hard to see, how thermodynamics could be any obstacle to evolution, or even for abiogenesis.

No working physicist or chemist I know of believes that thermodynamics is an "obstacle" to evolution or abiogenesis.

SWT said:

Mike Elzinga said:

Eric Finn said: It is very hard to see, how thermodynamics could be any obstacle to evolution, or even for abiogenesis.

No working physicist or chemist I know of believes that thermodynamics is an "obstacle" to evolution or abiogenesis.

Using these comments to springboard back to the original post, I find it telling that Sewell's previous essay was entitled "Can 'ANYTHING' Happen in an Open System?" -- as though the the choice was either that evolution can't happen or that there are no constraints at all on how organized systems can form and change through time.

SWT said: Using these comments to springboard back to the original post, I find it telling that Sewell's previous essay was entitled "Can 'ANYTHING' Happen in an Open System?" -- as though the the choice was either that evolution can't happen or that there are no constraints at all on how organized systems can form and change through time.

Joe Felsenstein said: Sewell was arguing (correctly) that just because entropy increases in one part of an open system, this would not bring about a decrease of entropy in another part of the system (the part that is life evolving).

Mike Elzinga said: (in response to me talking about evolution involving a (local) decrease of entropy). What is this idea about evolving life that requires the entropy of the system that is evolving to be decreasing? This appears to me to be some kind of assumption based on the misconception that order and information are related to the entropy of thermodynamics. What is the understanding of the information theorists about this? I don’t think they are using entropy in the same way physicists understand it, and I don’t see what this has to do with thermodynamics. Is this about the clustering of atoms and molecules, in which case the entropy of the clustered constituents is less because they shed energy? If so, how is this any different from any case of condensing matter?

Joe Felsenstein said: I do think that the evolution of a biosphere involves catching energy from the sun the delaying its journey outward to the rest of the universe, relative to what happens if you have no biosphere. All this will probably strike you as impossibly woolly-minded. Nevertheless I have hopes for a more concrete connection between information and entropy in models of large-scale evolution.

Joe Felsenstein said: I do hope (rather than know) that there is a connection between thermodynamic entropy and the entropy used in information theory, particularly mutual information.

I do hope (rather than know) that there is a connection between thermodynamic entropy and the entropy used in information theory, particularly mutual information.

Dan said: There is no such law for information entropy. Every publication of a new issue of Physical Review Letters involves the creation of new information. There is no requirement for the destruction of information somewhere else in the universe to make up for it.

Mike Elzinga said: Delays in the capture, storage and release of energy happen all the time. In fact, whatever mechanisms we discover that are critical to making complex systems “alive”, we would expect to see coordinated matter and energy exchanges among subsystems.

eric said: I think we can be more broad than that: capture and release of energy must result in some of the energy being transformed for all systems, not just biological ones. Nontransformation would mean energy was transferred though some media with 100% efficiency. Of course, by transformation what I'm referring to is commonly called "loss" or "waste," but one man's waste is another man's battery, to steal a phrase. (Figuratively speaking - if you've figured out a way to take that literally, I don't want to know about it...)

Joe Felsenstein said:

SWT said: Using these comments to springboard back to the original post, I find it telling that Sewell's previous essay was entitled "Can 'ANYTHING' Happen in an Open System?" -- as though the the choice was either that evolution can't happen or that there are no constraints at all on how organized systems can form and change through time.

Sewell was arguing (correctly) that just because entropy increases in one part of an open system, this would not bring about a decrease of entropy in another part of the system (the part that is life evolving). There has to be some flow of energy between the two parts in order for that to happen. So yes, it is not true that anything can happen in an open system.

SWT said:

Joe Felsenstein said:

SWT said: Using these comments to springboard back to the original post, I find it telling that Sewell's previous essay was entitled "Can 'ANYTHING' Happen in an Open System?" -- as though the the choice was either that evolution can't happen or that there are no constraints at all on how organized systems can form and change through time.

Sewell was arguing (correctly) that just because entropy increases in one part of an open system, this would not bring about a decrease of entropy in another part of the system (the part that is life evolving). There has to be some flow of energy between the two parts in order for that to happen. So yes, it is not true that anything can happen in an open system.

Perhaps, but I think this argument gets the causality exactly backwards. Dissipative structures are entropy sources, and one of the constraints how long such a structure can persist is whether or not there is someplace for that entropy to go. I can't think of anyone who claims that an entropy increase one part of a system necessarily causes a decrease in entropy somewhere else; entropy is not a conserved quantitiy in the way that mass and energy are conserved in classical mechanics. The usual argument is instead that dissipative structures can form spontaneously due to gradients in temperature, chemical potential, etc. and that these systems ultimately cause an increase in the entropy of their surroundings. Note also that this self-organization can occur in closed systems; however, the dissipative structure cannont persist indefinitely in a closed system. Matter and/or energy must pass through the system to maintain a dissipative structure, otherwise it sort of winds down.

I was referring to Sewell's argument as summarized in the first of your sentences that I quoted. Sorry to have been unclear.

Joe Felsenstein said: Sewell was erecting a straw man by equating the usual argument with one that allowed anything to happen in a closed system. He then proceeded to ignore the importance of the flow of “radiation” into the biosphere. His argument, if accepted, would leave us forced to conclude that when weeds grow, the Second Law is violated.

Mike Elzinga said: I suspect Sewell actually believes what you refer to as his straw man. If you look over all ID/creationist writings and arguments about how matter interacts, the underlying misconception that runs through all their arguments is that it's all chaos down there at the atomic and molecular level. Dembski’s calculations betray this notion, Abel’s “spontaneous molecular chaos”, and all the other ID/creationist arguments about the probability of abiogenesis and evolution have this assumption at their base. ... So, according to their misconceptions (misrepresentations?) something has to “flow” through the system of atoms and molecules creating order. According to them, that can’t be radiation or energy of any kind because that is supposed to simply contribute to the chaos. ... I don’t know why this thread of ID/creationist misconceptions - about how matter interacts and condenses - is not mentioned very often these days. That link between creationism and intelligent design was picked up by physicists years ago. But I keep seeing the counter-argument returning to the differences between open and closed systems. That counter-argument simply plays into the hands of the ID/creationists because they pull out their old “inflow of energy just makes things worse” argument. ...

Joe Felsenstein said: But they are also very quick to point to any case where they can argue that they have a serious scientific argument that scientists refuse to answer. So I think the discussion of open and closed systems is necessary. That could be combined with your points. However, they are painting all of science (especially evolutionary biology) as corrupt, oppressive, and intellectually bankrupt -- about to collapse any minute now. Their students are told that we have no answers to their powerful technical arguments. In addition to connecting the dots about this image of molecular chaos, we have to have sound and clear technical answers to their ostensibly-technical arguments, even if those arguments are, at root, theology.

I haven't read all the comments on this post, but the fact is that Granville has a better understanding of entropy than many of the pro-evolution respondents, including, I'm afraid, Joe Felsenstein.

The argument that inflow of energy from the sun just makes things worse is, in fact, correct. It is actually the OUTFLOWING energy - usually ignored by both sides - that fixes things up as far as the 2LOT.

Simple example: Think of a pond full of liquid water on a cold winter's night. The water spontaneously DECREASES its entropy and turns into ice. How does it accomplish this? By losing energy "through the boundary", i.e., into the environment, by way of radiation, conduction, evaporation, etc. This outflow of energy involves a corresponding INCREASE of entropy of the environment.

The earth is similarly radiating energy constantly into outer space. This outflow of energy creates a corresponding INCREASE of entropy of the "environment" (outer space) that more than compensates for any decrease of entropy here on earth.

(BTW, I have never seen any creationist exhibit a calculation showing where this supposed decrease of entropy is, and how big it is.)

I have more details, including some of the math, at the following website:
http://physics.gmu.edu/~roerter/EvolutionEntropy.htm

Robert Oerter said: I haven't read all the comments on this post,...

Robert Oerter said: I have more details, including some of the math, at the following website: http://physics.gmu.edu/~roerter/EvolutionEntropy.htm

Robert Oerter said: I haven't read all the comments on this post, but the fact is that Granville has a better understanding of entropy than many of the pro-evolution respondents, including, I'm afraid, Joe Felsenstein.

Mike:

On the one hand you accuse me of bamboozling with math, and on the other hand you point me to a post that is full of ... math. Hmmm.

Actually, the PZ Myers post you linked to makes exactly the same point as my article I linked to (though he says it much more elegently): a simple calculation of the entropies involved shows how ridiculous is the creationist claim.

Let me point out that I did NOT put any equations in my post, rather, I DID cite a very simple example that anyone can understand: the freezing of a pond.

My point is that many folks on "our side" - the scientists - get the answer WRONG, or at least incomplete. And if the scientists and their defenders are making incorrect arguments, that plays into the hands of the anti-science forces.

So here it is once more for emphasis:

WRONG ANSWER: Entropy is not an issue for evolution because the earth is not a closed system: it gets energy from the sun.

RIGHT ANSWER: Entropy is not an issue for evolution because the earth is not a closed system: it gets energy from the sun AND RE-RADIATES THAT ENERGY INTO SPACE. A proper accounting of entropy must include BOTH processes. The absorption of energy from the sun does indeed "make the problem worse", but taking the re-radiation into account more than makes up for it.

Robert Oerter said: Mike: On the one hand you accuse me of bamboozling with math, and on the other hand you point me to a post that is full of ... math. Hmmm. Actually, the PZ Myers post you linked to makes exactly the same point as my article I linked to (though he says it much more elegently): a simple calculation of the entropies involved shows how ridiculous is the creationist claim. Let me point out that I did NOT put any equations in my post, rather, I DID cite a very simple example that anyone can understand: the freezing of a pond. My point is that many folks on "our side" - the scientists - get the answer WRONG, or at least incomplete. And if the scientists and their defenders are making incorrect arguments, that plays into the hands of the anti-science forces. So here it is once more for emphasis: WRONG ANSWER: Entropy is not an issue for evolution because the earth is not a closed system: it gets energy from the sun. RIGHT ANSWER: Entropy is not an issue for evolution because the earth is not a closed system: it gets energy from the sun AND RE-RADIATES THAT ENERGY INTO SPACE. A proper accounting of entropy must include BOTH processes. The absorption of energy from the sun does indeed "make the problem worse", but taking the re-radiation into account more than makes up for it.

Robert Oerter said: I haven't read all the comments on this post, but the fact is that Granville has a better understanding of entropy than many of the pro-evolution respondents, including, I'm afraid, Joe Felsenstein. The argument that inflow of energy from the sun just makes things worse is, in fact, correct. It is actually the OUTFLOWING energy - usually ignored by both sides - that fixes things up as far as the 2LOT. Simple example: Think of a pond full of liquid water on a cold winter's night. The water spontaneously DECREASES its entropy and turns into ice. How does it accomplish this? By losing energy "through the boundary", i.e., into the environment, by way of radiation, conduction, evaporation, etc. This outflow of energy involves a corresponding INCREASE of entropy of the environment. The earth is similarly radiating energy constantly into outer space. This outflow of energy creates a corresponding INCREASE of entropy of the "environment" (outer space) that more than compensates for any decrease of entropy here on earth. (BTW, I have never seen any creationist exhibit a calculation showing where this supposed decrease of entropy is, and how big it is.) I have more details, including some of the math, at the following website: http://physics.gmu.edu/~roerter/EvolutionEntropy.htm

Robert Oerter said: Mike: On the one hand you accuse me of bamboozling with math, and on the other hand you point me to a post that is full of ... math. Hmmm. Actually, the PZ Myers post you linked to makes exactly the same point as my article I linked to (though he says it much more elegently): a simple calculation of the entropies involved shows how ridiculous is the creationist claim.

Robert Oerter said: Let me point out that I did NOT put any equations in my post, rather, I DID cite a very simple example that anyone can understand: the freezing of a pond.

Ugh,

Can't we find a way to embarrass creationists when they pull this stuff? I mean, really make them feel embarrassed? They should feel this way, but they don't. There is no such thing as a truly closed system (i.e. no net energy flux - except maybe the universe itself is closed) and as has stated many times in this thread, when not dealing with a closed system, it is possible to observe decreases in entropy. There had just better be a corresponding increase elsewhere and that increase had better be greater than or equal to the decrease that you witnessed.

But all of that is moot.

Find a way to implant a cute little kitten zygote into a dog's womb so that it grows, survives and the dog gives birth to a kitten. Heck, find a way to make the dog give birth to a kitten without any transplantation. You know what? The entropy of the universe will increase! It will increase whether the critter that was born was more complex or less complex than the mother. You raise entropy like crazy when you have kids.

I have seen responses from creationists to "there is no such thing as a truly closed system."

One of the responses is something like this: "If there is no closed system, then the statement of the 2LOT which refers to closed systems is pointless. You're just denying the whole of thermodynamics."

WHich response reminds me of the various non-existent idealizations in physics such as a frictionless surface.

Another is to say that the universe as a whole is a closed system.

Jesse Johnson said: Ugh, Can't we find a way to embarrass creationists when they pull this stuff? I mean, really make them feel embarrassed? They should feel this way, but they don't.

TomS said: I have seen responses from creationists to "there is no such thing as a truly closed system." One of the responses is something like this: "If there is no closed system, then the statement of the 2LOT which refers to closed systems is pointless. You're just denying the whole of thermodynamics." Which response reminds me of the various non-existent idealizations in physics such as a frictionless surface. Another is to say that the universe as a whole is a closed system.

Stanton said: That’s because the typical creationist is shameless and supremely arrogant in their stupidity. In their stunted, and stupid minds, they are incapable of being wrong because they’re lying to help Jesus.

TomS said: I have seen responses from creationists to "there is no such thing as a truly closed system."

Evolutionists are so stupid they do not even know the difference between a closed and an isolated system. A closed system can have energy exchange with the outside world, but not matter exchange. Only in an isolated system are both energy and matter sealed off from the outside world.

Evolutionists think even in a closed system like the earth, and certainly in an open one, complexity increases because of the input of energy. Well, why is it that you can't build cars by blowing up junk yards? If evolutionism was true, we could make environmentally friendly, durable, fast, and safe cars just by blowing up the old ones. Why can't we do that?

Evolutionists have not considered the earth is a cognitively isolated system. The amount of information present on earth always stays the same. No new information is being injected from the outside. That is why you can't make cars by the method described and why evolutionism--which is the same thing--doesn't work.

The input of energy is a prerequisite, not a cause by itself. Sheesh.

darwinism.dogBarf() said: Evolutionists are so stupid they do not even know the difference between a closed and an isolated system. A closed system can have energy exchange with the outside world, but not matter exchange. Only in an isolated system are both energy and matter sealed off from the outside world. Evolutionists think even in a closed system like the earth, and certainly in an open one, complexity increases because of the input of energy. Well, why is it that you can't build cars by blowing up junk yards? If evolutionism was true, we could make environmentally friendly, durable, fast, and safe cars just by blowing up the old ones. Why can't we do that? Evolutionists have not considered the earth is a cognitively isolated system. The amount of information present on earth always stays the same. No new information is being injected from the outside. That is why you can't make cars by the method described and why evolutionism--which is the same thing--doesn't work.

darwinism.dogBarf() said: Evolutionists are so stupid they do not even know the difference between a closed and an isolated system. A closed system can have energy exchange with the outside world, but not matter exchange... ...Evolutionists think even in a closed system like the earth...

darwinism.dogBarf() said: Evolutionists are so stupid they do not even know the difference between a closed and an isolated system. A closed system can have energy exchange with the outside world, but not matter exchange. Only in an isolated system are both energy and matter sealed off from the outside world. Evolutionists think even in a closed system like the earth, and certainly in an open one, complexity increases because of the input of energy. Well, why is it that you can't build cars by blowing up junk yards? If evolutionism was true, we could make environmentally friendly, durable, fast, and safe cars just by blowing up the old ones. Why can't we do that? Evolutionists have not considered the earth is a cognitively isolated system. The amount of information present on earth always stays the same. No new information is being injected from the outside. That is why you can't make cars by the method described and why evolutionism--which is the same thing--doesn't work.

darwinism.dogBarf() said: Evolutionists have not considered the earth is a cognitively isolated system. The amount of information present on earth always stays the same. No new information is being injected from the outside.

Jesse said:

darwinism.dogBarf() said: Evolutionists are so stupid they do not even know the difference between a closed and an isolated system. A closed system can have energy exchange with the outside world, but not matter exchange. Only in an isolated system are both energy and matter sealed off from the outside world. Evolutionists think even in a closed system like the earth, and certainly in an open one, complexity increases because of the input of energy. Well, why is it that you can't build cars by blowing up junk yards? If evolutionism was true, we could make environmentally friendly, durable, fast, and safe cars just by blowing up the old ones. Why can't we do that? Evolutionists have not considered the earth is a cognitively isolated system. The amount of information present on earth always stays the same. No new information is being injected from the outside. That is why you can't make cars by the method described and why evolutionism--which is the same thing--doesn't work.

Give a definition of what it means for a system to be closed. Then explain how that big, bright thingy in the daytime sky that your ancestors probably worshiped 10,000 years ago plays into that. Please. It'll be interesting.

So, dogbarf, please explain why you say the Earth is a "closed" system when the vast majority of life derives energy taken from the light radiating from the Sun?

darwinism.dogBarf() said: I am proposing a new category of system--cognitively isolated--that does not allow information exchange.

darwinism.dogBarf() said: Evolutionists are so stupid they do not even know the difference between a closed and an isolated system. A closed system can have energy exchange with the outside world, but not matter exchange. Only in an isolated system are both energy and matter sealed off from the outside world.

Evolutionists think even in a closed system like the earth, and certainly in an open one, complexity increases because of the input of energy.

darwinism.dogBarf() said: I am proposing a new category of system--cognitively isolated--that does not allow information exchange.

darwinism.dogBarf() said: Well, I am using the same definition used at evolutionists' universities. Check this site out if you're not convinced. A closed system can still exchange energy, just not matter. (Yes, I am aware there are a few meteorites coming down and space probes going up, but it still practically closed.) I am proposing a new category of system--cognitively isolated--that does not allow information exchange.

I only count two so far, e.db.
You still need eight more for extra credit.

dogbarf(),

Actually, I made the distinction between closed and isolated systems on the fourth page of this thread. If the argument you are trying to make is that the second law of thermodynamics in all cases prevents the formation of dissipative structures (like living organisms), the distinction between open, closed, and isolated systems doesn't matter -- if I have an isolated system that is not at equilibrium, I can subdivide it into subsystems that can participate in the mass and/or energy exchanges necessary to maintain a dissipative structure for some period of time. There is some very nice work done on the requirements for the formation of dissipative structures and the stability of these structures. You appear to be completely unaware of this work, as do most if not all of your fellow science deniers.

If you really want to discuss advanced thermodynamics with people who are (or were) using it as part of their work as scientists, you really do need to learn at least basic undergraduate thermodynamics ... and you won't get that from an introductory book on earth science. Especially from one that is, wrong in categorizing the earth as a closed system.

And, I'm sorry I didn't see your posts sooner, all the really good snark about cognitive isolation has already been used.

SWT said: And, I'm sorry I didn't see your posts sooner, all the really good snark about cognitive isolation has already been used.

fnxtr said: I only count two so far, e.db. You still need eight more for extra credit.

SWT said: And, I'm sorry I didn't see your posts sooner, all the really good snark about cognitive isolation has already been used.

stevaroni said:

SWT said: And, I'm sorry I didn't see your posts sooner, all the really good snark about cognitive isolation has already been used.

Fear not, SWT. I suspect that, with a fresh semester of Dembski students vying for those extra credit points, there will be plenty of new and previously unexplored word salad thermodynamics and information theory nonsense to snark at.

Mike Elzinga said: Yeah, like how a system “knows” whether or not to take in information, and further, what to do with it if it “decides” to take it in.

darwinism.dogBarf() said:

"I am proposing a new category of system–cognitively isolated–that does not allow information exchange."

Oh, like creationists. No matter what, no new information will ever be looked at, discussed or even acknowledged. They just keep pointing out over and over again that Darwin didn't know everything while ignoring all of the findings of science in the last one hundred and fifty years. You mean that kind of "cognitive isolation"? Yea, nothing good can ever come of that type of thing.

I am proposing a new category of system–cognitively isolated–that does not allow information exchange

And do you think all this exploratory snark will help the IDists any closer to a working definition of infotmation.

Maybe they're trying to prove conservation of information by showing that they never increase the amount of it they possess?

Henry J said: Maybe they're trying to prove conservation of information by showing that they never increase the amount of it they possess?

tresmal said:

Henry J said: Maybe they're trying to prove conservation of information by showing that they never increase the amount of it they possess?

I would take it a little farther than that. The Law of Conservation of Information requires that an increase in scientific knowledge must be offset by an equal increase in ignorance somewhere else. In other words scientific progress is making creationists more ignorant.

darwinism.dogBarf() said: Evolutionists are so stupid they do not even know the difference between a closed and an isolated system. A closed system can have energy exchange with the outside world, but not matter exchange. Only in an isolated system are both energy and matter sealed off from the outside world. ... [delete rest] ...

ben said: rhetorical balloon animals

Joe Felsenstein said: I am going to make a big confession. darwinism.dogbarf() is right ... on one point. After looking at a few thermodynamics textbooks, Wikipedia, etc. I have to say that I was wrong -- the opposite of an open system is supposed to be called an isolated system, not a closed system. My bad.

tresmal said: I would take it a little farther than that. The Law of Conservation of Information requires that an increase in scientific knowledge must be offset by an equal increase in ignorance somewhere else. In other words scientific progress is making creationists more ignorant.

stevaroni said: Nowadays, we're faced with the farcical display of creationist websites like AIG trying to explain that creation could have happened as told in Genesis becasue the speed of light randomly changes, the Earth is surrounded by a giant shell of water, and the dinosaurs were all killed and methodically sorted by global floods - all things which can only be believed if you're willing to ignore piles of empirical data that the rest of mankind has been happily using for decades.

stevaroni said: Copernicus was a monk, and even Darwin was an ordained minister.

TomS said:

stevaroni said: Copernicus was a monk, and even Darwin was an ordained minister.

Neither is true.