darwinism/evolution/entropy

[donmartin]

How does one reconcile the theory of evolution per: Darwinists, with the second law of thermodynamics (entropy)? Does greater complexity = greater entropy?

[ozone]

donmartin,
As kiwistonewall pointed out, the requirement that entropy only increase applies to closed systems. Order can be established in one portion of a system as long as disorder is increased at least as much in another portion.

[donmartin]

Is the biosphere not a closed system?

[ozone]

It is not, and it is not what scientists had in mind when they established the term. But it is big enough to do what you are asking about: have more order via living things, and more disorder than that via heat release.

[kiwistonewall]

Is the biosphere not a closed system?

No its not as it receives energy from outside. A closed thermodynamic system is a system sealed off from energy or mass entering it.

The Earth has both energy and mass entering it. (Sun, cosmic rays, meteors etc)

But I'm no Darwinian. Evolution was put foward as a theoryin the 19C prior to cell biology - when cells were (thought of as) amorphous lumps of protoplasm, and when 'Progress' as a concept dominated thinking.

The 'survival' of the fittest is a perfect process for eliminating damaged genes from the gene pool, and allowing the gene pool to adapt within its 'designed' capabilities. But 'creative' progress to 'higher' life forms? Even the word 'higher' used by some evolutionists meaningless within their theory, as this implies direction.

Blind chance cannot have direction or purpose. It always amuses me when evolutionary biased programs ascribe the creative urge to 'mother nature' or (in some cases_ to the organism itself)

As the good book says they'll end up worshiping and serving 'the creature rather than the creator who is blessed forever' (Romans ch 1)

[donmartin]

Kiwistonewall

By your reasoning, does this lead to the conclusion that there is not a closed system in existence? What would be an example of an extant, closed system?

[kiwistonewall]

Only the Universe is a truly closed system. (Assuming no ongoing creative process of matter or energy - which some have postulated as an alternative to the big band)

The 'closed system' in thermodynamics is simply an approximation to keep the maths simple. In chemistry, we use insulation etc to minimise heat transfer. If we are careful, the approximation is within our experimental error.

You could approximate the solar system as a closed thermodynamic system, as overwhelmingly the energy comes mainly from the Sun, and the stars can be ignored.

[Acolyte]

Sept 28, 2008 21:10:25 GMT kiwistonewall said:

The 'survival' of the fittest is a perfect process for eliminating damaged genes from the gene pool, and allowing the gene pool to adapt within its 'designed' capabilities. But 'creative' progress to 'higher' life forms? Even the word 'higher' used by some evolutionists meaningless within their theory, as this implies direction.

Blind chance cannot have direction or purpose. It always amuses me when evolutionary biased programs ascribe the creative urge to 'mother nature' or (in some cases_ to the organism itself)

It doesn't have to be either an ongoing God or blind chance - there are other possibilities. Rupert Sheldrake has done some interesting work on Morphogenetic fields, & I haven't seen any serious refutation of his work.

Sheldrake is a biologist who became interested in the more unusual aspects of life. It's feasible that morphogenetic fields can 'direct' evolution in ways that lead to better or more suitable forms.

There are puzzling aspects to it all, but at least some of the experimental results seem to point to effects that depend on what groups a person identifies with eg. Western Europe may have experimental results aligned with England experiments, while the US has none.

And it's not just humans - all kinds of lifeforms seem to have results that show such fields.

[donmartin]

;)Given that entropy establishes a direction in time, that entropy can exist only in a closed universe, and in our existence in what we perceive to be the universe there is direction in time, does it not follow that our universe is closed and there was no "big bang?" In an open universe, total energy and the interrelationship of mass would be constant, although in a geometrically increasing quantum of space.
The last sentence really was unnecessary. Is it implicit in the algorithm of Darwinism that the universe is open and everlasting? That St. John was correct?

[kiwistonewall]

Donmartin:

Given that entropy establishes a direction in time

Not a given. Entropy isn't "time's arrow" in any sense. For an isolated, and abstractly closed, system, entropy increases. But in any real complex system, some portions increase entropy, others decrease. If entropy implied time, then some things would be running backwards!!

that entropy can exist only in a closed universe

another not given. It is irrelevant to entropy if the Universe is closed or open.

does it not follow that our universe is closed and there was no "big bang?"

No, this doesn't follow at all. The fact that entropy tends to increase NOW (increasing disorder), doesn't mean that it once didn't increase. In fact, for anything to exist, there must have been a major event in which ORDER came into being, was produced out of nothing (or from some other Universe) The Big Bang was hardly a 'normal' event (I'm tempted to say supernatural - I can't think of a better term for it.)

In an open universe, total energy and the interrelationship of mass would be constant, although in a geometrically increasing quantum of space.

No, you fail to understand 'OPEN' An "open" Universe is one which does NOT have constant mass or energy. That is, it is open to energy and mass being created and/or destroyed. That is what we mean by an open Universe.

. Is it implicit in the algorithm of Darwinism that the universe is open and everlasting?

No, cosmology & Darwinian theory of Evolution are not related.

That St. John was correct?

Of course St John is correct in a symbolic & phenomenological way. Science is simply knowledge, and in God's Universe, His Scriptures and His creation can hardly be contradictory. Therefore it is our understanding of one or the other or both that is wrong. Which verse of St John did you mean to refer to?

[kiwistonewall]

Acolyte,

I am bewildered at your speculations. I am always amazed at some of the weird and improbable theories that people come up with so they can justify their rebellion against the Creator.

However, I am firmly of the belief that creation is so obvious to us all that we are without excuse. (I have this on very good authority!)

As to the God you obviously have difficulty believing in? I'm sure I don't believe in Him/Her either.

The one I believe in IS the Almighty, the totally other, who exists outside our Universe, yet pervades every piece of it. In Him we live and move and have our being. He is the I WAS, the I AM and the I WILL BE.

I am convinced that He is there, and He is NOT SILENT. He has spoken by Prophets and (I believe) His Son.

But continue to seek, and pray that you will see.
May the God of all Truth open your eyes.

[mhr3501]

Oh yeah... What he (kiwistonewall) said!

I don't often post in these forums because I'm not a scientist - just an interested spectator. But kiwistonewall ealier mentioned that "science is simply knowledge". It makes me think of the discussions (debates) I have had with the main AGW and green party proponent here where I work. He has often dropped back to "the science" as a battering ram that presumably demolishes any opposition. Those that ever peruse slashdot can probably attest to seeing the same thing there.

It kind of amazes me the absolute faith (yes faith!) people put in scientific knowlege. It stikes me as astounding that people (seemimgly) base their entire belief system on something that can turn on a dime. I read a couple of weeks ago about the Hadron Collider having the potential (at least in the mind of one scientist) to turn particle physics on it's head - only one example of the volume of articles declaring that scientists have to rethink their position on one thing or another. Talk about building on shifting sands...

The only post I made on the old forums was to the effect that a thing called world view is the defining process for what people make of the things observable through science. Science in, of and by itself doesn't definitively inform much of anything (boy is that likely to get me in trouble). That is why AGWers and sceptics can look at the same CO2 data and come away with radically different outlooks on effect.

Similarly, evolutionists and non-evolutionists (whether creationists or IDers (which are different)) can look at the same data and draw different conclusions. Yes, the evolutionist may reasonably claim there is no scientific basis for a creator (at least from the respect that you can't re-create him in a test tube). But, at least in terms of what science can know, what about next week? Science can never "know" when something may come up which will upset the entire apple cart. Feel sorry for those who have passed on before the great discovery was made.

Blind observation (is that an oxymoron?) has it's limitations. More so when the observer fails to understand that their basic outlook informs what they make of their observations. I'd hate to jump off into the dark hole just because I couldn't see anything at the bottom - or perhaps some less delicately - would you have to turn around and see a steaming pile to know you just ate at the local burrito barn after the resulting CO2 makes it's way through?

[kiwistonewall]

mhr3501

I can't agree more. All facts are interpreted facts - the answer to a question. or "What my net doesn't catch isn't fish" as someone once put it. While a temperature reading appears to be a neutral 'fact' it isn't. It was taken at a certain time, at a certain place for a certain reason.

Unfortunately, many 'scientists' today are so very narrowly focused. They've not read much outside their own field - and tend to just accept anything from other disciplines. They know nothing from epistemology or philosophy. The Leonardo DA Vinci's (who studied everything!) are few and far between.

I would describe myself both as a philosophical agnostic (in that I know I can't prove either the existence or non-existence of God in any axiomatic fashion) and as a strong believer in the Creator God, the God who is both there and has spoken.

There is plenty of excellent evidence for the existence of God, but nothing that is logically irrefutable. I am personally compelled to believe by all the marvels around me. Others are not. I was blind, but now I see (John Newton's Amazing Grace)

And I'm happy to assert that everyone knows 'inside' that they are created, and either they rebel against that or accept. There is much heat in these debates since it is ones basic world & life view at stake. Not something that is changed lightly.

[kaidaw]

from another thread, and applicable here

"elien and acolyte,
I suspect we may be watching the two of you using the same words and talking at total cross purposes. So, here is a third view, using the same words in yet again another manner.
I want my science to be hard-nosed, prove-it-to-a-skeptic science. And I expect that my faith will be content that science reveals a small part of the awesomeness of a Great Creator. I do not expect that my faith will reveal science, but that science will reveal a small justification for my faith.
Have faith in my science beliefs? Hardly; that denies the scientific method.
Have faith that faith will reveal true science? Not what [my] God had in mind.
Science is in conflict with faith? Hardly. Man is in conflict with himself.
That means you; that means me."

[donmartin]

Einstein said: "a priori all should be chaos." He therefore could not deny the existence of a God,