Educate your YEC 3: The second law of thermodynamics doesn't contradict evolution

Originally posted by RJHinds
...the so-called "Big Bang" that is supposed to evolved energy and matter into stars and planets and the earth to the so-called "abiogenesis"...

No.

Originally posted by RJHinds
...the so-called "abiogenesis" that is supposed to evolve rocks into living things...

No.

Originally posted by RJHinds
...living things that are supposed to evolve into more complex living things.

Evolution, yes.

Originally posted by RJHinds
It is clear to any reasonable persons that living things becoming more complex is in opposition to the Second Law of Thermodynamics and is thus a hinderance to the theory of evolution. That is just one reason evolution does not happen and has never happened.

It's been explained to you so many times now, that I'll just say: you're wrong about that. The second law of thermodynamics is of no hindrance to evolution in an open system like earth.

Originally posted by RJHinds
And don't try to tell me variation in species is evolution because it is not.

Combined with natural selection, it is. Neither variation in species, nor natural selection is hindered by the second law of thermodynamics in this open system we call earth. Therefore, evolution is not hindered by the second law of thermodynamics in this open system we call earth.

Originally posted by C Hess
It's been explained to you so many times now, that I'll just say: you're wrong about that. The second law of thermodynamics is of no hindrance to evolution in an open system like earth.

It wouldn't even be a hindrance if Earth was a closed system.

Originally posted by twhitehead
It wouldn't even be a hindrance if Earth was a closed system.

It wouldn't?

Originally posted by C Hess
It wouldn't?

Not in the slightest. In fact, one possibility for the origin of early life is on deep sea vents that obtain their chemical energy from underground rather than from sunlight. The earth has enough stored energy in the form of residual heat, chemical energy and atomic energy to sustain life for billions of years with no input whatsoever from an outside source and this is assuming no advanced technology.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics only states that the sum total of entropy increases in a closed system, it says nothing about local variations within that system. Until entropy in a system achieves its maximum possible value, local reductions in entropy are entirely possible - and in practice are extremely common.

Life requires available energy. Until all the matter in the Earth has been converted to thermal energy via nuclear reactions, there will still potentially be stored energy available for work. If we were to build a sufficient number of nuclear reactors, we could sustain even human life on the earth without any energy input from the rest of the universe for trillions of years.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Not in the slightest. In fact, one possibility for the origin of early life is on deep sea vents that obtain their chemical energy from underground rather than from sunlight. The earth has enough stored energy in the form of residual heat, chemical energy and atomic energy to sustain life for billions of years with no input whatsoever from an outside sour ...[text shortened]... value, local reductions in entropy are entirely possible - and in practice are extremely common.

Good input. Thank you. 🙂

Originally posted by C Hess
Good input. Thank you. 🙂

Another common mistake people make is thinking that entropy is easily measurable, or corresponds to visible disorder. Life does not actually have lower entropy than a similar quantity of non-living chemicals.

My favorite counter to creationists who like to claim that is is an obvious fact that things 'run down' or 'decay' or become generally more disordered, is to suggest putting some muddy water in a jar, shaking it, then leave it to stand. After a few hours you will see it will settle into very ordered layers.

Originally posted by C Hess
It's been explained to you so many times now, that I'll just say: you're wrong about that. The second law of thermodynamics is of no hindrance to evolution in an open system like earth.

The second law of thermodynamics is not relevant to evolution within closed systems, either. If one considers the Universe as a whole as a closed system, then evolution is certainly happening within it. Thermodynamics really hasn't got much to do with evolution at all, except indirectly.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Not in the slightest. In fact, one possibility for the origin of early life is on deep sea vents that obtain their chemical energy from underground rather than from sunlight. The earth has enough stored energy in the form of residual heat, chemical energy and atomic energy to sustain life for billions of years with no input whatsoever from an outside sour ...[text shortened]... life on the earth without any energy input from the rest of the universe for trillions of years.

"Of all the statements that have been made with respect to theories on the origin of life, the statement that the Second Law of Thermodynamics poses no problem for an evolutionary origin of life is the most absurd… The operation of natural processes on which the Second Law of Thermodynamics is based is alone sufficient, therefore, to preclude the spontaneous evolutionary origin of the immense biological order required for the origin of life."

(Duane Gish, Ph.D. in biochemistry from University of California at Berkeley)

Originally posted by twhitehead
Another common mistake people make is thinking that entropy is easily measurable, or corresponds to visible disorder. Life does not actually have lower entropy than a similar quantity of non-living chemicals.

My favorite counter to creationists who like to claim that is is an obvious fact that things 'run down' or 'decay' or become generally more disor ...[text shortened]... then leave it to stand. After a few hours you will see it will settle into very ordered layers.

Just adding energy to the jar by shaking it does not cause any increase in order or make it living even though it may be moving, but it eventually returns to its original state.

However, living systems must have design order to be able to use energy to function. As this designed order deteriorates, function decreases until it dies and returns to its orignal non-living state.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Just adding energy to the jar by shaking it does not cause any increase in order or make it living even though it may be moving, but it eventually returns to its original state.

However, living systems must have design order to be able to use energy to function. As this designed order deteriorates, function decreases until it dies and returns to its orignal non-living state.

just admit you have no idea what you're talking about.

right now there is so much nonsense coming out of your posts that even you must suspect nobody has any respect for you or your "wisdom"

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
just admit you have no idea what you're talking about.

right now there is so much nonsense coming out of your posts that even you must suspect nobody has any respect for you or your "wisdom"

Ha ha. I may or may not know what I am talking about, but I suspect the Phd scientists I quoted probably do. Do you really think I post on here to gain respect from people like you? Obviously not, right? Ha. 😏