Does The Heat Death Make Life Possible?

[ThoughtShark47 0]

Creationists get into trouble when they say that such complex order as life in a universe governed by disorder must be deliberate, an act of God. One thing that is pointed out to them is that entropy represents the statistical tendency toward disorder, not a rigid law somehow violated by every occurrence of order.

 

I've noticed something that is not what Creationists claim, yet it doesn't seem to be acknowledged by science that I have been able to find. It could seem outlandish, yet with a little examination it appears irrefutable to me that evolution and life are in fact dependent on processes and conditions which by definition qualify as disorder. This even includes the ultimate state of cosmic disorder called the heat death in which it is assumed that all viable energy within the universe will have been expended.

 

I want to mention that more than once I've been taken for a Creationist, and more than once people have assumed that I am one of these people who apparently do not believe that earth has limited resources, or who think that things like overpopulation, ozone depletion, pollution, and global warming are not real threats. Such assumptions are as far off-base as they could possibly be. On a science message board a man in England became livid at what I suggested. Somehow I guessed that he was a teacher. To be exact it turned out that he was a high school science teacher. Eventually he did an abrupt about face and declared that I was correct, yet he was no less hostile than he had been before. A number of people with a deeper understanding of science, such as a science writer I conversed with online and a friend who teaches astronomy, were surprised by my observation, but they did see my point.

 

In the unauthorized collection of essays, *The Theory of Everything*, Stephen Hawking illustrates how the statistical tendency toward disorder demonstrates the arrow of time with a water glass falling off a table to shatter on the floor. He shows how this demonstrates time's directional arrow, time being a one way street, in that the glass will not reform up on the table like a film run in reverse.

 

It's established in the scientific picture that stars produce the stuff that earth and life are made of. Stars are essentially immense hydrogen reactors. Hydrogen burning in a star can become oxygen as well as helium, and helium can be burned into carbon. The progression of star fuel, hydrogen, into these other substances, is the aging of the star. As the star is comprised of less and less hydrogen fuel and more of these substances, it is progressing toward what occurs when a red giant star goes nova and explodes, dispersing the stuff that life is formed from. Apply the arrow of time. Anything in a star that is no longer hydrogen fuel, such modified hydrogen as oxygen, helium, and carbon, will not revert into hydrogen fuel any more than a shattered water glass will reform up on the table. The stars that go nova also will not revert into the stars they had been. While earth could conceivably be swept into a new star form during a future nova, the stuff of which earth is made will not un-burn or un-explode, and happens to provide the basis for carbon-based life forms such as ourselves.

 

Mixing is disorder. In the book, *Chaos*, James Gleick gives the example of a swimming pool with ink on one side and water on the other divided by a barrier. Remove the barrier and the pure water and ink will mix together into a disordered mess. In *The Theory of Everything*, Hawking gives the example of two types of molecules in a box, again, separated by a barrier. Simply remove the barrier and the two types of molecules in separate ordered states will mix together into one disordered mess. They will also not separate and reorder themselves. What if hydrogen and oxygen mix together? That's how we get water, which, like carbon, is very handy for such life forms as ourselves.

 

My thinking is that ordered energy forms of the star and of the hydrogen and oxygen are lost, but that these ordered states must be lost, and become disordered, before new more complex forms of order can arise.

 

I became curious about topsoil. Fertile topsoil is formed through similar processes to soil erosion. In the latter case that this is disorder is apparent. What about when manure, ashes, and plants and animals decompose and mix into fertile life-sustaining soil? For dust art thou, and unto dust shalt thou return. The individual plants and animals will not reform but will sustain future generations of flora and fauna, which can then revert into soil.

 

Apoptosis is also known as programmed cell death. Our body replaces in the area of a million cells a second. If it does not do this as it should the result can be cancer. When, on the other hand, cells die more rapidly than they should it causes strokes and such diseases as Alzheimer's. The cells that die don't come back into existence like a shattered glass reforming on a table. Like the brake pads on a car, the cells must be replaced with new cells. Life barters with entropy, in the cycle of soil and plants and animals, and in the life, reproduction, and death of cells in our bodies.

 

Evolution itself demonstrates time's arrow. Cells live and die within complex organisms that live and die within species that carry on, adapt, and evolve into new species, or become extinct. In the case of human beings, individuals rise and fall within cultures that carry on, evolve, or die out. So I don't expect to awake tomorrow as one of my Celtic ancestors or as an Australopithecus or a pro simian or a lung fish, or maybe even as part of a long dead star, any more than Hawking's shattered glass will reform on the table from which it fell.

 

Heat loss is considered by definition to be entropy. Apply this to the fact that the death of stars is a loss of viable energy in the universe and a drop in temperature on a cosmic scale. The death of stars is a progression toward the hypothetical heat death of the universe. When standing before a mirror, consider the former temperature of the air around you as well as the walls and floor and ceiling and of the mirror, and, of course, of you, yourself. A great deal of heat loss, entropy, and disorder factor into that moment. The fact that all forms are finite, from shattered water glasses to exploding stars, makes evolution and life possible. Would you rather reside at room temperature, or on the surface of a star? If the heat death scenario is accurate, one result of this eventuality can be seen in your reflection. Organic processes also happen to be the heat death in progress.

 

While it seems to strike many as counter intuitive, I don't believe that I am the only person to make this connection, yet I can't find any acknowledgment of it. You might think it would make an interesting aside when addressing disorder and the proposed heat death. Why does no one make any mention of this?

I have two thoughts about why that might be. One is that in reductionism there is a tendency to view things as isolated occurrences; nature as the sum of it's parts. Stars, while undergoing the entropic process of aging, happen to produce the stuff that life is made of. While succumbing to entropy in the form of a nova, they happen to disperse that life stuff. In addition to this, if one is to view all of these events as disconnected happenstance, complexity and life can occur in a finite universe. Perhaps to make this connection would threaten an underlying bias in reductionism against any view of order as other than a purely random occurrence. I would not say that this observation is proof that a higher power is at work in nature, but I think it qualifies as an argument for the fine tuning of our universe and it does lend itself to the possibility that nature is more than purely random. Is what is classified as a statistical tendency toward disorder also a statistical tendency toward complexity that makes evolution possible, or maybe even inevitable? Is that why I never find any mention of this aspect of entropy?

[ikester7579 20]

There are many things wrong with the order of how you put things.

 

In a developing atmosphere, the barometric pressure would be much less than it is today. This would lower the boiling point of water which would make it impossible for rain to even form and hit the ground. This is because it would stay in vapor (gas) form.

 

Water that does not hit the ground does not form a primordial soup. Does not water plants to create oxygen. Rain does not hit the rocks making the right ingredients from rock erosion.

 

This is like saying life existed on Mars.

 

1) Mars has 1/8-1/4 the barometric pressure of the earth. This makes the boiling point of water to be around 50 degrees F.

2) Such a low boiling point means that warm blooded animals could not exist because their blood would boil.

3) And atmosphere has several times the CO2 than the earth has. And because the poles get really cold, this CO2 freezes and falls like snow making it appear that there is ice on the poles.

4) The low boiling point of water means:

a) Water will stay in a gasous state.

Any oceans would boil and evaporate into the atmosphere. There is no evidence of the gasses from any ocean that ever existed in the atmosphere.

c) Because there is no plant life, there is no ozone layer which means the full rays of the sun constantly hit the planet. Which sterilze the soil. Which means no life in the form of plant life or single cells.

d) The magnetic field is weaker on Mars than earth. Which means the solar wind is not being deflected as well. This means the atmosphere is slowly being stripped away as the magnetic field gets weaker and weaker.

 

The reason I use Mars as an example is because Mars conditions are so much like claimed early earth was. But you don't see it getting better, only worse.

 

Global warming: Early earth polution would have been several 1000 times worse than what we see now. If the earth was able to recover from that, then how come it cannot recover from global warming?

 

Life coming from non-life has never been proven or observed. It has only been claimed. Miller's experiment and all the experiments that followed never showed life forming. And evolution can only apply to living systems. Making amino acids and claiming life is like saying my multi-vitamin will come alive.

 

Time is not the answer when time does not prove something will happen when given enough time. Time instead becomes an excuse for not being able to produce a observable process.

 

God's word says:

 

2 Peter 3:5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:

 

God did not age matter He used for creation with time, He aged it with His word. Why? Creation was done before the first sin of mortal man. Time minus sin equals a time that has no age. Time that has no age equals eternity. Creation was done under eternal laws because it was done before man sinned.

 

Sin brought death, correct? So before sin there was no death. Time minus death equals eternal times. So our current laws do not apply to explain how the creation was done. So to understand creation you have to understand how eternity works. How the laws of an eternal universe works as well.

 

http://creationwiki.org/FAQs_about_eternity

 

Once understood, creation is understandable and explainable.

[ThoughtShark47 0]

There are many things wrong with the order of how you put things.

 

In a developing atmosphere, the barometric pressure would be much less than it is today. This would lower the boiling point of water which would make it impossible for rain to even form and hit the ground. This is because it would stay in vapor (gas) form.

 

Water that does not hit the ground does not form a primordial soup. Does not water plants to create oxygen. Rain does not hit the rocks making the right ingredients from rock erosion.

 

This is like saying life existed on Mars.

 

1) Mars has 1/8-1/4 the barometric pressure of the earth. This makes the boiling point of water to be around 50 degrees F.

2) Such a low boiling point means that warm blooded animals could not exist because their blood would boil.

3) And atmosphere has several times the CO2 than the earth has. And because the poles get really cold, this CO2 freezes and falls like snow making it appear that there is ice on the poles.

4) The low boiling point of water means:

a) Water will stay in a gasous state.

Any oceans would boil and evaporate into the atmosphere. There is no evidence of the gasses from any ocean that ever existed in the atmosphere.

c) Because there is no plant life, there is no ozone layer which means the full rays of the sun constantly hit the planet. Which sterilze the soil. Which means no life in the form of plant life or single cells.

d) The magnetic field is weaker on Mars than earth. Which means the solar wind is not being deflected as well. This means the atmosphere is slowly being stripped away as the magnetic field gets weaker and weaker.

 

The reason I use Mars as an example is because Mars conditions are so much like claimed early earth was. But you don't see it getting better, only worse.

 

Global warming: Early earth polution would have been several 1000 times worse than what we see now. If the earth was able to recover from that, then how come it cannot recover from global warming?

 

Life coming from non-life has never been proven or observed. It has only been claimed. Miller's experiment and all the experiments that followed never showed life forming. And evolution can only apply to living systems. Making amino acids and claiming life is like saying my multi-vitamin will come alive.

 

Time is not the answer when time does not prove something will happen when given enough time. Time instead becomes an excuse for not being able to produce a observable process.

 

God's word says:

 

2 Peter 3:5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:

 

God did not age matter He used for creation with time, He aged it with His word. Why? Creation was done before the first sin of mortal man. Time minus sin equals a time that has no age. Time that has no age equals eternity. Creation was done under eternal laws because it was done before man sinned.

 

Sin brought death, correct? So before sin there was no death. Time minus death equals eternal times. So our current laws do not apply to explain how the creation was done. So to understand creation you have to understand how eternity works. How the laws of an eternal universe works as well.

 

http://creationwiki.org/FAQs_about_eternity

 

Once understood, creation is understandable and explainable.

51512[/snapback]

 

Hello Ikester. I believe that there is a great deal of metaphorical truth in The Bible, and that atheists don't see this, refuse to see it, in large part because of many who claim to speak for God and betray that responsibility, often as not perhaps on purpose, or in some cases because these people are off their nut. And the media covers it, always. p*dophile priests and the mass suicide/homicides of cult leaders and televangelists who get busted. All of these so called Christians take God from people, and if there is a Hell, well, heh heh!

 

Evolution describes the ancestors of humankind as leaving the trees. Long before Darwin The Bible spoke of Adam and Eve and their involvement with trees and leaving paradise, un-tampered nature, to embark on the human journey.

 

There is a theory in science that I do not pretend to grasp that everything is actually made out of light. I expect there is a connection to Einstein's theory of relativity and the fact that energy equals mass times the speed of light squared.

 

And in The Bible? "Let there be light." And there was light.

 

You may not be a fan of Catholicism, especially considering it's connection to Paganism. What if Christ was viewed as an ultimate example of what it means to be human? In communion, Catholics believe that eating a wafer and drinking wine they magically partake of the body and blood of Christ. I think it's amazing that, in the scientific picture, energy which began as almost entirely simple hydrogen has become among other things you and I having this conversation. In the scientific picture that hydrogen has undergone many, many changes to facilitate organic processes and thus ourselves. I think energy has memory and that it learns. In addition to the conventional sense of memory, there is acknowledgment in science of memory as a purely physical thing, as in the way a rubber band can reform into some version of it's former shape.

 

So viewing it this way on some level energy has learned to facilitate our physical existence in this context of mortal life. It requires oxygen and food intake. If bread and wine are consumed in the context of ultimate humanity, in Christ's name, the Catholic congregation gives their life to Christ as they are nourished by the bread and wine. I think of this in terms of where digestion begins. The bread and wine instantly begin to become Christ in the congregation in this ceremony as it enters their mouths because digestion begins with saliva, the instant the bread and wine enter their mouths.

 

Anyway you get the idea. I was an atheist for many years and happily have not been for some time. Atheists seem largely angry at religious hypocrisy, and people get hurt sometimes very very badly in this veil of tears called life. I was too and that contributed to my atheism. But I am much better now. =)

 

The media will never fail to report on cult slayings and p*dophile priests and the arrest of despicable televangelists, and people eat it up. They love scandal and revel in it. I don't, personally. How often in the media do you hear a story about a person who is happy with themselves and with life and with their spirituality, and who never harms anyone?

 

Have a good one. Mike.

[hackenslash 0]

The real problem here is how the word 'entropy' is being applied. Entropy is not, as some would have you believe, disorder. Rigorously defined, entropy is either a measure of the amount of energy in a system that is unavailable for the performance of work, or a measure of the number of ways in which a system could change without changing the outward appearance of the system (also can be defined as the amount of information required to describe a system in information theory). There are two simple examples that should elucidate the principle really nicely, to highlight just why entropy is not disorder, but also why it is often thought of as disorder.

 

The most highly entropic entity postulated in the universe at the moment is a black hole. However; a black hole is, by any useful definition of the word, highly ordered, as all the mass is concentrated at the singularity. So, if entropy is disorder, how can a black hole be entropic?

 

This is based on a misunderstanding that has led to a vernacular usage of the word that doesn't actually apply when the word is applied rigorously. here's where the misunderstanding lies.

 

Picture a desk that has paper strewn all over it. This system is highly disordered, but that's not what makes it entropic. It is entropic because there are any number of ways you could change the system without affecting the appearance. You can move a single piece of paper without affecting the overall system's appearance, because moving one piece of paper would not change the desk from being highly disordered. This is the sense in which entropy is tied to disorder. This does not mean that entropy is disorder. You could tidy the desk, but that would mean that expenditure of energy. Entropy would be reduced locally, because you now have a system (the tidy desk) in which small changes affect the outward appearance of the system, or the amount of information required to describe it (this is the information theory application of entropy, which is connected for what I hope are fairly obvious reasons). Thing is, though, that the entropy of the whole system (the desk, and the person who tidies it) is increasing, because work is being done, and therefore energy is being tied up in the system, making it unavailable to do work.

 

When talking about the entropy decrease in living organisms, you are applying the same prnciple. Entropy decreases locally (the organism), but the entropy of the whole system (organism/planet/sun) is increasing, because energy is being tied up in the organism and is therefore unavailable to do work.

[ikester7579 20]

Hello Ikester. I believe that there is a great deal of metaphorical truth in The Bible, and that atheists don't see this, refuse to see it, in large part because of many who claim to speak for God and betray that responsibility, often as not perhaps on purpose, or in some cases because these people are off their nut. And the media covers it, always. p*dophile priests and the mass suicide/homicides of cult leaders and televangelists who get busted. All of these so called Christians take God from people, and if there is a Hell, well, heh heh!

 

Evolution describes the ancestors of humankind as leaving the trees. Long before Darwin The Bible spoke of Adam and Eve and their involvement with trees and leaving paradise, un-tampered nature, to embark on the human journey.

 

There is a theory in science that I do not pretend to grasp that everything is actually made out of light. I expect there is a connection to Einstein's theory of relativity and the fact that energy equals mass times the speed of light squared.

 

And in The Bible? "Let there be light." And there was light.

 

You may not be a fan of Catholicism, especially considering it's connection to Paganism. What if Christ was viewed as an ultimate example of what it means to be human? In communion, Catholics believe that eating a wafer and drinking wine they magically partake of the body and blood of Christ. I think it's amazing that, in the scientific picture, energy which began as almost entirely simple hydrogen has become among other things you and I having this conversation. In the scientific picture that hydrogen has undergone many, many changes to facilitate organic processes and thus ourselves. I think energy has memory and that it learns. In addition to the conventional sense of memory, there is acknowledgment in science of memory as a purely physical thing, as in the way a rubber band can reform into some version of it's former shape.

 

So viewing it this way on some level energy has learned to facilitate our physical existence in this context of mortal life. It requires oxygen and food intake. If bread and wine are consumed in the context of ultimate humanity, in Christ's name, the Catholic congregation gives their life to Christ as they are nourished by the bread and wine. I think of this in terms of where digestion begins. The bread and wine instantly begin to become Christ in the congregation in this ceremony as it enters their mouths because digestion begins with saliva, the instant the bread and wine enter their mouths.

 

Anyway you get the idea. I was an atheist for many years and happily have not been for some time. Atheists seem largely angry at religious hypocrisy, and people get hurt sometimes very very badly in this veil of tears called life. I was too and that contributed to my atheism. But I am much better now. =)

 

The media will never fail to report on cult slayings and p*dophile priests and the arrest of despicable televangelists, and people eat it up. They love scandal and revel in it. I don't, personally. How often in the media do you hear a story about a person who is happy with themselves and with life and with their spirituality, and who never harms anyone?

 

Have a good one. Mike.

51544[/snapback]

You did not address anything I said.

 

Just because some people claim to be Christian does not make them one. That would be like saying standing in a garage will make you a car. Words don't make a person, action does. When a person has to claim it to everyone he meets, then it shows his life (actions) does not show what he claims to be. So his sin does not stick to those who are.

 

And just because someone did get saved. does not mean their salvation is always intact. Freewill allows a person to turn away from the free gift that was given. God does not run a matrix where we are all puppets. If this were true then when we get saved we would not be able to sin. But we do, which means freewill is still intact.

[AFJ 33]

Creationists get into trouble when they say that such complex order as life in a universe governed by disorder must be deliberate, an act of God. One thing that is pointed out to them is that entropy represents the statistical tendency toward disorder, not a rigid law somehow violated by every occurrence of order.

51503[/snapback]

Your definition is incorrect. From my chemistry book..."Entropy is a quantitative measure toward disorder, or randomness, in the substances involved in a reaction." It is a measurement--not a tendency. And the measurement of entropy can be positive or negative.

 

Point 1. Your definition..."statistical tendency toward disorder" is one way directional. Your definition is saying that entropy can only be measured in the positive. This is invalid. You have therefore added an unproven postulate to a definition in chemistry.

 

Point 2. So if your statement is valid, everything would be broken down to gas in the universe. Also everything should have become extinct as the death rate in selection should have been greater than the birth rate.

 

Point 3. But there are many examples of entropy decreasing: (organization)

 

1. The water cycle when vapor becomes liquid.

 

2. When concrete, ice, or rock hardens the particles organize and become solid.

 

3. When a polypeptide chain is formed enzymatically, entropy decreases and organization increases.

 

4. Anytime particles, atoms, or molecules organize in chemical reaction entropy decreases.

 

It could seem outlandish, yet with a little examination it appears irrefutable to me that evolution and life are in fact dependent on processes and conditions which by definition qualify as disorder.

51503[/snapback]

Life demonstrates both chemically defined disorder (increased entropy) and chemically defined order (decreased entropy). Things break down only to be organized again. Even cell death. What would happen if our body just kept making cells and none of them died. How would we produce enough energy to maintain homeostasis? So there is purpose even in this cycle.

 

This even includes the ultimate state of cosmic disorder called the heat death in which it is assumed that all viable energy within the universe will have been expended.

51503[/snapback]

Yes, this theory precludes an Organizer and Maintainer. "By Him all things consist." When scientists can produce the strong nuclear force which holds the nucleus of an atom together--then I'll listen to this naturalistic belief.

 

In the unauthorized collection of essays, *The Theory of Everything*, Stephen Hawking illustrates how the statistical tendency toward disorder demonstrates the arrow of time with a water glass falling off a table to shatter on the floor. He shows how this demonstrates time's directional arrow, time being a one way street, in that the glass will not reform up on the table like a film run in reverse.

51503[/snapback]

On the contrary, how many cycles are in the universe and life. Yes there is breakdown--but breakdown is necessary for rebuilding.

 

The corn and beans in the field turn gold and dry out to produce the grains which our livestock(and people) are then fed by--those same grains are seeds which produce another generation of crops.

 

The water evaporates from the ground condenses and brings rain.

 

A man dies and a man is born.

 

Cells die--DNA is replicated, and cells divide.

 

The earth circles the sun causing the seasons. Autumn breaks down, Spring revives.

 

 

 

Mixing is disorder. In the book, *Chaos*, James Gleick gives the example of a swimming pool with ink on one side and water on the other divided by a barrier. Remove the barrier and the pure water and ink will mix together into a disordered mess. In *The Theory of Everything*, Hawking gives the example of two types of molecules in a box, again, separated by a barrier. Simply remove the barrier and the two types of molecules in separate ordered states will mix together into one disordered mess. They will also not separate and reorder themselves. What if hydrogen and oxygen mix together? That's how we get water, which, like carbon, is very handy for such life forms as ourselves.

51503[/snapback]

ThoughtShark--perhaps you should reevaluate who you read. Glieik just slid one in on you with this slight of hand illustration!

 

Water and ink mixing is a break down. An increase in entropy. Hydrogen and oxygen making water is organizing, a decrease in entropy. Besides hydrogen and oxygen are not a chemical mixture--they are a compound. And they do not "mix," they bond.

 

So my (self evident)argument of disorder and order in life is validated even in Gliek's misguided illustration.

 

I really don't mean to be rude, but this is nothing but philosophical rubbish. The sad thing is that people swallow this swill and call it science!!!

[larrywj2 1]

Shark, I was certain at first read that I had a reply. After the 3rd read I was certain there is no appropriate reply.

 

What I can't decide is if you had a point to make and lost it in words or if you had no point and were hiding in words?

[Sisyfos 0]

Your definition is incorrect.  From my chemistry book..."Entropy is a quantitative measure toward disorder, or randomness, in the substances involved in a reaction."   It is a measurement--not a tendency.  And the measurement of entropy can be positive or negative.

51577[/snapback]

Way to miss a point...

 

He did not give the definition of entropy but a description of the theory of entropy and chemical equilibrium. Second law of thermodynamics. Further the definition you give is consistent with the description he gives in whole even when it [your chemistry book definition] is so diluted it seems to be from elementary school. Disorder is not defined, nor randomness. That is one thing. Another thing with the definition you give is that it says "toward" disorder, which indicates the general tendency as discussed in the OP.

[AFJ 33]

Way to miss a point...

 

He did not give the definition of entropy...

51627[/snapback]

He sure did...."entropy represents the statistical tendency toward disorder...."

First paragraph.

 

...but a description of the theory of entropy and chemical equilibrium. Second law of thermodynamics. Further the definition you give is consistent with the description he gives in whole even when it [your chemistry book definition] is so diluted it seems to be from elementary school.

51627[/snapback]

If you would like an elaboration please just ask. Entropy change is the entropy of the products of a chemical reaction minus the entropy of the reactants. I realize entropy resides outside the bounds of chemistry and biology--but the obervations made by the poster and the attribution to evolution makes it a chemical and biological issue.

 

Again, and I say this to give example of disorder/ order, entropy increases when a solid changes into liquid or gas. The reason is simple. Most solids have an organized matrix structure which becomes less organized as a liquid or gas. I will not elaborate further on this for other readers' consideration.

 

THe illustration given of ink and water and comparing it to oxygen and hydrogen "mixing" to make water is invalid. The ink and water is a dilution and a mixture which is defined as an entropy increase or an increase in disorder. The oxygen and hydrogen making water would be an organizing of two elements to make a compound. Two gases making a liquid--a decrease in entropy.

 

It is the same in protein translation, which is biochemical and an entropy decrease. The chemical reaction of hydrolysis joins the amino acids, forming a peptide bond (as well as expelling a molecule of water--pretty good 'waste' product)--hence a polypeptide chain--and the absolutely non incidental folding into a structure--chemically fitting into other proteins at complementary binding sites. It's as far from entropy as you can get. Does entropy happen in the body--yes! But in the midst of all of it--'negative' entropy--non randomness and non disorder. A defiance of the second law. Not an isolated incident in the corner--but a universal law by which we exist!

Disorder is not defined, nor randomness. That is one thing.

51627[/snapback]

I'm sorry, did you need a definition of disorder or randomness? I would think that a the geometrical matrix of a solid would show order, versus the looser, less organized make up of liquid or gas. Or the order of liquid H2O versus an ionic solute in an aqueous solution. But I guess you have to fill the page for some people!

Another thing with the definition you give is that it says "toward" disorder, which indicates the general tendency as discussed in the OP.

51627[/snapback]

I'm wondering if you read my post. Did I not say the change in entropy can be expressed in a positive or a negative? It's math. Yes, in an increase (positive) of entropy we are going toward more disorder. In a decrease (negative) of entropy we are organizing.

 

Therefore, entropy is a measurement of the disorder of a bio/chemical solution / system, and conversely a negative sign would also show the relative organizing of a system or bio/chemical solution/ system.

 

The second law of thermodynamics shows a 'tendency' toward disorder, which is all the more reason to pause at the absolute wonder of the biochemical systems God has made. There is little 'tendency' like this in the cell. Evolution could have never done it.

[Sisyfos 0]

The second law of thermodynamics shows a 'tendency' toward disorder, which is all the more reason to pause at the absolute wonder of the biochemical systems God has made. There is little 'tendency' like this in the cell.  Evolution could have never done it.

51718[/snapback]

That is an incorrect description of biochemical systems. What you argue here is that entropy has nothing to do with the cell functionality. I.e. you argue that the driving force within cells is not consistent with the second law of thermodynamics or with chemical equilibrium. However, the opposite is irrefutably empirically proven. Entropy should not be discussed without a thorough knowledge of chemical equilibrium.

 

Example: What is disorder when mixing oil and water?

[AFJ 33]

That is an incorrect description of biochemical systems. What you argue here is that entropy has nothing to do with the cell functionality. I.e. you argue that the driving force within cells is not consistent with the second law of thermodynamics or with chemical equilibrium. However, the opposite is irrefutably empirically proven. Entropy should not be discussed without a thorough knowledge of chemical equilibrium.

 

Example: What is disorder when mixing oil and water?

51728[/snapback]

You are over generalizing what I said. Protein translation is organization not just in the bonding through dehydration synthesis, but also in the folding into secondary, and tertiary, sometimes quaternary structure, which produces purposeful binding sites for enzymes and other proteins. It is not only translation, but proteins are further shaped in the golgi apparatus.

 

If I deny the 2nd law then that would be wrong. But the point the poster made was that creationists use order against the background of disorder to say it is intentional. I am saying that proteins are what we are made of, their design are not disorder, and the mathematical change of entropy in protein formation does not capture it's essence. Also it is not an isolated case of order against the arrow of time and break down, but a central and universal biochemical law which takes place in all species, and in most cells.

[Sisyfos 0]

I am saying that proteins are what we are made of, their design are not disorder, and the mathematical change of entropy in protein formation does not capture it's essence.

 

This is purely speculative. Essence is a philosophical property. Math cannot capture essence, period. Neither can chemistry.

Also it is not an isolated case of order against the arrow of time and break down, but a central and universal biochemical law which takes place in all species, and in most cells.

51730[/snapback]

You are contradicting yourself. If it is a universal biological law all cells would be included. Or are you saying that there are cells that are not biological?

 

The argument that "their design are not disorder" is still misrepresentative and dare I say it preaching...

[AFJ 33]

This is purely speculative. Essence is a philosophical property. Math cannot capture essence, period. Neither can chemistry.

 

You are contradicting yourself. If it is a universal biological law all cells would be included. Or are you saying that there are cells that are not biological?

 

The argument that "their design are not disorder" is still misrepresentative and dare I say it preaching...

51731[/snapback]

I said "universal biochemical law." Actually, that is not a contradiction, but in all fairness--an overstatement. Then that would mean every biochemical reaction is negative entropy and I was talking specifically about protein formation. So you do make (half--lol) a point.

 

Perhaps if I clarify--I would not be misunderstood. Chemistry says that there are three 'domains' of entropy. There is the total (1) entropy in the universe which is a positive entropy --a break down--according to the second law.

 

Then there is the (2) entropy of the surroundings of a reaction, and the (3) entropy of the reaction itself. It is possible for negative entropy to happen in the reaction itself, while the surroundings and the universe have a sum total of positive entropy. This is a chemistry fact.

 

For instance, if you put sodium and chlorine in a test tube, you're going to get table salt-- sodium chloride. This is negative entropy in the reaction because the elements have become a compound.

 

Now this reaction will cause heat because it is exothermic (heat producing). So the surroundings of the reaction will have a positive entropy. If done in air the gas atoms will become excited and farther apart, which is defined as positive entropy.

 

 

---So I am talking about the entropy in the actual peptide bonding and the folding of the protein via Van der Wells forces, This produces negative entropy because the molecules are much more organized.

 

One last important thought. The surroundings of the reactions and the binding and separating of the catalytic enzymes in the process of formation probably produce a sum total of positive entropy, so you are probably correct when it comes to the sum total of the cell.

 

BUT the reactions of dehydration synthesis in peptide bonding and the folding of the peptide chain to form protein add up to negative entropy which will go into the equation if want to calculate the sum total entropy in the cell (which is impossible anyway, because we don't have all the variables).

[ThoughtShark47 0]

Is there some way I can delete this thread? I want to send essentially the same thing to a magazine and hope not to have this version of it already online. Thanks. Mike.

[ikester7579 20]

Is there some way I can delete this thread? I want to send essentially the same thing to a magazine and hope not to have this version of it already online. Thanks. Mike.

 

I have to ask: Which magazine, and what's wrong with this version?

[supramk3speed 21]

Yeah, what is wrong with this version? If i were writing to a christian magazine i would keep this in it's entirety, but thats where we and athiests generally differ. We don't mind counterpoints.

[omnevivumexvivo 1]

A defining trait of entropy is that it causes molecules to "de-localize," or spread out from an area of high concentration to an area of low concentration until the distribution is more or less homogenous. For quite some time, scientists thought that the bacteria had little, if any, internal organization. They were more or less homogenous sacks of proteins and nucleic acids.

 

Nothing could be further from the truth.

 

http://cshperspectives.cshlp.org/content/2/4/a000307.full

 

Our view of the organization of the bacterial cell has changed radically over the past two decades. Once seen as an amorphous vessel harboring a homogeneous solution of proteins, these primitive organisms are now known to have an intricate subcellular architecture in which individual proteins localize to particular sites in the cell, often in a dynamic manner. Of course, bacteria frequently show conspicuous morphological features, such as division septa, flagella, pili, and stalks, which implied a nonuniform, underlying distribution of proteins. But it was not until the early 1990s that it became clear that proteins can, and often do, have distinctive subcellular addresses. Among the earliest discoveries were: (1) the formation of a ringlike structure at the mid cell position by the cytokinetic protein FtsZ (Bi and Lutkenhaus 1991), (2) the clustering of chemotaxis proteins at the poles of cells (Alley et al. 1992), (3) the compartment-specific production of sporulation proteins and their assembly into shell-like structures (Driks and Losick 1991), and (4) the asymmetric distribution of proteins involved in actin polymerization along the cell surface (Goldberg et al. 1993; Kocks et al. 1993). These discoveries were initially made by immunoelectron and immunofluorescence microscopy with fixed cells, but the discovery of green fluorescent protein (GFP) and the demonstration that proteins could retain their proper subcellular localization as GFP fusions opened the way to visualizing proteins and their dynamic behavior in living cells, including, importantly, in bacteria (Arigoni et al. 1995).

 

Knowing where proteins are in the cell is often critical to understanding their function. Thus, the position of the aforementioned FtsZ ring (the Z-ring) dictates where cytokinesis will take place (Margolin 2005). The clustering of chemotaxis proteins plays an important role in the extraordinary gain in the responsiveness of chemotatic behavior to small changes in attractants (Ames and Parkinson 2006). Where sporulation proteins are produced and the way in which they assemble governs spore morphogenesis (Stragier and Losick 1996; Errington 2003). The asymmetric distribution of actin-polymerization proteins on the cell surface explains how certain pathogens harness host cytoskeletal proteins for their own motility (Smith et al. 1995). From these and other examples emerge a view of the bacterial cell as a dynamic, three-dimensional system in which protein localization and changes in protein localization over time orchestrate growth, the cell cycle, behavior, and differentiation.

 

The level of internal organization that prokaryotes are capable of achieving without the benefit of enclosed organelles is astonishing! What's even more astounding is that this sort of internal complexity goes ALL THE WAY DOWN TO MYCOPLASMA!

 

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/11/basics-of-life/

 

Just by looking at the illustration at the top of the page, you can see that both the chromosome and various vital proteins are localized to certain parts of the bacterial cell. The article itself also mentions that the actual three-dimensional arangement of the chromosome plays an important role in gene expression.

 

Internal organization and localization of subsystems appears to be a fundamental property of life itself. It's difficult to envision how a theoretical creature could be considered "alive" without a degree of internal organization somewhat greater than what could be provided by chance chemical interactions.

[gilbo12345 860]

A defining trait of entropy is that it causes molecules to "de-localize," or spread out from an area of high concentration to an area of low concentration until the distribution is more or less homogenous. For quite some time, scientists thought that the bacteria had little, if any, internal organization. They were more or less homogenous sacks of proteins and nucleic acids.

 

Nothing could be further from the truth.

 

http://cshperspectives.cshlp.org/content/2/4/a000307.full

 

 

 

The level of internal organization that prokaryotes are capable of achieving without the benefit of enclosed organelles is astonishing! What's even more astounding is that this sort of internal complexity goes ALL THE WAY DOWN TO MYCOPLASMA!

 

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/11/basics-of-life/

 

Just by looking at the illustration at the top of the page, you can see that both the chromosome and various vital proteins are localized to certain parts of the bacterial cell. The article itself also mentions that the actual three-dimensional arangement of the chromosome plays an important role in gene expression.

 

Internal organization and localization of subsystems appears to be a fundamental property of life itself. It's difficult to envision how a theoretical creature could be considered "alive" without a degree of internal organization somewhat greater than what could be provided by chance chemical interactions.

 

Great Post

 

Another point from this is how does internal organization occur due to entropy, a force that increases randomness = less organization. It defies what it known about entropy and is simply a re-hash of the big-bang entropy problem, (just changed to the organization of life instead of the universe)

[Teejay 109]

Creationists get into trouble when they say that such complex order as life in a universe governed by disorder must be deliberate, an act of God. One thing that is pointed out to them is that entropy represents the statistical tendency toward disorder, not a rigid law somehow violated by every occurrence of order.

TS, I dont understand? I dont get in trouble. God says in Genesis that He created man to live physically and spiritually forever. We were created in His image and were to fellowship with Him for eternity. As long as man ate from the Tree of Life (which represented Jesus Christ), he would live forever (Gen. 3:22). In the New Jerusalem we see a similar tree for the healing of nations (Rev. 22:2).

 

God also had to curse the ground for Adams sake (Gen. 3:17). Many Christians interpret this to mean that God cursed the ground as a consequential punishment for Adam sinning. Rather what this means is that God was cursing the ground for the benefit of Adam. Now that Adam was in a fallen state, God could not leave Adam in his sinful state to make living easy. Rather God made it hard for man to survive. Man would now have to struggle with little idle time for sinful living. Man would not be able to make it without his wife. He would need a mate to help him raise kids, etc.

 

For Eves sake, God multiplied her sorrow and conception (Gen. 3:16). I interpret this to mean that before the curse, a baby might have been able to survive in a blessed creation at say six month delivery. But after God cursed the ground for Adams benefit, survival in a harsher world would be more difficult. So God increased the term of her pregnancy to nine month. Hence the baby would be better able to survive.

 

Paul confirms that initially the creation itself was perfect before the curse but it will be delivered from the bondage of corruption (Rom. 8:21).

 

So everything that I observe in reality is justified by a literal reading of Genesis. A denial that Genesis is literally true is what gets me in trouble.

 

 

 

I've noticed something that is not what Creationists claim, yet it doesn't seem to be acknowledged by science that I have been able to find. It could seem outlandish, yet with a little examination it appears irrefutable to me that evolution and life are in fact dependent on processes and conditions which by definition qualify as disorder. This even includes the ultimate state of cosmic disorder called the heat death in which it is assumed that all viable energy within the universe will have been expended.

But there was life before God cursed man and creation. So the disorder came after the curse. Life was not dependent on disorder. Life came from God and was dependent on God and His Tree of Life. And you are ASSUMING that evolution is true. What you are arguing here is that its irrefutable that something that has not been proven to be true is dependent on the Second Law of Thermodynamics which was really Gods curse on His original perfect creation.

 

I want to mention that more than once I've been taken for a Creationist, and more than once people have assumed that I am one of these people who apparently do not believe that earth has limited resources, or who think that things like overpopulation, ozone depletion, pollution, and global warming are not real threats. Such assumptions are as far off-base as they could possibly be. On a science message board a man in England became livid at what I suggested. Somehow I guessed that he was a teacher. To be exact it turned out that he was a high school science teacher. Eventually he did an abrupt about face and declared that I was correct, yet he was no less hostile than he had been before. A number of people with a deeper understanding of science, such as a science writer I conversed with online and a friend who teaches astronomy, were surprised by my observation, but they did see my point.

Over-population, ozone depletion, pollution, and global warming are not threats. In Genesis 8:22, God promises that While the earth remains, seedtime and harvest, cold and heat, winter and summer, and day and night shall not cease. All the people of the world can fit in the smallest county of Texas and everyone would have three square feet of standing room. The hole in the ozone was discovered when they discovered that there was ozone. Most people are worried about present day pollution, but I want to know what happened to acid rain which was forecast to kill our dogs, make us go bald, take the paint off our houses, and impotennce even. Im still worried about acid rain. What happened to it? Global warming was an Al Gore scam to gain power and make money. I saw Al get a standing O on Oprah. Anything that gets you a standing O on Oprah should give you cause to doubt.

 

 

 

In the unauthorized collection of essays, *The Theory of Everything*, Stephen Hawking illustrates how the statistical tendency toward disorder demonstrates the arrow of time with a water glass falling off a table to shatter on the floor. He shows how this demonstrates time's directional arrow, time being a one way street, in that the glass will not reform up on the table like a film run in reverse.

What astonishes me about people like Hawking is that he would never for a minute ponder whether the glass was manufactured by man or came about by natural processes. But then he looks at Gods creation (that leaves me in awe) and dismisses God and uses his magnificent God-given brain to posit absurd theories.

 

Quentin Smith, explaining Hawkings theory, says a pre-existing hypersphere smaller than the nucleus of an atom explodes in a Big Bang. If the cosmos pre-existed, even though smaller than the nucleus of an atom, it still pre-existed and did not come into being. Hawking and Smith are trying to have it both waysit popped into existence from nothing, and it was always here. Quentin has adopted this doublespeak from Hawing himself. Lets quote Hawking in his Origin of the Universe.

 

This inflation was a good thing, in that it produced a universe… expanding at just the critical rate to avoid re-collapse. The inflation was also a good thing in that it produced all the contents of the universe, quite literally out of nothing. When the universe was a single point, like the North Pole, it contained nothing. Yet there are now at least 10 to the 80 particles in the part of the universe that we can observe. Where did all these particles come from? The answer is, that Relativity and quantum mechanics, allow matter to be created out of energy [true], in the form of particle anti-particle pairs. So, where did the energy come from, to create the matter? The answer is [drum roll please], that it was borrowed from the gravitational energy of the universe.

 

So, where did the energy come from to create the matter? …it was borrowed from the gravitational energy of the universe.

 

What universe? Hawking is speaking of an event that produced a universe. And He draws the energy for that event, from the gravitational energy of the universe that does not yet exist!

 

I wish that Hawking had realized that matter or energy cant be created by man. Man needs matter to create energy and he needs energy to create matter. But man cant create both at the same time. Only God can do that. No new matter or energy is coming into existence today, for God created in six days and on the seventh He rested. Whats here is here.

 

 

It's established in the scientific picture that stars produce the stuff that earth and life are made of. Stars are essentially immense hydrogen reactors. Hydrogen burning in a star can become oxygen as well as helium, and helium can be burned into carbon. The progression of star fuel, hydrogen, into these other substances, is the aging of the star. As the star is comprised of less and less hydrogen fuel and more of these substances, it is progressing toward what occurs when a red giant star goes nova and explodes, dispersing the stuff that life is formed from. Apply the arrow of time. Anything in a star that is no longer hydrogen fuel, such modified hydrogen as oxygen, helium, and carbon, will not revert into hydrogen fuel any more than a shattered water glass will reform up on the table. The stars that go nova also will not revert into the stars they had been. While earth could conceivably be swept into a new star form during a future nova, the stuff of which earth is made will not un-burn or un-explode, and happens to provide the basis for carbon-based life forms such as ourselves.

I have a bit of a problem with thisthat stars produce the stuff that earth and life are made of. And I think that God would have a problem with this as well. First, God created the earth on the first day. He did not create the stars until fourth day. And he created man from the dust of the earth and breathed life into his nostrils. So the earth nor life did not come from stars?

 

Mixing is disorder. In the book, *Chaos*, James Gleick gives the example of a swimming pool with ink on one side and water on the other divided by a barrier. Remove the barrier and the pure water and ink will mix together into a disordered mess. In *The Theory of Everything*, Hawking gives the example of two types of molecules in a box, again, separated by a barrier. Simply remove the barrier and the two types of molecules in separate ordered states will mix together into one disordered mess. They will also not separate and reorder themselves. What if hydrogen and oxygen mix together? That's how we get water, which, like carbon, is very handy for such life forms as ourselves.

But the hydrogen and oxygen do not come from the stars. They come from God when He originally created the earth and made it sustainable for us to live. For the last six thousand or more years (not much more), we have been sustained by what God put here on our Planet Earth. The stars have not provided it.

 

My thinking is that ordered energy forms of the star and of the hydrogen and oxygen are lost, but that these ordered states must be lost, and become disordered, before new more complex forms of order can arise.

I may be misunderstanding? First you are arguing for the Second Law which states that everything (that includes us) is going from order to disorder, then you argue that this disorder causes new more complex forms of order to arise. This is not possible. Its either true that everything is going from order to disorder or its not true that everything is going from order to disorder. Can you give me an example of these new complex forms arising? Ive never seen this process happen.

 

I became curious about topsoil. Fertile topsoil is formed through similar processes to soil erosion. In the latter case that this is disorder is apparent. What about when manure, ashes, and plants and animals decompose and mix into fertile life-sustaining soil? For dust art thou, and unto dust shalt thou return. The individual plants and animals will not reform but will sustain future generations of flora and fauna, which can then revert into soil.

I believe in composting. It makes for good gardening. I have a question. When all energy is expended, which will happen eventually, will composting happen? I think not.

 

My first encounter with evolution was in the early 1940s. A brand new young pretty teacher came to our school. She was State-certified from a recently opened teachers college. Everyone was so impressed. In her first science class, she told us that plants cant grow without topsoil and that it takes 26,000 years of decaying plants to make one foot of top soil. (Over the years I have observed that evolutionists time scales have expanded from mere thousands to billions and billions.) When I was not in school, I lived in the forest, hunting and fishing and climbing trees. I had observed that leaves in the forest decayed rather quickly and turned to dirt, so I challenged her. Her answer was that the science book said that this was true and that plants could not grow without top soil and the top soil was made by the decaying plants. In my innocence I asked, Then how did the FIRST plants grow?

 

But I dont consider decaying leaves as a curse under the Second Law. Composting is something that one would want to happen. I consider this a self-sustaining process that is a beneficial process to sustain production of plants. The seed dies and gives off new life. But, as I recall, Isaac Asimov said that we can expend energy to maintain order or slow down the disorder. We can take a vacuum and clean a room to slow down the order to disorder process. We can paint a house to retard decay from rain. But eventually when all energy is expended (actually becomes unusable) then order can no longer be maintained.

 

Apoptosis is also known as programmed cell death. Our body replaces in the area of a million cells a second. If it does not do this as it should the result can be cancer. When, on the other hand, cells die more rapidly than they should it causes strokes and such diseases as Alzheimer's. The cells that die don't come back into existence like a shattered glass reforming on a table. Like the brake pads on a car, the cells must be replaced with new cells. Life barters with entropy, in the cycle of soil and plants and animals, and in the life, reproduction, and death of cells in our bodies.

But originally, before the Fall, there would have been no cell death (as long as man ate from the Tree of Life. Before the Fall, man would not have had to contend with the Second Law or barter with it. And I dont think that Gods original plan was for one man to die to sustain the life of another.

 

Evolution itself demonstrates time's arrow. Cells live and die within complex organisms that live and die within species that carry on, adapt, and evolve into new species, or become extinct. In the case of human beings, individuals rise and fall within cultures that carry on, evolve, or die out. So I don't expect to awake tomorrow as one of my Celtic ancestors or as an Australopithecus or a pro simian or a lung fish, or maybe even as part of a long dead star, any more than Hawking's shattered glass will reform on the table from which it fell.

Evolution must first be proven to be true before you can posit this. No one has ever seen this process that you describe happen. Basically what you are arguing is that the Second Law which causes disorder is necessary to have more order (more complex forms, new species, etc.) But we do not see man evolving into a better and higher species. We see just the opposite.

 

Heat loss is considered by definition to be entropy. Apply this to the fact that the death of stars is a loss of viable energy in the universe and a drop in temperature on a cosmic scale. The death of stars is a progression toward the hypothetical heat death of the universe. When standing before a mirror, consider the former temperature of the air around you as well as the walls and floor and ceiling and of the mirror, and, of course, of you, yourself. A great deal of heat loss, entropy, and disorder factor into that moment. The fact that all forms are finite, from shattered water glasses to exploding stars, makes evolution and life possible. Would you rather reside at room temperature, or on the surface of a star? If the heat death scenario is accurate, one result of this eventuality can be seen in your reflection. Organic processes also happen to be the heat death in progress.

Would there have been this organic heat death before the Fall?

 

While it seems to strike many as counter intuitive, I don't believe that I am the only person to make this connection, yet I can't find any acknowledgment of it. You might think it would make an interesting aside when addressing disorder and the proposed heat death. Why does no one make any mention of this?

I have two thoughts about why that might be. One is that in reductionism there is a tendency to view things as isolated occurrences; nature as the sum of it's parts. Stars, while undergoing the entropic process of aging, happen to produce the stuff that life is made of. While succumbing to entropy in the form of a nova, they happen to disperse that life stuff. In addition to this, if one is to view all of these events as disconnected happenstance, complexity and life can occur in a finite universe. Perhaps to make this connection would threaten an underlying bias in reductionism against any view of order as other than a purely random occurrence. I would not say that this observation is proof that a higher power is at work in nature, but I think it qualifies as an argument for the fine tuning of our universe and it does lend itself to the possibility that nature is more than purely random. Is what is classified as a statistical tendency toward disorder also a statistical tendency toward complexity that makes evolution possible, or maybe even inevitable? Is that why I never find any mention of this aspect of entropy?

Life existed before stars existed.

 

TeeJay