Entropy: Evolution's Worst Nightmare! 101 replies

Please wait...

Greenvalv

Trekkie At Large.....

50 XP

26th April 2004

0 Uploads

4,575 Posts

0 Threads

#1 14 years ago

I know this was talked about before, but let this thread be the evolution thread.:D Now, the second law of thermodynamics states that a system left to itself will tend towards greater disorder (entropy). The granite that holds evolution up is that mutations have helped the evolution of simple creatures into more complex creatures, but as nature has shown this can't be. Take for instance the brain. Now, the brain has ten billion nerve cells and over a trillion connections (if these connections are strung out in a line, it would go around the earth at the equator 4 times!) Do you really think this could have evolved. Trying to tell someone that man evolved from less complex creatures which evolved from even lesser complex creatures which evolved from dirt, is like trying to tell a kid that the faces on Mount. Rushmore got there by erosion, which even the child would be sceptical of that.:rolleyes:




Nemmerle Forum Mod

Voice of joy and sunshine

298,667 XP

26th May 2003

0 Uploads

28,169 Posts

6 Threads

#2 14 years ago

The second law of thermodynamics states that energy will flow from an area of high concentration to an area of low concentration.




Dogga

Slightly cooler than a n00b

50 XP

14th May 2004

0 Uploads

39 Posts

0 Threads

#3 14 years ago
GreenvalvTake for instance the brain. Now, the brain has ten billion nerve cells and over a trillion connections (if these connections are strung out in a line, it would go around the earth at the equator 4 times!) Do you really think this could have evolved.

Yeah, imagine that maybe 2 single cells (let's call them Sperm and egg) could possibly combine and, over the course of say 9 months, create a human being. Crazy. :eek: So why does the thought, that over the course of millions of years, humans could evolve sound strange?




grishank

The Internet ends at GF

50 XP

6th August 2004

0 Uploads

112 Posts

0 Threads

#4 14 years ago
GreenvalvI know this was talked about before, but let this thread be the evolution thread.:D Now, the second law of thermodynamics states that a system left to itself will tend towards greater disorder (entropy). The granite that holds evolution up is that mutations have helped the evolution of simple creatures into more complex creatures, but as nature has shown this can't be. Take for instance the brain. Now, the brain has ten billion nerve cells and over a trillion connections (if these connections are strung out in a line, it would go around the earth at the equator 4 times!) Do you really think this could have evolved. Trying to tell someone that man evolved from less complex creatures which evolved from even lesser complex creatures which evolved from dirt, is like trying to tell a kid that the faces on Mount. Rushmore got there by erosion, which even the child would be sceptical of that.:rolleyes:

Yep I do think the human brain could have evolved, why not? The earth's been going for long enough. The fact that i believe deity was central in helping human's evolve is neither here nor there, in my opinion they did evolve. As for your last point...why is evolution anything like that? To me it makes perfect sense, a mutation means that an organism is better adapted therefore it survives better and is more likely to reach reproductive age, and so that species becomes the most prevelant. When strung out over MILLIONS of years, sure why shouldn't man have evolved from single cell organisms? Also the lesser complex creatures did not evolve from dirt, dirt (when you say dirt I think you mean non organic substances e.g. SiO2) can't evolve, it has no genetic material. In my opinion the deities created the first bacterium through science but that's me. I don't know what the actual scientific theory is on how the first organism came out of the praemordial slime, anyone know?




Greenvalv

Trekkie At Large.....

50 XP

26th April 2004

0 Uploads

4,575 Posts

0 Threads

#5 14 years ago
GedThe second law of thermodynamics states that energy will flow from an area of high concentration to an area of low concentration.

Where did you read that?! I'm looking at my science book right now and it says that the second law of thermodynamics is that every system left to itself tends toward a condition of minimum potential energy and maximum entropy (disorder). As for the other posts, the is no chance of evolution happening because entropy wouldn't allow for it to happen. Every mutation that has happened has either died from its mutation or couldn't fend for itself much less reproduce and continue on its genetic trait. We see mutations all the time in the form of cancer, and does that help the creature to evolve? NO!! So name me a successful mutation that has been able to survive and carry on its genes to the next generation.




Greenvalv

Trekkie At Large.....

50 XP

26th April 2004

0 Uploads

4,575 Posts

0 Threads

#6 14 years ago
DoggaYeah, imagine that maybe 2 single cells (let's call them Sperm and egg) could possibly combine and, over the course of say 9 months, create a human being. Crazy. :eek:

That's another thing that disproves evolution, how in the world could evolution have come up with the reproductive system!! It had to be fully functioning for it to work or else you'd have deformed babies!!




InfernalCow

Resident Slacker

50 XP

8th August 2004

0 Uploads

31 Posts

0 Threads

#7 14 years ago

A certain species of moth changed its color after a few decades because the soot from the factories turned the tree bark black. So the moth changed from brown to black. But i'm not too sure on the minor details.. Any1 well versed in Darwinian?

And u're making a sweeping statement Greenvalv.. mutations in mice have been done in labs and they produce stronger and more resistant offspring. Though that's orchestrated. I'm pretty sure i can dig out sum stuff for ya :) But i believe that evolution is just a tool, with a deity behind it all :) Just like our C++ codes in programming. More n more scientists are believin that a force has to be behind evolution.

U dont see words written in a sandy beach, and deduce that it was caused by chance by the winds and the waves do you? How did something as complex as an eye suddenly get formed in a mutation? Much less a brain.




D.Sporky!

God Send Death

50 XP

10th January 2004

0 Uploads

6,981 Posts

0 Threads

#8 14 years ago
InfernalCowA certain species of moth changed its color after a few decades because the soot from the factories turned the tree bark black. So the moth changed from brown to black. But i'm not too sure on the minor details.. Any1 well versed in Darwinian?

I am actually. :D But I'm a creationist. That moth stuff is a myth. There was two moths, one dark, one light. simple really. Here's something pretty kewl. Fine Tuning Parameters for the Universe

  1. strong nuclear force constant

if larger: no hydrogen would form; atomic nuclei for most life-essential elements would be unstable; thus, no life chemistry if smaller: no elements heavier than hydrogen would form: again, no life chemistry weak nuclear force constant if larger: too much hydrogen would convert to helium in big bang; hence, stars would convert too much matter into heavy elements making life chemistry impossible if smaller: too little helium would be produced from big bang; hence, stars would convert too little matter into heavy elements making life chemistry impossible gravitational force constant if larger: stars would be too hot and would burn too rapidly and too unevenly for life chemistry if smaller: stars would be too cool to ignite nuclear fusion; thus, many of the elements needed for life chemistry would never form electromagnetic force constant if greater: chemical bonding would be disrupted; elements more massive than boron would be unstable to fission if lesser: chemical bonding would be insufficient for life chemistry ratio of electromagnetic force constant to gravitational force constant if larger: all stars would be at least 40% more massive than the sun; hence, stellar burning would be too brief and too uneven for life support if smaller: all stars would be at least 20% less massive than the sun, thus incapable of producing heavy elements ratio of electron to proton mass if larger: chemical bonding would be insufficient for life chemistry if smaller: same as above ratio of number of protons to number of electrons if larger: electromagnetism would dominate gravity, preventing galaxy, star, and planet formation if smaller: same as above expansion rate of the universe if larger: no galaxies would form if smaller: universe would collapse, even before stars formed entropy level of the universe if larger: stars would not form within proto-galaxies if smaller: no proto-galaxies would form mass density of the universe if larger: overabundance of deuterium from big bang would cause stars to burn rapidly, too rapidly for life to form if smaller: insufficient helium from big bang would result in a shortage of heavy elements velocity of light if faster: stars would be too luminous for life support if slower: stars would be insufficiently luminous for life support age of the universe if older: no solar-type stars in a stable burning phase would exist in the right (for life) part of the galaxy if younger: solar-type stars in a stable burning phase would not yet have formed initial uniformity of radiation if more uniform: stars, star clusters, and galaxies would not have formed if less uniform: universe by now would be mostly black holes and empty space average distance between galaxies if larger: star formation late enough in the history of the universe would be hampered by lack of material if smaller: gravitational tug-of-wars would destabilize the sun's orbit density of galaxy cluster if denser: galaxy collisions and mergers would disrupt the sun's orbit if less dense: star formation late enough in the history of the universe would be hampered by lack of material average distance between stars if larger: heavy element density would be too sparse for rocky planets to form if smaller: planetary orbits would be too unstable for life fine structure constant (describing the fine-structure splitting of spectral lines) if larger: all stars would be at least 30% less massive than the sun if larger than 0.06: matter would be unstable in large magnetic fields if smaller: all stars would be at least 80% more massive than the sun decay rate of protons if greater: life would be exterminated by the release of radiation if smaller: universe would contain insufficient matter for life 12C to 16O nuclear energy level ratio if larger: universe would contain insufficient oxygen for life if smaller: universe would contain insufficient carbon for life ground state energy level for 4He if larger: universe would contain insufficient carbon and oxygen for life if smaller: same as above decay rate of 8Be if slower: heavy element fusion would generate catastrophic explosions in all the stars if faster: no element heavier than beryllium would form; thus, no life chemistry ratio of neutron mass to proton mass if higher: neutron decay would yield too few neutrons for the formation of many life-essential elements if lower: neutron decay would produce so many neutrons as to collapse all stars into neutron stars or black holes initial excess of nucleons over anti-nucleons if greater: radiation would prohibit planet formation if lesser: matter would be insufficient for galaxy or star formation polarity of the water molecule if greater: heat of fusion and vaporization would be too high for life if smaller: heat of fusion and vaporization would be too low for life; liquid water would not work as a solvent for life chemistry; ice would not float, and a runaway freeze-up would result supernovae eruptions if too close, too frequent, or too late: radiation would exterminate life on the planet if too distant, too infrequent, or too soon: heavy elements would be too sparse for rocky planets to form white dwarf binaries if too few: insufficient fluorine would exist for life chemistry if too many: planetary orbits would be too unstable for life if formed too soon: insufficient fluorine production if formed too late: fluorine would arrive too late for life chemistry ratio of exotic matter mass to ordinary matter mass if larger: universe would collapse before solar-type stars could form if smaller: no galaxies would form number of effective dimensions in the early universe if larger: quantum mechanics, gravity, and relativity could not coexist; thus, life would be impossible if smaller: same result number of effective dimensions in the present universe if smaller: electron, planet, and star orbits would become unstable if larger: same result mass of the neutrino if smaller: galaxy clusters, galaxies, and stars would not form if larger: galaxy clusters and galaxies would be too dense big bang ripples if smaller: galaxies would not form; universe would expand too rapidly if larger: galaxies/galaxy clusters would be too dense for life; black holes would dominate; universe would collapse before life-site could form size of the relativistic dilation factor if smaller: certain life-essential chemical reactions will not function properly if larger: same result uncertainty magnitude in the Heisenberg uncertainty principle if smaller: oxygen transport to body cells would be too small and certain life-essential elements would be unstable if larger: oxygen transport to body cells would be too great and certain life-essential elements would be unstable cosmological constant if larger: universe would expand too quickly to form solar-type stars :)




Nemmerle Forum Mod

Voice of joy and sunshine

298,667 XP

26th May 2003

0 Uploads

28,169 Posts

6 Threads

#9 14 years ago
GreenvalvWhere did you read that?! I'm looking at my science book right now and it says that the second law of thermodynamics is that every system left to itself tends toward a condition of minimum potential energy and maximum entropy (disorder).

Entropy is not disorder; as you however seem unable to take my word for it I shall provide you with a link, that removes this pile of, misleading idea’s, from your consideration.

http://jchemed.chem.wisc.edu/Journal/Issues/2002/Feb/abs187.html

As for the every system tending towards minimum potential energy, well your textbook is paraphrasing (and skipping some rather important steps. Well they become important later on in physics.) The second law states, “that energy spreads out and disperses rather than staying concentrated.” If you don’t believe me, heat a pan up and leave it on the counter, it will cool. This is because the heat energy is flowing from the pan into the surrounding area, (yes I know this isn’t the scientific way of saying it but I do not intend to give a lecture on energy transference. And those awful page filling formulae.)




Guest

I didn't make it!

0 XP

 
#10 14 years ago

Very strange coincidence that our universe is perfect. If larger or smaller in any of those forms, we wouldn't exist.