Comment on Are LSU professors breaking the 8th commandment? by BobRyan.
Entropy has nothing to do with effeciency of energy use. Entropy is only a measure of the energy that is available to do useful work. It is not a measure of how effectively this energy is actually used to do useful work. That is where you’re getting confused…
I guess we differ there.
Gibb’s free energy is reference to the useful work obtainable from a given system. The principle of entropy states that Given the system and it’s immediate surroundings – the Gibb’s energy value is always lost (i.e. no such thing as a 100% effecient transfer of energy).
This is measurable in every lab experiment WITHOUT having to “use the sun” to balance out the equations.
Nothing new there.
[quote]
For example, in a two-box system where all the gas molecules are on one side of the box, the system’s energy can be measured – even if there is nothing in place to take advantage of the potential useful energy of this system.[/quote]
The existence of energy in PE or KE form is not the problem. It is the transfer of energy from PE to KE or KE to PE either way – in both transfers you always lose Gibb’s Free energy from the start point.
When we say that entropy is seen to increase in all of the isothermal, thermodynamic, isbaric systems — we are not arguing that “you need the sun to show that entropy increases”.
You keep arguing that because energy transfer is not absolutely efficient in any machine that the machine’s thermodynamic entropy increases over time.
My argument is that EVERY energy transfer in a given system is less than 100% efficient (i.e Gibb’s free energy lost) when one takes into account the system itself plus the surroundings.
Because of this basic principle – Isaac Asimov is quite correct when he states that everything around us demonstrates the fact that entropy is always increasing.
Isaac Asimov
Another way of stating the second law then is, ‘The universe is constantly getting more disorderly!’ Viewed that way we can see the second law all about us. We have to work hard to straighten a room, but left to itself it becomes a mess again very quickly and very easily. Even if we never enter it, it becomes dusty and musty.How difficult to maintain houses, and machinery, and our own bodies in perfect working order: how easy to let them deteriorate. In fact, all we have to do is nothing, and everything deteriorates, collapses, breaks down, wears out, all by itself – and that is what the second law is all about.”
The loss of energy for useful work in EVERY transaction where an isolated system and it’s surroundings are accounted for – has a such a consistent and predictable result – that even evolutionists like Asimov “notice”.
This simply isn’t true. While the entropy of the Earth-Sun system increases over time, the local entropy of subsystems can be made to stay the same or even decrease over time with the use of the energy within the Earth-Sun system.
Well the “lab” is certainly a part of that “earth” that is supposedly not experiencing the “increase in entropy” you are claiming – and yet every HCL + NAOH –> H20 + NACL reaction on the planet shows and INCREASE in entropy (even without adding nuclear fusion reactions on the sun in to balance out the equation — so that we can observe a loss of Gibb’s energy).
Generation after generation of living things can live in this way without a steady loss or decay of potential thermodynamic energy (or increasing subsystem entropy). This can take place indefinitely as long as the Sun shines – through an indefinite number of generations.
As has been shown with the simple example of photosynthetic pigments – the statement above is not true. The photon energy in the immediate surrounding of a single plant is greater than the PE energy available for use by the plant in the form of ADT is it tries to utilize that energy.
Your argument that “Gibbs Free Energy†(GFE) always decreases, even for local systems, because of a less than perfect efficiency of energy transfer is also a mistaken concept or understanding of GFE. In thermodynamics, the GFE is a thermodynamic potential that measures the “useful†or process-initiating work obtainable from an isothermal, isobaric thermodynamic system. The GFE is the maximum amount of non-expansion work that can be extracted from a closed system.
The key component you are missing here is the fact that the Earth-Sun system is not a closed system – and neither are living things. Living things do not start with a certain amount of self-contained energy which is then used up over time with death resulting due to energy starvation.
You keep getting to a “not enough thermodynamic energy” or “death due to energy starvation” argument – that I never make.
The problem that entropy creates for all systems known to man is not “no thermodynamic energy left”. The problem is that no matter how hot that nuclear fusion reaction is sitting next to your daisy – the plant can only use a small fraction of the energy blasting it’s way – and that is true with each energy transfer in the plant. It is like a leaky reservoir – it will leak no matter how much excess water is poured in to overflow it.
That’s not a correct concept at all. Living things in a ballanced environment do not die because of energy starvation (there is always plenty of energy from the Sun), but because of informational decay.
1. the entropy always seen in the HCL + NAOH (sun or no sun) is not a function of “informational decay”.
2. Every isolated system on earth demonstrates the 2nd law – perfectly.
3. This is not an argument about “energy starvation”.
4. The fact that underlying all biological systems is a measurable observable 2nd law of thermodynamics is not stopping informational decay – it is facilitating it.
Duane Gish –
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.”
The degree to which local isolated systems are uniformly admitted to exhibit the 2nd Law is beyond dispute.
Two bottles filled with water – one with hot and the other with cold — placed in a sealed container 1 mile high or 1 mile deep in the earth — will go to equilibrium – sun or no sun.
The notion that this does not happen “because the sun is shining” never affects these experiments on local isolated systems.
in Christ,
Bob
Table of Contents
BobRyan Also Commented
Are LSU professors breaking the 8th commandment?
What it argues for, and what Grismer clearly believes, is the idea that all life is related through process of common descent by innumerable tiny modifications from a common ancestor life form – a process that required hundreds of millions of years of time.
Hence the care Grismer takes in only commenting on “closest relative” without further specifying his bigger vision for complex life forms evolving from simpler life forms over millions of years.
Certainly every animal (yes even a labradoodle) is going to have a “closest relative”. 😉
in Christ,
Bob
Are LSU professors breaking the 8th commandment?
BobRyan said
Recall that in the case of the dropping ball, and the iron rusting and the water evaporating — the definion for “universe†that was needed to observe those examples demonstrating entropy was simply “an isolated and localized system and it’s immediate surroundings†EVEN if that system is standing out in broad daylight (or in complete darkness). No need to “reach for the sun†before you can see the increase in entropy as iron oxidizes. Speaking of “oxidation demonstrating entropy†– our biology courses admit to that oxidation process as well.
Sean said –
You forget that the reverse of all these processes you use as examples of increases in local entropy can be reversed as well, by using energy derived from the Sun. The ball can be driven uphill, as can the water in the rivers that run downhill. Therefore, local reductions in entropy can be achieved by using the increase in entropy of the Earth-Sun system…
1. When iron rusts it deforms — no amount of photon energy from the sun – restores the shape of the iron object in a “descreased entropy” fashion.
Not all reactions are reversible (frying an egg for example) but all involve an increase in entropy if the local system and its immediate surroundings (i.e. not the sun) are taken into account.
Every transition from PE to KE and then from KE to PE (i.e. EACH of the cycles taken individually) always increase entropy. Moving water to the top of a mountain-based reservoir to created PE — increases entropy. Letting the water fall through the center of Raccoon Mountain iin Tenn to created electric power during the day — increases entropy. BOTH the KE to PE and the PE to KE cycles involve an increase in entropy.
2. Driving a car or a ball up hill using some kind of power – always involves energy transfer that is less than 100% efficient – always involves individual transactions that all increase entropy.
There is no such thing as a decrease in entropy IF you take into account the local system and its immediate surroundings. We see that even in the case of a living cell trying to stave off the effects of entropy by eating food and using food energy — as was shown previously.
That is interesting because it involves a living system.
Entropy is a non-stop non-suspendable fact at the local level. Like gravity acting on an hour glass. The sand falls from upper container to lower and as it does – it may indeed form a “hill of sand” that grows taller as more sand falls. But in no case – is gravity suspended.
Every grain of sand — every interaction – is always in the presence of gravity that always pulls toward the center of gravity of the earth. The little hill that is formed at the bottom of the hour glass is not an example of “negative gravity” nor of “anti-gravity”.
The same holds for entropy.
Thus evolutionists who quickly admit that molecule-to-human-mind evolutionism (storytelling) requires “a massive DECREASE in entropy†as the net result over billions of years (at the local isolated system level of course )– are leaving themselves with no place to go.
in Christ,
Bob
Are LSU professors breaking the 8th commandment?
Thus evolutionists who quickly admit that molecule-to-human-mind evolutionism (storytelling) requires “a massive DECREASE in entropy” as the net result over billions of years (at the local isolated system level of course )– are leaving themselves with no place to go.
Recall that in the case of the dropping ball, and the iron rusting and the water evaporating — the definion for “universe” that was needed to observe those examples demonstrating entropy was simply “an isolated and localized system and it’s immediate surroundings” EVEN if that system is standing out in broad daylight (or in complete darkness). No need to “reach for the sun” before you can see the increase in entropy as iron oxidizes.
Speaking of “oxidation demonstrating entropy” – our biology courses admit to that oxidation process as well.
Recent Comments by BobRyan
Academic Freedom Strikes Again!
george:
By definition, I don’t believe in miracles or apocryphal, anthropomorphic stories about same.Why aren’t scientists observing them today if they occur?
Circular argument. If they were naturally occurring we would expect scientists to see that they are still occurring today. If they are singular events caused by an intelligent being – that being would be under no obligation to “keep causing world wide floods” as if “to do it once you must continually do it”. Armstrong went to the moon.. shall we argue that unless he keeps going to the moon so each new generation can see it … then it did not happen?
Your argument is of the form “all eye witness evidence to some event in the past is no evidence at all unless that event keeps repeating itself so we too can witness it”. Seems less than compelling.
“Could it be that science is better able to detect hoaxes and false claims?” As a rule for dismissing every eye witness account in the past – it is less than compelling. (even when that event cannot be repeated)
Evolutionists “claim” that dust, rocks and gas (in sufficient quantity and over sufficient time and a lot of luck) self organized into rabbits via prokaryote-then-eukaryote-then-more-complexity. But such self-organization cannot be “observed” today.
(What is worse – such a sequence cannot even be intelligently manipulated to occur in the lab)
By your own argument then you should not believe in evolution.
Academic Freedom Strikes Again!
@Sean Pitman:
Suppose you were at a crime scene … there is a tree limb on the ground and a bullet hole in the victim — “all natural causes”? or is one ‘not natural’? Those who say that nothing can be detected as “not naturally occurring in nature” – because all results, all observations make it appear that every result “naturally occurred without intelligent design” seem to be missing a very big part of “the obvious”.
Academic Freedom Strikes Again!
george:
Gentlemen,What just God would allow an innocent child to be born guilty for the sins of a distant ancestor? …What if there was only One Commandment? Do Good. ‘Kant’ see a problem with that.
An atheist point of view is not often found here – but this is interesting.
1. God does not punish babies for what someone else did – but I suppose that is a reductionist option that is not so uncommon among atheists. The “details” of the subject you are commenting on – yet according to you “not reading” – is that humans are born with sinful natures. A “bent” toward evil. That is the first gap right out of the gate between atheism and God’s Word..
2. But still God supernaturally enables “free will” even in that bent scenario, the one that mankind lives in – ever since the free-will choice of the first humans on planet earth – was to cast their lot in with Satan and rebellion..(apparently they wanted to see what a wonderful result that poor choice would create). John 16 “the Holy Spirit convicts the world of sin and righteousness and judgment”. And of course “I will draw ALL mankind unto Me” John 12:32. (not “just Christians”). Thus supernatural agency promotes free will in a world that would otherwise be unrestrained in its bent to evil.
3.God says “The wages of sin is death” — so then your “complaint” is essentially “that you exist”. A just and loving God created planet Earth – no death or disease or suffering – a perfect paradise where mankind could live forever … and only one tiny restriction… yet Adam and Eve allowed themselves to be duped by Satan… tossing it all away. The “Just God” scenario could easily just have let them suffer the death sentence they chose. He did not do that… hence “you exist” – to then “complain about it”.
4. Of course you might also complain that Satan exists – and Satan might complain that “you exist”. There is no shortage on planet earth of avenues for complaint. But God steps in – offers salvation to mankind at infinite cost to himself – – and the “Few” of Matthew 7 eventually end up accepting that offer of eternal life. The rest seem to prefer the lake of fire option… sort of like Adam and Eve choosing disease and death over eternal life (without fully appreciating the massive fail in that short-sighted choice).
In any case – this thread is about the logic/reason that should be taken into account when a Christian owned and operated institution chooses to stay faithful to its Christian mission — rather then getting blown about by every wind of doctrine. Why let the alchemy of “wild guessing” be the ‘source of truth’ when we have the Bible?? We really have no excuse for that. As for science – we can be thankful that it has come as far along as it has – but no matter how far back you rewind the clock of our science history – we should always have chosen the Bible over wild guessing.
Newly Discovered Human Footprints Undermine Evolutionary Assumptions
Ervin Taylor:
Perhaps Dr. Pitman would enlighten his readers what on earth “the neo-Darwinian story of origins” might be. Darwin did not address origins.
Origins of what?? the first eukaryote??
Or “origins of mankind”??
Darwin himself claimed that his own false doctrine on origins was totally incompatible with Genesis and that because of this – Genesis must be tossed under a bus.
hint: Genesis is an account of “Origins” as we all know — even though “bacteria” and “amoeba” are terms that don’t show up in the text.
The point remains – Darwin was promoting his own religion on origins totally counter to the Bible doctrine on origins. He himself addresses this point of the two views.
Newly Discovered Human Footprints Undermine Evolutionary Assumptions
Ervin Taylor:
Here we go again.If the footprints upon close examination, are determined not to be from a hominim/hominid, I wonder if Educate Truth (sic) will announce that determination.Or if the date of the surface is determined to be much younger, will there be a notice placed on fundamentalist web-sites.If you believe the answer to these questions are yes, I have a big bridge that I would like to sell you for pennies on the dollar.
Here we go again … hope piled upon hope…no matter the “observations in nature” that disconfirm the classic evolutionary hypothesis
Reminds me of “What we still don’t know” by Martin Reese and Leonard Suskind
