How does the 2nd law of thermodynamics discount the theory of evolution?
152000
mrjeffy nailed it\n\nIn fact, most of the major creationists have long given up on this mistaken idea - thought it sure did take them a long time to understand it.
204527
Evolution is a scientific theory that explains the origin of the diversity of species (note that it does not, and is not intended to explain the origin of life). The basic idea of evolution is that mutations result in genetic diversity in a population, and consequently different traits, and different selective pressures favor certain traits over others. In a diverse population, some individuals are better suited to the environment than others, and the individuals that are better suited are more likely to survive to reproduce and thus pass their genes on to the next generation. Consequently, the next generation will have more of the "good" genes and fewer of the "bad" genes than the generation before it. Because the environment is constantly changing, the definition of "good" and "bad" genes is also constantly changing. Something that used to be an advantage can become a disadvantage, and vice versa. More often, however, neutral traits will become either good or bad. Changes in environment can include not only changes in weather or resources, but also competition from other species.\n\nAs the environmental pressures change, the population of organisms changes with it. Over time, the little changes start to add up, and eventually the population will be so different from the ancestral state that it will be considered a different species. The diversity of species results from splitting of populations. If a population is separated by some geographical or reproductive barrier, the two subpopulations will likely evolve in different ways, to become two separate species. Eventually the two species may be reunited, but they will no longer be able to interbreed. Instead, they will compete with each other, and likely diverge even more.\n\nAnd, for those who say that evolution does not occur:\n\nScience is not about finding a single piece of evidence to conclusively prove a theory. It's about constructing theories to fit the existing evidence and gathering new evidence that supports or refutes existing theories. Evolution is supported by a preponderance of evidence. While no one point conclusively proves it, when all the evidence is considered in the context of existing scientific knowledge evolution is a well substantiated theory. Intelligent design is not.  What follows are brief explanations of some of the evidence that supports the theory of evolution.\n\n1. Vestigial structures\n\nOne example of a vestigial structure in humans is the appendix. It has no function. Removing it is harmful only in so far as any surgery is associated with certain risks (so I wouldn't have it removed just for fun, but it's because of the surgery not the absence of the appendix). An appendix is found in several mammals. In humans it is small and has no known function. In rabbits and many other herbivores it is large and is used in the digestion of cellulose.\n\nAnother example of a vestigial structure is the hipbones of snakes. Snakes evolved from quadrupeds, and some species still retain not on pelvises, but tiny protrusions of bone in a location that corresponds to the location of the legs in other quadrupeds.\n\n2. Microevolution can be observed in both a controlled laboratory setting and in nature.\n\nCreationists will tell you that microevolution does not prove macroevolution.  This is true.  However, it does provide evidence that macroevolution may be possible. Taken in the context of the other evidence for evolution, microevolution provides a mechanism by which macroevolution could occur. On its own, it doesn't prove that macroevolution occurs, but it does suggest that it is possible.\n\n3. The fossil record.\n\nAlthough the fossil record does not provide a “complete” record as fossils form only under certain conditions, it does show a gradual change in the morphology of species as well as numerous extinct species.  There are a number of methods used to date fossils, and the time period from
674447
The second law of thermodynamics states that "the entropy of an isolated system not at thermal equilibrium will tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value."\n\nThe Second Law is a statistical law and thus applicable only to macroscopic systems. When one part of an isolated system interacts with another part, energy tends to distribute equally among the accessible energy states of the system. As a result, the system tends to approach thermal equilibrium, at which point the entropy is at a maximum and the free energy is zero.
971494
The two principal laws of thermodynamics apply only to closed systems, that is, entities with which there can be no exchange of energy, information, or material. The universe in its totality might be considered a closed system of this type; this would allow the two laws to be applied to it.\n\nThe first law of thermodynamics says that the total quantity of energy in the universe remains constant. This is the principle of the conservation of energy. The second law of thermodynamics states that the quality of this energy is degraded irreversibly. This is the principle of the degradation of energy.\n\nThe first principle establishes the equivalence of the different forms of energy (radiant, chemical, physical, electrical, and thermal), the possibility of transformation from one form to another, and the laws that govern these transformations. This first principle considers heat and energy as two magnitudes of the same physical nature\n\n\nThere seems to be a contradiction between the first and second principles. One says that heat and energy are two dimensions of the same nature; the other says they are not, since potential energy is degraded irreversibly to an inferior, less noble, lower-quality form--heat. Statistical theory provides the answer. Heat is energy; it is kinetic energy that results from the movement of molecules in a gas or the vibration of atoms in a solid. In the form of heat this energy is reduced to a state of maximum disorder in which each individual movement is neutralized by statistical laws.\n\nPotential energy, then, is organized energy; heat is disorganized energy. And maximum disorder is entropy. The mass movement of molecules (in a gas, for example) will produce work (drive a piston). But where motion is ineffective on the spot and headed in all directions at the same time, energy will be present but ineffective. One might say that the sum of all the quantities of heat lost in the course of all the activities that have taken place in the universe measures the accumulation of entropy. \n\nOne can generalise further. Thanks to the mathematical relation between disorder and probability, it is possible to speak of evolution toward an increase in entropy by using one or the other of two statements: "left to itself, an isolated system tends toward a state of maximum disorder" or "left to itself, an isolated system tends toward a state of higher probability." (this is illustrated most simply by the example of the box with two compartments). \n\nThe concepts of entropy and irreversibility, derived from the second principle, have had a tremendous impact on our view of the universe. In breaking the vicious circle of repetitiveness in which the ancients were trapped, and in being confronted with biological evolution generating order and organization, the concept of entropy indirectly opens the way to a philosophy of progress and development (see: the direction of evolution). At the same time it introduces the complementarity between the "two great drifts of the universe" described in the works of Bergson and Teilhard de Chardin.\n\n\nMore details at the link below :--
641698
The total amount of energy in a closed system remains constant.\nThis, however, was found to be untrue. It was later substituted for the conservation of Mass-Energy.\nThis was also disproven. In fact, if a tiny bit of energy is "borrowed" from nothing for a really short amount of time, it can create mass according to the equation:\nE*t = h/(2*pi) = 1.06*10^-34 Js\nOf course, for our pruposes, the conservation of energy works.
799751
The first law is energy cannot be created or destroyed, only converted from one form to another.\n\nThe second law is basically the entropy of the universe increases during any spontaneous process.  This is more easily thought of as energy moves from areas of higher energy to areas of lower energy AS LONG AS IT IS NOT PREVENTED from doing so.  In other words, energy disperses unless it's blocked.
1107319
Darwinian evolution does NOT violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics, any more than a human baby grown in 9 months from a single cell violates it.  That nonsense is repeated by people who've never read and don't understand the 2nd law.  The law states that IN A CLOSED SYSTEM entropy will increase.  Both gestation and evolution are open systems that export entropy.\n\nFor Darwinian evolution to occur, several conditions must be met.  You need variation, reproduction, heredity (the ability to inherit variations), and a way to decide which variations will survive (selection).\n\nAlso, evolution doesn't happen in a single giant leap.  It works by the accumulation of thousands of tiny genetic changes, over many generations.  Each tiny change must improve vision (and therefore survival), or that variation will fail the competition, and won't persist in the population.  Most random changes don't improve vision, and are discarded by natural selection.\n\nEvolution rarely invents something completely new; it builds on what's already there.\n\nWe know that no two eyes are the same.  Not only is eye color different, but the patterns of the iris and retina are so unique that they are being used in place of fingerprints to identify people.  The idea that "the human eye is perfectly designed" ignores the fact that all eyes are different.  Some differences enable people to see (and survive) better, others do not.\n\nGenes carry the recipes for all the proteins found in the eye.  Genes (and non-coding regulatory DNA) also hold the recipe for all the steps needed for eye development in an embryo.  In fact the sequence of steps as an eye develops probably mimics the sequence of steps taken in its evolution.\n\nSo we seem to have the necessary ingredients: variation, reproduction, heredity, and selection.  But the eye is a very complicated organ, with lots of interacting parts.  Can we really imagine a sequence of simple steps, each better than the last, that lead to a functioning human eye?  I'll give it a try.\n\nStart with some sea creature with no ability to detect light.  In its genome is a gene for a protein used by its bacterial ancestors for photosynthesis.  One of these creatures inherits a mutation that stimulates a nerve cell to fire when this protein is hit by light.  Is this useful for survival?  Yes, because changes in light (along with taste) may help signal predators or food.  If one photosensitive cell is good, are more better?  Yes, so a few mutations and generations later a descendant appears with a whole layer of cells, a primitive retina.  But without the ability to focus light, many of these creatures will damage their retinas bumping into rocks.  A few mutations later, their descendants have concave retinas with a transparent layer of protective cells.\n\nWould changing the refractive index of the transparent layer improve focus?  Yes, so another mutation gives these creatures a primitive lens with which to focus an image on the retina.  It would also help if the creature can interpret the image, so brains that can do this gradually evolve.  Would muscles around the lens allow the creature to change focus?  Yes, so a few mutations later, a descendant can see both close up and far away.  Would it help to tell how far away a predator is?  Yes, so a mutant that happens to have two eyes rather than one (actually a simple mutation in genetic terms) appears, and his descendants enjoy success in the survival battle.  Would an aperture improve depth of focus and control light intensity?  Yes, so a mutant with a rudimentary iris survives and leaves more offspring.  Color vision and night vision, eyelids and tear ducts don't need a lot more innovation.  And on it goes.\n\nIncidentally, the "designer" of the human retina built it inside-out, reducing our visual acuity and creating a "blind spot" where the nerve bundle pokes through it to form the optic nerve.  Either the des
538671
Since entropy has a rather simple (statistical) definition, I would start with that and then define a reversible process as one which does not change the entropy (of an isolated system).\n\nBut if starting with definition 2, yes it would be best to make it clear that it applies to any pair of intermediate states even though it does follow logically (because the only way it's possible to recover the initial state with no net change in the environment is when the initial and final states have the same entropy. Since entropy is nondecreasing, the entire process must be isoentropic).\n\nThe relation between definitions (1) and (2) is this: If a system is arbitrarily close to equilibrium at all points in a process (definition 1) it takes only arbitrarily tiny nudges to cause it to move in any direction and that is the sense in which it's reversible by definition (2). That is, it takes an arbitrarily small external manipulation to move it in either direction - just as a static mechanical system can be moved in either direction along a path of constant potential energy with no resistance.\n\nGenerally an irreversible process occurs when a system is allowed to move spontaneously in a direction that it "wants" to move (in a direction of increasing entropy). Simple example: allowing heat to flow directly from a hot object to a colder object in contact with it.
173866
The second law of thermodynamics states that in any closed system (whih could mean the universe), the total entropy (disorder) is always increasing.\nThe total disorder in the universe is always increasing despite the fact that sometimes, certain areas seem to be getting more ordered.  Take, for example, a randomly arranged deck of cards which is in a state of total entropy.  If you rearrange the cards and order them up again, it would seem like the total entropy went down, actually, it still went up.  The energy you spent arranging the cards created a greater increase in entropy than the outcome of the arranged cards.  In other words, no matter what, entropy is always increasing.\n\nEven the energy I spent typing a seemingly ordered set of characters to make works in this answer has increased the total entropy in the universe (you can thank me later).\n\nThe second law of thermodynamics is a LAW for a reason.\nYou cannot reverse the flow of entropy, if you decrease it one place, it must increase somewhere else with a greater magnitude.
930423
All energy eventually ends up as heat.  It's a consequence of the second law of thermodynamics
39290
I would disagree with both of you.  The 2nd law exists due to the interaction of a system and it's surroundings.  So, the second law of thermodynamics really applies to everything.  Applying it on a human time scale, however, is wrong.  All things tending to maximum entropy does not mean that all things break down immediately and that organization is impossible.  Chemical kinetics has much to do with keeping our world together.  Eventually, however, the second law does win out.  Darminian evolution, in my mind, actually highlights the 2nd law because organisms must die in order for species to evolve.  Even the proliferation of species (increased diversity) has an end (e.g., the mass extinctions at the end of the Permian and the Cretaceous).\n\nFurther, a species is, I think, very different than a snowflake but both are subject to the 2nd law.  A snowflake is held together by molecular bonds, but snowflakes *melt*.  Even if they don't melt immediately, say, in a glacier, they won't last forever.  SEE: Plate tectonics changing the latitude of the continents, or greenhouse gases warming the environment and melting the glaciers.  All of this illustrates the omnipresence of the 2nd law.
238663
It is truly absurd. \n\nI don't know if I can completely, 100% believe in creation, but evolution is even more impossible to believe. Even true science doesn't stand behind it. \n\nCheck out: 2nd law of thermodynamics, and Chaos theory.
851241
Entropy -- the second law of thermodynamics.\n\nThis law states that in the absence of other forces, any system becomes less orderly over time.  This is because of the way energy can be converted to different forms but not lost -- most energy that gets used for work transforms into heat, which radiates into space and can't be used to do useful work ever again.  In other words, energy gets used up, and with no more energy input things fall apart into entropy, or complete disorder.\n\nBUT -- the key there is "in the absence of other forces."  We, for example, on earth have our sun which continuously supplies energy to us with which useful work can be done.  As long as there is an external supply of energy, entropy can be avoided.  Once our sun burns out, however, our solar system is indeed doomed to entropy.
248683
Sounds like its something related to 'entropy' otherwise known as the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. "What can go wrong, must go wrong" as Murphy would say.
263642
the first question refers to the first law of thermodynamics which means energy can be changed from one form to another, but it cannot be created or destroyed
1095863
A perpetual motion machines violates the laws of thermodynamics (in particular, the 2nd Law).\nBased on our current understanding of the universe, a perpetual motion machine is impossible.\n\nThe 2nd Law of thermodynamics states that for a given system (for example, our entire universe), the total entropy is always increasing.  Thus, a perpetual motion machine cannot be possible since, at very "best", it represents a zero change in entropy (100% energy efficiency), or at worst, it violates the first Law of thermodynamics which states that Energy can neither be created nor destroyed..
177449
The second law is a statistical law. There was an experiment recently where minor violations were found because the number of particles in the system was so small. But other than such things, the second law is a law of thermodynamics and is accepted by all scientists. Warning: many lay people misunderstand what the second law says and derive wierd conclusions from their misunderstandings.