Post by aaaPost by SmilerPost by aaaPost by SmilerPost by aaaPost by SmilerPost by aaaPost by SmilerPost by aaaPost by SmilerPost by aaaPost by Malcolm McMahonhttp://www.simsoup.info/Origin_Landmarks_Oparin_Haldane.html
Can we be clear? "Abiogensis" is not a theory, its an
observable fact about which we theorise. Life originated
somehow. The default hypothesis to which the scientific
community leans is called the Oparin-Haldane hypothesis. It has
zip to do with Darwin. It was proposed in the '20s. And it
remains a hypothesis.
The experimental evidence hints at it's plausibility but even
the creation of life in the laboratory would not suffice to
prove it.
At best we might, at some point, prove that life _can_ arise
that way.
Proving that it _did_ arise that way will probably never be
possible.
Abiogenesis only proves that it's possible for life to arise,
but it does not provide the cause for life to arise. It only
suggested the condition for life to arise, but there is no
reason to believe that such condition will automatically
generate life. It only provides the necessary condition for life
to arise. It has not provided the sufficient condition to
guarantee life to arise. It's incomplete. It is missing God.
If the necessary conditions for life to arise exist, given enough time,
life will arise, no god necessary.
There is no reason to believe that. A necessary condition is not a
sufficient condition.
WTF do you mean by that?
Huh? Isn't that something taught in your high school math class?
Nope. My maths classes made sense.
Post by aaaPost by SmilerPost by aaaPost by SmilerIf two chemicals can react and the conditions for the reaction
are correct, what's to stop them reacting?
The second law of thermodynamics dictates that all chemical
reactions in nature only result in an increase of entropy.
Bullshit. How does photosynthesis result in an increase of entropy?
No answer?
Run away, coward.
I don't have to answer all your posts. I missed this one, but it's
quite an elementary question that anybody can answer.
Then why haven't you answered it?
Because I have already talked about the increase of entropy in
photosynthesis.
Post by SmilerPost by aaaPost by SmilerPost by aaaPost by SmilerPost by aaaBiochemical reaction in life results in a decrease of entropy by
increasing the entropy of the natural environment instead.
Photosynthesis is a biochemical reaction. Where is the increase in
the entropy of the natural environment?
The increase of entropy in the natural environment for the
photosynthesis process is in the form of water vapor and infrared radiation.
And the decrease in entropy is the production of sugars. Simple
things to more complex things, something you claim cannot happen.
Right. It can't happen in nature automatically according to the second
law.
Yes it can, moron.
The second law is just like gravity. It can't be denied.
Your imagined version of it can be denied.
My understanding of the second law is solid.
Post by SmilerPost by aaaPost by SmilerPost by aaaEnergy in nature will only increase entropy. Energy can not
automatically be stored and converted in the natural environment.
Plants do that all the time. A potato is a store of energy for the
potato plant.
Plants are life. They have the ability to defy the second law. They are
very different from the lifeless universe. We are talking about the
origin of life. You can't use life to prove its own origin. That's
assuming the conclusion.
You wrote: "Energy can not automatically be stored and converted in the
natural environment." I proved it can.
No. You have only proved life can, which is actually my point.
Post by SmilerPost by aaaPost by SmilerPost by aaaThe natural environment always moves toward the equilibrium of energy
to reach maximum entropy. The natural entropy fluctuation is only a
local phenomenon to reach that goal. The sugar creation in plant life
is nothing like water turning into ice. It's not created by losing
energy. It's created by absorbing energy. It defies the second law. It
can't happen in nature automatically.
You've just claimed that it does.
No. You are assuming life before you have proven life.
You wrote: "The natural environment always moves toward the equilibrium of
energy to reach maximum entropy." I proved it doesn't _always_.
Only life doesn't, which is my point. You have only proved my point.
Post by SmilerPost by aaaPost by SmilerPost by aaaPost by SmilerPost by aaaPlant life is a very efficient water cooling system that is greatly
more effective than any man-made refrigerators. It does not just
passively evaporates water to export entropy. It can also consume
energy by converting it into sugar in the process. As the result, a
giant tree in the middle of desert will always have a lower
temperature than the surrounding desert.
Where does a giant tree in the middle of a desert get its water from?
Why do you need to know?
To make sense of your insane claim.
My simple understanding is quite clear. Too bad you are so clueless.
Avoidance noted. Now answer the question: Where does a giant tree in the
middle of a desert get its water from?
Why don't you find it out yourself?
Post by SmilerPost by aaaPost by SmilerPost by aaaPost by SmilerPost by aaaPost by SmilerPost by aaaSuch process does not exist and can not happen in a lifeless
natural environment.
Your peer reviewed scientific evidence for that is what?
I'm open for all scientific reviews from anyone. Where is your
scientific evidence to prove me wrong?
I don't need to prove you wrong. I just don't believe you.
But I see you have not answered the question: Your peer reviewed
scientific evidence for that is what?
I did answer your question. I think you just need to better understand it.
Nope. You presented no peer reviewed scientific evidence, merely your
insane opinion.
That's just your claim. You can't show there is anything wrong in my
scientific evidence.
Your supposed evidence is NOT scientific.
The second law is my scientific evidence.
The second law does no such thing. You have shown you don't care what the second law means because your understanding of it is not what the person who wrote the second law said. It is not the correct understanding and it not true.
The second law applies to CLOSED SYSTEMS WHICH THE EARTH IS NOT.
Post by aaaPost by SmilerPost by aaaPost by SmilerPost by aaaPost by SmilerPost by aaaPost by SmilerPost by aaaIt can only happen in life.
Merely your unevidenced assertion.
Except you can't prove me wrong.
I don't need to prove you wrong. I just don't believe you.
If it doesn't contradict with science, why don't you believe me?
All your insane unevidenced assertions contradict science.
Yet, you can't refute my understanding with science.
I don't need to refute that for which you haven't shown evidence.
The second law is the evidence.
THE SECOND LAW APPLIES TO CLOSED SYSTEMS AND THE EARTH IS NOT SUCH A SYSTEM.
You are lying.
Post by aaaPost by SmilerPost by aaaPost by SmilerPost by aaaPost by SmilerPost by aaaPost by SmilerPost by aaaThe lifeless natural environment is not capable to provide life
with such entropy reducing process to enable life to arise.
Your peer reviewed scientific evidence for that is what?
That evidence is the fact that none of you can prove me wrong.
Nobody is required to prove you wrong, you need to prove you right and you have not done so. There is a process called peer recview which I am sure you have not engaged in. Nor do I think yo have wroitten any scientific paper that proves that the understanding the rest of the world has for the second law is wrong.
Post by aaaPost by SmilerPost by aaaPost by SmilerPost by aaaPost by SmilerWe don't need to prove you wrong. We just don't believe you.
But I see you have not answered the question: Your peer reviewed
scientific evidence for that is what?
I did answer your question,
No you didn't, liar. Where is your peer reviewed scientific evidence?
I have talked about the second law in here repeatedly.
And every time you have been wrong.
No one has been
Post by aaaPost by SmilerPost by aaaable to prove me wrong. I consider that a good evidence.
That's because you are a liar or a moron. I posted the proof that you are wrong by posting the explanation of the second law by the person who wrote it. You are a liar.
Post by aaaPost by SmilerYou have talked nonsense repeatedly. The second law *only* applies in a
closed system and the earth isn't a closed system.
False. The second law applies to everything in the entire universe.
Not according to the guy who wrote it.
https://ncse.com/rncse/25/5-6/creationism-laws-thermodynamics
A perfectly adequate response to such nonsense is to point out that the earth is not an isolated system, and therefore the condition required by the Second Law is not met. We can surely say more than just this, however. After all, entropy is not merely some nebulous concept of disorder, but an exactly defined quantity in physics. For example, 18 grams of water at 25° C has an entropy of 70.0 Joules per Kelvin (Lide 2004-5: 5-18; 6-4). Since entropy can be calculated precisely, it is possible to determine what restrictions the laws of thermodynamics really place on evolution. To do this, we should first look at how entropy is defined mathematically.
THE CALCULATION OF ENTROPY
The change in the entropy of a system as it goes from an initial state to a final state is
ΔS = ∫ dQ
T
which simplifies to
ΔS = Q
T
if the temperature is constant throughout the process. In this equation:
S is the entropy in units of Joules per Kelvin (or J/K),
ΔS is the change in the entropy during the process,
Q is the flow of heat in units of Joules (or J) (Q is positive if heat flows into the object, and negative if heat flows out of the object), and
T is the temperature in units of Kelvin (or K).
For example, suppose that two cubes of matter at temperatures of 11 K and 9 K are brought together, 99 Joules of heat spontaneously flow from the hotter to the colder cube (as shown), and the cubes are separated. If the heat capacities of the cubes are so large that their temperatures remain essentially constant, the change in entropy of the entire system is
ΔS = Qcolder + Qhotter = 99 + -99 = 11 - 9 = +2 J/K.
Tcolder Thotter 9 11
Notice that this change of entropy is a positive quantity. The entropy of any system tends to increase, as energy flows spontaneously from hotter to colder regions.
THE ENTROPY OF SUNLIGHT
To examine the change of entropy necessary to generate life on earth, begin with a square, one meter long on each side, at the same distance from the sun as the earth (93 million miles) and oriented so that one side fully faces the solar disk. The amount of radiant power that passes through this area is called the solar constant, and is equal to 1373 Joules/second (Lide 2004-5: 14-2). In the absence of the earth's atmosphere, the entropy of this sunlight would equal this energy divided by the temperature of the sun's surface, known from spectroscopy to equal 5780 K. The result would give the entropy of this amount of sunlight as 0.238 J/K every second.
A more sophisticated analysis of the energy and entropy that reaches the surface of the earth is given by Kabelac and Drake (1992: 245). Due to absorption and scattering by the atmosphere, only 897.6 J of energy reaches one square meter of the earth's surface through a clear sky every second (731.4 J directly from the solar disk, and 166.2 J diffused through the rest of the sky). For an overcast sky, all the energy is from diffuse radiation, equal to 286.7 J, according to Kabelac and Drake's model. The entropy that reaches this square meter through a clear sky every second is 0.305 J/K (0.182 J/K directly from the solar disk, and 0.123 J/K diffused through the rest of the sky). For an overcast sky, all the entropy is from diffuse radiation, equal to 0.218 J/K (see figure, p 32).
So, for one square meter on the earth's surface facing the sun, the energy received every second from a clear sky is 897.6 J, and the entropy received is 0.305 J/K. If we are to apply these numbers to a study of life on earth, we must spread these quantities over the entire earth's surface (of area 4πr2) rather than the cross-section of the earth (of area πr2) that receives the rays perpendicular to the surface. Therefore, these numbers must be reduced by a factor of 4 to represent the energy and entropy that an average square meter of the earth receives every second, as 224.4 J and 0.076 J/K, respectively.
THE ENTROPY BUDGET OF ONE SQUARE METER OF LAND
The average temperature of the earth's surface is 288 K (= 15° C = 59° F) according to Lide (2004-5: 14-3). To maintain this temperature, that one square meter must radiate 224.4 J of energy back into the atmosphere (and ultimately into outer space) every second. The entropy of this radiation is
ΔS = Q = 224.4 = 0.779 J/K.
T 228
Assuming sunny skies, this one square meter of ground gains 0.076 J/K of entropy every second from sunlight, and produces 0.779 J/K every second by radiating energy back into the sky for a net entropy creation rate of 0.703 J/K every second. In effect, the earth is an entropy factory for the universe, taking individual high-energy (visible) photons and converting each of them into many low-energy (infrared) photons, increasing the disorder of the universe. As long as life on earth decreases its entropy at a rate of 0.703 J/K or less per square meter every second, the entropy of the universe will not decrease over time due to this one square meter of earth, and the Second Law will be obeyed.
How much energy and entropy are contained in life on the earth's land surface, compared to a lifeless earth? The average biomass occupying one square meter of land is between 10 and 12 kg, mostly as plant material (Bortman and others 2003: 145). Taking 11 kg as an average,we can calculate how much energy it would take to create this biomass from simple inorganic chemicals. This can be done by reversing the process, and asking how much energy is released when combustion reduces plant life to ashes. The answer is the heat of combustion, which for wood (which we may take as representative of plant life) is 1.88 x 107 J/kg (Beiser 1991: 431). Multiplying these two numbers together, the energy required to generate the amount of life currently found on an average square meter of land is 2.07 x 108 J.
If this life is generated at the earth's average temperature of 288 K, its entropy decrease will be
ΔS = Q = 2.07 x 108 = 7.18 x 105 J/K.
T 228
The earth's bodies of water are relatively sterile, and can be ignored; if life on land can be generated, the sparse amount of life in water can certainly be generated as well.
WHAT THE LAWS OF THERMODYNAMICS TELL US
We are now able to determine what restrictions the laws of thermodynamics place upon the evolution of life on earth. According to the First Law of Thermodynamics, heat is a flow of energy and must obey the Law of Conservation of Energy. The average square meter of land surface on earth receives 224.4 J of energy from the sun every second, and contains
2.07 x 108 J of energy stored in living tissue. The ratio of these two values is
2.07 x 108 = 9.22 x 105 seconds = 10.7 days.
224.4
If all the solar energy received by this square meter is used to create organic matter, a minimum of 10.7 days is required to avoid violating the First Law of Thermodynamics. The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that in an isolated system, the entropy tends to increase. The average square meter of land may balance the entropy increase due to radiation by generating a maximum entropy decrease of 0.703 J/K every second through the growth of life without violating this law. The difference in entropy between this square meter with life and the same square meter in the absence of life is 7.18 x 105 J/K. The ratio of these two values is
7.18 x 108 = 1.02 x 106 seconds = 11.8 days.
0.703
A minimum of 11.8 days is required to avoid violating the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
The Third (and final) Law of Thermodynamics, which states that S = 0 J/K for a pure perfect crystal at 0 K, has no application to creationism.
CONCLUSION
Shades of a Creation Week! As long as the evolution of life on earth took longer than 10.7 or 11.8 days, the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics are not violated, respectively. Even for an overcast sky, these numbers increase to merely 33 and 43 days respectively. As evolution has obviously taken far longer than this, the creationists are wrong to invoke entropy and the laws of thermodynamics to defend their beliefs.
Of course, solar energy is not going to be converted into the chemical energy of organic compounds with 100% efficiency. It takes a growing season of several months to reestablish the grasses of the prairie, and forests can take centuries to regrow. What this study has shown is that the time constraints for these two laws are very similar. Can creationists seriously argue that there has not been enough time for the sun to provide the energy stored in the living matter we find on earth today? If not, then they cannot honestly rely on entropy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics to make their case, either.
References
Beiser A. 1991. Physics. 5th ed. New York:Addison-Wesley.
Post by aaaPost by SmilerPost by aaaPost by SmilerPost by aaaand I'm open for review. To bad you are unable to review my scientific
understanding about the second law.
You have n o scientific understaanding of the second law.
Post by aaaPost by SmilerPost by aaaPost by SmilerYou have no understanding of the second law. The earth is not a closed
system.
The second law is just like the gravity. It applies to all systems.
Nope. It only applies to closed systems.
The entire universe is a closed system.
Post by Smiler"The second law of thermodynamics states that the total entropy of an
_ISOLATED_ system can only increase over time."
Isolated = closed.
The universe is isolated.
No it is not. The scond law as understood by every other scienrtist is not the same as yours, because yours is a lie.
http://www.physicscentral.com/experiment/askaphysicist/physics-answer.cfm?uid=20120221015143
Ask a Physicist Answers
How was the universe created if physics states matter can neither be created nor destroyed?
That's a pretty good question, but in order to answer it we have to clarify precisely what it is physics says about the first law of thermodynamics.
The first law of thermodynamics doesn't actually specify that matter can neither be created nor destroyed, but instead that the total amount of energy in a closed system cannot be created nor destroyed (though it can be changed from one form to another). It was after nuclear physics told us that mass and energy are essentially equivalent - this is what Einstein meant when he wrote E= mc^2 - that we realized the 1st law of thermodynamics also applied to mass. Mass became another form of energy that had to be included in a thorough thermodynamic treatment of a system. (For a very important note on the difference between matter and mass, see here: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/equivME/#2.1).
expensive refrigerators
Refrigerators are examples of closed thermodynamical system
The first thing we have to do is determine what a "closed system" is. When we look at a physical situation and draw an imaginary circle around it, we're defining a system. A refrigerator, for example, can be a thermodynamical system. But once we've specified that the system is closed, it means that everything inside the system at that moment - the total amount of energy, be it potential energy (mass can be thought of as a kind of potential energy) or kinetic energy or both - must stay at that same, constant level. If the amount goes up or down, either the system isn't closed, or we've neglected to account for energy (for instance, heat) coming into the system or leaving the system. If we draw our imaginary circle around the universe, we can call the universe a closed system, but it means the total amount of energy in the universe has to remain the same - from its beginning until now.
You may be hesitant to believe that the total energy in the universe is constant because there appears to be so much of it, or because science seems to indicate that the universe is expanding. There are stars, planets, galaxies, globular clusters - everywhere, matter and energy seem to exist, and it's constantly rushing off in all directions. But for starters, the expansion of the universe doesn't have to take more energy - as the universe expands, the distances between stars or galaxies increases, and thus the gravitational energy between them decreases to compensate. And more importantly, thermodynamics doesn't state what value the total energy should have. It could be a huge, but constant, number (this is what's known as an "open" universe, where the amount of matter/energy in the universe exceeds a certain "cut-off" density: see http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/astro/denpar.html). It could be, as most physicists now believe, zero (this is called a "flat" universe, where the matter density in the universe is equal to the cut-off density). It could be negative, even (a "closed" universe, where the amount of matter is less than the cut-off density). It could be anything, but whatever value it is now, it was at the very beginning! According to physics, all of the matter and energy in the universe now existed in some form at the Big Bang.
A Place in the Universe
"The expansion of the universe doesn't have to take more energy - as the universe expands, the distances between stars or galaxies increases, and thus the gravitational energy between them decreases to compensate"
Image courtesy of NASA
Now, there's a slight hitch in what we've said so far, and that's quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics states that, on a very, very tiny scale and for very, very, very short lengths of time, energy can be spontaneously be created and destroyed. Kind of like boiling water, where bubbles spontaneously appear and burst, energy - in the form of particles - can spontaneously appear from the void of spacetime, exist for a tremendously short amount of time, and disappear again. On normal time and length scales, this all averages out to what thermodynamics says should be true (that no energy is created or destroyed within the closed system of the universe). But this does mean that, if there was such a tiny fluctuation at the beginning of time, it could have made the total energy of the universe at creation slightly more than zero, and thus the universe will always contain that total amount of energy. Just such a fluctuation may have been what caused the universe to begin in the first place. The scientific field of cosmology, as well as the growing field of string theory, are working to answer this ultimate (and rather philosophical) question - how did the universe begin?
But here's the best part - we don't know yet exactly what happened at the moment the universe began. We're still working on the physics of it. Maybe you'll be the one to finally figure it out!
Answered by:
Kelly Chipps (AKA nuclear.kelly)
Postdoctoral Fellow
Department of Physics
Colorado School of Mines