|
Author
|
Topic: The Theory of evolution in the Perspective of Thermodynamics and Experience-de Jong
|
Stephen Wright
Member
Member # 195
|
posted 08. June 2006 11:48
quote:
"Shut up and calculate!" Paul Dirac's famous dictum often (perhaps erroneously) attributed to Richard Feynman. - Source Wikipedia
Zachriel and 2ndclass,
Thanks for the comments and the link. I stand fully corrected on work as scalar in terms of quantity. I commented that work addresses the concept of vectors. Force, as a variable, needs a vector in calculating work. The NASA web pages, at the link, did add to my limited understanding of the precise definitions. But your responses did not address my "drift". I am not presenting in a point-by-point manner – as I find it not as civilized as general responses. I don’t mind directness on your part.
Problem solving involves at least two stages – one where the holistic problem is captured and another where the details are capitulated. IMHO thermodynamic laws address the former, as the NASA webpages say “Thermodynamics deals only with the large scale response of a system which we can observe and measure in experiments”. I was trying to “step back” and put what you said into practical examples. Rockets are certainly examples of a goal driven system.
A collection of wood blocks, as a step, makes a simple machine. Acting as an inclined plane (assuming a height of 9 to 12 inches or one step of a ladder) it can be added to a retrieval system whereby a mechanical advantage can be quantified. If included, it can reestablish the system with a lower amount of work needed to reach a target distance. A system is always implied in discussing examples of thermodynamics and systems are understood in terms of input/output functionality in many cases. I found weather as lacking a function, while appreciating rain personally – weather is not organized to produce it other than on a random basis. There is no focused problem solving as would apply to human engineered applications or any living thing’s components as functional systems. Retrieval systems and electrostatic discharge dissipation systems reveal the input/outputs of achieving goal states. They have practical bent as useful functions.
quote:
"Information and Feedback
Another development which is closely connected with system theory is that of the modern theory of communication.
The general notion in communication theory is that of information. In many cases, the flow of information corresponds to a flow of energy, e.g. if light waves emitted by some objects reach the eye or a photoelectric cell, elicit some reaction of the organism or some machinery, and thus convey information.
There is, however, another way to measure information, namely, in terms of decisions.
A second central concept of the theory of communication and control is that of feedback.
Feedback arrangements are widely used in modern technology for the stabilization of a certain action, as in thermostats or in radio receivers; or for the direction of actions towards a goal where the aberration from that goal is fed back, as information, till the goal or target is reached.
There is indeed a large number of biological phenomena which correspond to the feedback model. First, there is the phenomenon of so-called homeostasis, or maintenance of balance in the living organism, the prototype of which is thermoregulation in warm-blooded animals." - Ludwig von Bertalanffy, passages from General System Theory
http://www.panarchy.org/vonbertalanffy/systems.1968.html
I view you gentleman as pushing the discussion away from the subject at hand by pointing to 2LT conceptualizations applied to random systems rather than functional systems like living things. Random processes like weather do not exhibit homeostasis.
quote:
“Nothing within a plant violates the second law of thermodynamics. There is nothing within the second law that distinguishes between the chemistry in plants from other chemistry.” - Zachriel
Photosynthesis is directed at a targeted goal state within the general system of plant life. Chemical reactions in undirected systems do not exhibit goal-oriented activity. While agreeing this is outside of the thermodynamic math – I suggest it is not outside of the bigger picture of seeing a living thing as a system, as described by Bertalanffy. Zachriel, your responses adheres to the rule of calculate silently. They don't address the comments of others to you. If you box your answers outside of systems with goal directed functions, well we can’t get to the meat of this issue - how negentropy is added to useful systems - which lies at the bottom of the discussion.
[ 08. June 2006, 12:02: Message edited by: Stephen Wright ]
IP: Logged
|
|
William DeJong
Member
Member # 1162
|
posted 08. June 2006 11:51
Zachriel : I added water to the bottom of the container. The air currents formed eddies while cyclonic patterns carried the water vapor up towards the top of the container. There some of it formed complex ice crystals, which grew, fell, and melted again. Other times the container would appear near stasis, but then the wild motions would begin again. This chaotic variation continued as long as the sun shown on the container . posted 06. June 2006 10:02
In experiment2 (see my post on 06. June 2006 07:31), R is put into the sun. As a result, the molecules in R start vibrating faster and in R gas circulation patterns emerge. If some water is added to R (the size of it is of no importance) these circulation patterns can be made more visible. The circulation patterns that emerge during [t2,t3] represent a less probable state, corresponding with a decrease of the entropy of R, according to Boltzmann's law. On t3, equilibrium is reached between the influx and the outflux of energy, resulting in a state of non-flux on average over the boundaries of R. According to the 2nd law, entropy (disorder) will now increase in R. No separation of the mixture of G1-molecules and G2-molecules is observed during [t3,t4]. This only happens after switching on D.
The increase of entropy during [t3,t4] can be examined in more detail. All objects inside R (the separation wall, the switched off device D, and the valve V) will gradually deteriorate and disintegrate, resulting in an increase of the entropy of R. Also the outer wall of R will gradually deteriorate and disintegrate. If R flys in the sunlight somewhere in space, the content of R will gradually leak away into space, contributing to a further increase of the entropy of R. Ultimately, the walls of R will break into pieces. Then R will have reached its most likely state and its maximal entropy. After R has stopped to exist, its pieces and dust will spread through the universe. If one of the fragments of R flys away from the sun and reaches utter darkness, its temperature will move to zero, its molecules come to a stand still, resulting in a fully predictable state for which W=1 and S is maximal.
According to the (macro) theory of evolution, things would turn out completely different during the interval [t3,t4] when the energy flux over the boundaries of R is zero on average. The circulation patterns inside R would further develop themselves into ever more complex patterns; the snowflakes falling down would arrange themselves into ever more sophisticated constructions, the mixture of molecules G1 and G2 would separate itself and start to direct the incoming energy flows, and the walls of R would never deteriorate, desintegrate or start leaking. However, such things are in flat contradiction with everyday experience (for instance, in space traveling) and the 2nd law, and only happen in dreams and in mythical stories.
[ 08. June 2006, 11:56: Message edited by: William DeJong ]
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 08. June 2006 13:12
"Any system that purports to account for evolution must invoke a mechanism not mutational and aleatory."
Pierre Grasse, Evolution of Living Organisms, page 245, (in Grasse's italics for emphasis)
That is exactly what the Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis does. So much for any role for chance in either ontogeny or phylogeny. I am not alone in that assessment.
"Neither in the one nor in the other is there room for chance."
Nomogenesis, page 134
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
2ndclass
Member
Member # 1979
|
posted 08. June 2006 14:17
Stephen: quote:
If included, it can reestablish the system with a lower amount of work needed to reach a target distance.
Simple machines like an inclined plane usually increase rather than decrease the amount of work required, thanks to an increase in friction. What they decrease is the amount of force required, which is offset by increased distance. quote:
If you box your answers outside of systems with goal directed functions, well we can’t get to the meat of this issue - how negentropy is added to useful systems - which lies at the bottom of the discussion.
Zachriel and I have been addressing this all along. The answer is that negentropy is added to useful systems in exactly the same way that it's added to useless systems. Anything that decreases the number of microstates does the trick, and this includes natural as well as human-intentional causes.
IP: Logged
|
|
2ndclass
Member
Member # 1979
|
posted 08. June 2006 15:06
William: quote:
The circulation patterns that emerge during [t2,t3] represent a less probable state, corresponding with a decrease of the entropy of R, according to Boltzmann's law.
I'll keep correcting this mistake as long as you keep repeating it. Adding electrical and solar energy to R increases rather than decreases its entropy.
One problem is that you think that the W in "Boltzmann's law" is probability, when it's actually thermodynamic probability, which is an unfortunate term for the number of microstates in a given macrostate. In an open system, W can increase even if the system moves to a less probable state.
The other problem is that you're ignoring the inequality that you presented on page 3 of your paper, which show unequivocably that adding energy to a system increases its entropy.
quote:
On t3, equilibrium is reached between the influx and the outflux of energy, resulting in a state of non-flux on average over the boundaries of R. According to the 2nd law, entropy (disorder) will now increase in R.
I'll keep correcting this mistake too. No matter how many times you claim that it does, a net energy flux of zero does not guarantee an increase in entropy. Please look at the inequality on page 3 of your paper and consider the case where T is not uniform over the boundary of the system. If, for instance, solar energy is entering the top of R and being dissipated into the cool ground beneath R, then those circulation patterns that you spoke of will continue forever.
IP: Logged
|
|
William DeJong
Member
Member # 1162
|
posted 12. June 2006 04:59
2ndClass: Adding electrical and solar energy to R increases rather than decreases its entropy. posted 08. June 2006 15:06
2ndClass,
In order to obtain more accuracy in our discussion of the concept of entropy, would you please clarify your view of entropy by answering the following questions?
1. Let SY be a system where both influx and outflux of energy is present. If the integral of the sum of influx and outflux divided by T over all boundary elements is zero (that is, if the left term of the 2nd Law is zero), then the entropy of SY will: (A) increase; (B) decrease; (C) remain unchanged?
2. If the temperature of a system goes down to zero, then its entropy will move to: (A) its maximum; (B) its minimum; (C) neither A nor B?
3. Let event 1 be the movement of a system from its initial state S0 to a state S1 where its temperature is lower, and let event 2 be the movement of the same system from its initial state S0 to a state S2 where its temperature is higher, then: (A) S1 is more probable than S2; (B) S1 is less probable than S2; (C) both states have an equal probability.
4. A system will ultimately move to its most probable state: (A) yes; (B) no.
5. Entropy and the probability of the state of a system: (A) are related; (B) have no relationship.
Thank you in advance for your answers. Your answers will be helpful in further discussing experiment1, experiment2, the Miller experiment and the central supposition of the (macro) theory of evolution that random energy flows can make molecules start ordering themselves, maintain that order, and expand it ever further.
[ 12. June 2006, 05:09: Message edited by: William DeJong ]
IP: Logged
|
|
2ndclass
Member
Member # 1979
|
posted 12. June 2006 11:30
William: quote:
In order to obtain more accuracy in our discussion of the concept of entropy, would you please clarify your view of entropy by answering the following questions?
The answers below are not my view -- they're standard thermo, as dictated by the classical 2nd Law inequality and Boltzmann's formula. quote:
1. Let SY be a system where both influx and outflux of energy is present. If the integral of the sum of influx and outflux divided by T over all boundary elements is zero (that is, if the left term of the 2nd Law is zero), then the entropy of SY will: (A) increase; (B) decrease; (C) remain unchanged?
Any of the above could occur.
For example, suppose that the roof and floor of R are made of a heat-conductive material. The temperature of the roof is 30 degrees C. The temperature of the floor is 10 degrees C, since the ground underneath acts as a heat sink. During a given interval, 100kJ enters the room from through the roof, and 100kJ leaves the room through the floor. The flux through the walls is negligible.
Given this scenario, the left side of the 2nd Law inequality is: 100kJ/303K - 100kJ/283K = -23 J/K. Since the left side of the inequality is negative, the right side can be negative, zero, or positive. quote:
2. If the temperature of a system goes down to zero, then its entropy will move to: (A) its maximum; (B) its minimum; (C) neither A nor B?
Absolute zero entails minimum entropy. As temperature increases, entropy will typically increase. (This isn't always the case. For instance, when a supercooled melt crystallizes, T increases but entropy decreases as energy flows out of the system.) quote:
3. Let event 1 be the movement of a system from its initial state S0 to a state S1 where its temperature is lower, and let event 2 be the movement of the same system from its initial state S0 to a state S2 where its temperature is higher, then: (A) S1 is more probable than S2; (B) S1 is less probable than S2; (C) both states have an equal probability.
I assume that the system is in thermal equilibrium at S0, S1, and S2 -- otherwise it doesn't make sense to talk about the temperature of the system. Since a system can't move from one equilibrium state to another spontaneously (unless it's metastable), some process must have caused the state change. The nature of that process determines whether the temperature increases or decreases. quote:
4. A system will ultimately move to its most probable state: (A) yes; (B) no.
Yes, by definition. For an open system, that state may not be equilibrium. quote:
5. Entropy and the probability of the state of a system: (A) are related; (B) have no relationship.
They have a relationship that is defined statistically by the nature of the system and its processes. There is no general relationship that's valid for all systems and processes.
We tend to think of entropy and probability as being positively correlated, but this isn't always the case. For example, given equiprobable microstates, if we double the number of microstates in every macrostate of a system, the probability of each macrostate remains unchanged, but the entropy of each macrostate increases.
IP: Logged
|
|
William DeJong
Member
Member # 1162
|
posted 14. June 2006 03:51
2ndClass,
Thank you for your answers on the questions in my post of 12. June 2006. They will be very helpful in further discussing the central hypothesis of the theory of (macro) evolution that random energy flows can make molecules start ordering themselves, maintain that order and expand it ever further.
The "arrow of time" according to the 2nd Law
The 2nd Law distinguishes itself from all other laws of physical science by telling us the normal direction of events through time: differences in pressure, temperature, density, concentration, light, complexity of molecules, et cetera will equalize ultimately. The 2nd Law thus provides an "arrow of time". The implication of this arrow of time for the universe is that all stars will ultimately burn out, darkness will fall, and all objects in the universe will move to a temperature of zero. Physicists agree that this "thermic death" of the universe is a state of maximal entropy.
The "arrow of time" according to the theory of (macro) evolution
Random flows of energy can take simple molecules to a higher energy level and arrange them into more complicated configurations. According to the theory of (macro) evolution, these configurations are able to conserve their complexity when awaiting new random flows of energy to bring them on an even higher energy level and to further increase their complexity. When an advantageous new random flow of energy emerges, the differences between the basic substances and the evolved complex molecules are increased further, and preserved, and increased further, and preserved, et cetera. After billions of years, this incremental process ultimately turns basic substances into DNA-molecules.
Question 1:
The theory of (macro) evolution and the 2nd Law both present an "arrow of time". These arrows of time point into opposite directions. Do you think there is a conflict between the 2nd Law and the theory of (macro) evolution, or is the conflict only virtual?
Question 2:
If the conflict between the 2nd Law and the theory of (macro) evolution is only virtual, would you please describe a real-life experiment that confirms the central hypothesis of the theory of (macro) evolution that random flows of energy can make molecules start ordering themselves, conserve that order, and expand it ever further?
Thank you in advance for answering these two new questions.
IP: Logged
|
|
Zachriel
Member
Member # 1793
|
posted 14. June 2006 10:14
William DeJong: "They will be very helpful in further discussing the central hypothesis of the theory of (macro) evolution that random energy flows can make molecules start ordering themselves, maintain that order and expand it ever further."
Sunlight is hardly "random".
IP: Logged
|
|
2ndclass
Member
Member # 1979
|
posted 14. June 2006 12:38
William quote:
Question 1:
The theory of (macro) evolution and the 2nd Law both present an "arrow of time". These arrows of time point into opposite directions. Do you think there is a conflict between the 2nd Law and the theory of (macro) evolution, or is the conflict only virtual?
I see no conflict, real or virtual. Let's do the math.
Solar energy is emitted from the sun at about 6000K and is re-emitted from the earth at about 300K. The earth absorbs and emits about 1000 watts per square meter, so the 2nd Law allows an entropy decrease of (1000J/s/m^2 / 6000K) - (1000J/s/m^2 / 300K) = -3.2J/K per square meter per second. In order to show that evolution violates the 2nd Law, you would have to show that it decreases entropy faster than that rate. How do you propose to show that?
quote:
Question 2:
If the conflict between the 2nd Law and the theory of (macro) evolution is only virtual, would you please describe a real-life experiment that confirms the central hypothesis of the theory of (macro) evolution that random flows of energy can make molecules start ordering themselves, conserve that order, and expand it ever further?
What Zachriel said. Nobody ever claimed that random flows of energy can facilitate evolution.
IP: Logged
|
|
William DeJong
Member
Member # 1162
|
posted 16. June 2006 09:21
2ndClass: I see no conflict, real or virtual. Let's do the math. posted 14. June 2006 12:38
The subject of our discussion here on the ISCID platform is my paper "The theory of evolution in the perspective of thermodynamics and everyday experience". The key point of my paper is that the arrow of time of thermodynamics ( "differences normally equalize"), is in flat contradiction with the arrow of time of the theory of (macro) evolution ("random processes can preserve differences and make them grow ever further").
Empirical science starts with practical experiences and directions of events that occur over and over again. Step by step, these experiences and directions of events are formalized into mathematical equations and laws. The basis for empirical science is empirical evidence; the math is derived from it and secondary.
Our discussion is about the fundamentals of empirical science and about the integrity of science. Do differences equalize sooner or later (A), or can random processes conserve differences and expand these differences ever further (B). Please don't hide behind calculations and make your choice. Is it A or B ?
If it is B, show us one piece of empirical evidence that such a thing can happen in reality.
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 16. June 2006 09:40
Chance has never played any role in either ontogeny or phylogeny. Quite the contrary as Einstein claimed -
"Everything is determined... by forces over which we have no control."
Amen
IP: Logged
|
|
2ndclass
Member
Member # 1979
|
posted 16. June 2006 15:25
John: quote:
"Everything is determined... by forces over which we have no control."
Given a carbon-14 atom that was generated today, what determines whether it will decay before or after the year 7700?
IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
2ndclass
Member
Member # 1979
|
posted 16. June 2006 15:53
[Edit: I rewrote this to give a more frank response to the ironic accusation that I "hide behind calculations."]
William: quote:
The basis for empirical science is empirical evidence; the math is derived from it and secondary.
Calculations are necessary when dealing with entropy because it can't be measured directly. I've provided both quantitative empirical data and calculations based on that data. You've provided neither.
You've avoided quantitative data and calculations by assuming that the left side of the inequality on page 3 is zero. But if we calculate the left side as it applies to our biosphere, we come up with -3 J/K per square meter per second, not zero. You can argue that my data or calculation is wrong, but you can't argue that it's irrelevant, as it invalidates your entire argument. Unless you can show that the right side is more negative than the left, you have no case.
quote:
Do differences equalize sooner or later (A), or can random processes conserve differences and expand these differences ever further (B).
The answer is A. Differences equalize eventually and random processes cannot conserve or expand them. That's why evolution can continue only as long our planet is the recipient of non-random solar energy. Once the sun burns out, evolution will cease.
[ 17. June 2006, 15:54: Message edited by: 2ndclass ]
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic
