The law that entropy always increases holds, I think, the supreme position among the laws of Nature. If someone points out to you that your pet theory of the universe is in disagreement with Maxwell’s equations — then so much the worse for Maxwell’s equations. If it is found to be contradicted by observation — well, these experimentalists do bungle things sometimes. But if your theory is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest humiliation.” — Sir Arthur Stanley Eddington, The Nature of the Physical World (1927)
This arena today sees the clash of two fundamental concepts of science, which one will emerge victorious? In the Blue corner we have the Second Law of Theeeeeeermodynamics! Weighing in at hefty 158 years old and representing a foundational view of how energy is represented and the ability of systems to do useful work it is considered unalterable and universal in it’s application. In the Red corner is the Theory of Evolution by Nnnnnnnnnnnatural Selection! Weighing in at only 150 years this theory has become a cornerstone of modern biology and allows an unprecedented ability to combine disparate fields into a unified whole, a biological theory of everything.
Evolution comes out swinging jumping straight to the thrust of the argument and serving up the whole conclusion of the theory. “Variation in species is acted upon by natural means to produce, over geological time, changes that increase the adaptation of the organism to it’s environment and can thus cause the creation of new species.”, the Second Law of Thermodynamics staggers from the blow but shakes it off quickly and returns it’s own salvo. “Entropy in a system will increase over time, order cannot come from disorder and increasing information content of a species DNA through random processes represents an increase in order.”, Evolution is down! Can this be the K.O. for the theory? Wait! The Ref is stepping in, Second Law has made an illegal move!
The Ref has made his ruling, Second Law only applies to either the Universe as a whole or energetically isolated subsystems, Evolution considered on it’s own is not an isolated system and so the argument is invalid. The Second Law of Thermodynamics is disqualified! What an humiliating development. Evolution wins by default but fans of the Second Law do not look happy, it’s clear that this ain’t over folks.
The Post-bout Wrap-up:
“Well Jim, Evolution started strong but didn’t even get a chance to follow-up. The Second Law made a good attempt to hit back but fumbled, what happened?”
“That’s right Bob, this was a case of a poor matching of opponents. Fans love to think about these two giants battling it out but they are really on the same side and it’s just not natural for them to be in conflict.”
“You’re right on the nose there Jim, like Superman vs Batman, it’s just not right. The fans are thinking too narrowly in this instance, the Second Law is very specific in the areas it can be applied to. It can apply to the entropy state of the entire Universe as this can be considered the ultimate set of all things and so by definition is a closed system with no energy input from an external source. Or it can be applied to systems that are self contained and also do not have access to an external source of energy with which to reverse it’s entropic progression. Evolution meets neither of those categories, it does not cover the entire Universe and it is not an isolated sub-system as energy external to it is able to be used to build organisms and drive variation. The majority of life on Earth owes it’s existence to the energy provided by the Sun and this is a resource that can inject more than enough energy into the system to allow all the processes we see.”
“I know, right? No doubt about it Bob, this is a fight that’s just not meant to happen. I think though that we will still see confused fans trying to force this conflict for a long time to come.”
“I have to agree with you there Jim, well next up is the fight between Astronomy and Astrology, what do you think will happen?”
“You’re kidding right Bob?”
Given the milestones reached this year, the 200th birthday of Darwin and the 150th anniversary of his revolutionary and unfortunately still controversial theory, expect to see a few more evolution based posts than I usually allow myself. This satirical rant was inspired by a letter I happened read in the Waikato Times dating back to December 7, 2007, old but it riled me up. The letter can be found Here and is the second from the bottom. It’s ignorance is excusable, I myself am ignorant of a great many things, but it’s the stupefying arrogance that really bugs me, in the letter the writer relates how in school he/she was taught about both thermodynamics and evolution. In his view the two were incompatible and so the teacher must have been espousing evolution in blatant disregard of science thus turning evolution into a religion. The mere possibility that the writer actually misunderstood both concepts never enters his/her head.
:: 
:: 
:: 
:: 
:: 
:: 
:: 
:: 
:: 
:: 
Scepticon 
AHAHAHAH! I’m researching this subject for a school project, and i think this article was the best one I’ve seen so far! Funny AND informative. The writer is a genius!
I’ll accept sub-genius, thank you.
The argument that cells are separate from and not linked to the closed system of the universe upon which entropy works is a logical fallicy and also disagrees with the scientific evidence. Even within the individual cell, entropy is at work. Yes, the cell and the programming of its DNA have amazing capabilities to use and direct outside energy inputs to repair or prevent the degredation that would otherwise occur at a much greater rate — but it still occurs. Mutations are the prime example and are not the means of evolutionary change in defiance of the 2nd Law! Mutations in all observed cases degrade the functionally complex order of the genetic code. The DNA’s program thus contains highly integrated measures that are conservative against the 2nd Law (prevents copying errors, makes repairs to damaged DNA, etc.), but does not comlpetely stop the 2nd Law, let alone reverse it! Mutations still occur, but at much lower rate than they would otherwise. Eddington was right and the conclusion is that the 2nd Law of Thermo invalidates evolution, not the other way around as can only be claimed in an allegorical boxing match (science fiction).
You appear to contradict yourself, you state that cells are not isolated from the universe(which I do not say) therefore using thermodynamics to disprove evolution is valid.
Unfortunately The only way you could make this argument is if the cells ARE isolated form the universe, therefore being unable to receive energy from it (in the form of sunlight or energy rich chemicals such as sugars) and dump waste heat into it.
Thank you for your comment.
Thanks for responding. It appears we may be miscommunicating. So, I’m going to try again with a little more detail, just to see if this helps clarify so we can get down to the facts that are in question rather than attempt to find error in the manner in which the facts are presented.
We probably agree that the cell exists in the universe (I hope). We also seem to agree that it uses energy from outside itself from other sources (like the sun) that are under the influence of 2nd law of thermo. However, even though the cell has a program (DNA) to direct and use this energy to build-up new things and repair itself and even divide into new cells, it is ultimately what happens to DNA that determines whether this programmed building up process also applies to the genetic information content that is necessary to support evolution (i.e., reversing entropy in terms of not just repairing the DNA from damage or mis-copy and creating new cells and proteins after the programmed patterns in the DNA, but actually creating new, more funcationally complex DNA). Unfortunately, in the quest to find even one example of a mutation that adds new increased complexity and function, I and others find that every observed mutation causes degredation of genetic information (2nd law) not building up of new and more functionally complex genetic information (evolution). While in some rare cases loss of genetic inforamtion can be oddly helpful under special or artificial circumstances (i.e., bacteria loosing sensitivity to antibiotics), it is not very helpful to evolution which needs the process to go in the opposite direction. While the cell can use energy (by processes directed by the DNA) to repair some effects of entropy on itself, it is not 100% effective. So, entropy is working on the genetic code even though the genetic code has mechanisms to conserve itself against the effects of entropy (fortunately). However, in terms of DNA, it cannot reverse the effects of entropy over the long run. Mutations accumulate and they are mostly minor and at levels indetectible by natural selection — so most are inherited and passed on without culling by natural selection (this is a serious problem). Thus, over time the genome is negatively affected by entropy and this has the opposite effect of evolution. This is what has been observed in genetics, in the workings of natural selection (as a conservative action acting on existing genetic variation) within populations of organisms, and as observed in the fossil record.
So, I don’t believe I’ve contradicted myself and I’m not sure that you’ve addressed the signficance of my comments, particularly with regard to entropy as it applies to mutations and the effect of mutations on DNA (as observed scientifically, not merely as postulated by the theory of evolution). In any event, I hope these additional thoughts are helpful, but I still agree with Eddington’s quote and that it applies to evaluating evolution because it applies to DNA and mutations which are the real facts in this matter. Claiming that entropy doesn’t apply to evolution seems similar to claiming that evolution is a perpetual motion machine. I guess the real question is, does entropy apply to the DNA or not? Evolution is a concept and entropy cannot act on concepts, but DNA and mutations are real.
After re-reading your previous comment I did decide you were not actually contradicting yourself, so I’ll agree on that point. But where we are disagreeing, I think, is the meaning of the 2nd Law.
You stated that saying the law does not apply to evolution is like saying that evolution is a perpetual motion machine. Well, it is. Just unlike the fraudulent kind it keeps going by using energy from outside the system. The perpetual motion machines that you are alluding to (and so rightly imply are bunk) purport to generate more energy than is feed into them, thereby producing an infinite supply. This can not be compared to evolution as this is a process that requires energy to continue, which it has in the surrounding environment in abundance.
Thus the second law is not appropriately applied in this case I think. Whether mutations can provide raw material for natural selection to act upon is a separate matter and while I think you are incorrect there too I am don’t think I’m up to debating the intricacies with you.
I can understand your position. I simply disagree. Thank you again for visiting.
It looks to me that the argument is based in information theory, not thermodynamic entropy. The two have (very) clear similarities
but at a deeper level it is not so obvious how they are related. The Wikipedia link gives some idea of the issues (see particularly the section ‘Relationship to thermodynamic entropy’) though I don’t think it’s a particularly great wiki overall.
So our ‘Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection’ boxer was up against the wrong opponent. No wonder the match turned out to be a farce.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy_(information_theory)
Entropy as far as 2nd law of thermodynamics can increase all it likes in any one part of the system, for example on the Earth or in a cell.
It is only when you consider the complete closed system (ie the universe or anything else WITH NO ENERGY INPUTS) that entropy cannot increase.
Since the Earth has an energy input (the sun) and the cell has an energy input (food) then they are not constrained by the second law of thermodynamics.
I think we’re making progress toward the question: Does entropy apply to DNA and the information it stores which, in the case of DNA, reflects also an energy state in the form of chemical bonds and organization of those bonds. So, it seems that in the case of DNA there is a potential link with entropy and the information it stores in chemical form. THus, increased information content (new added comlexity such as a new gene would equate to a higher state of energy embodied in the DNA’s chemically stored/organized information), if it were to occur, could result in a “reversal” of entropy in terms of the DNA (this of course would ultimately require energy from outside sources to fuel the process). But, while mutations are supposed to be the mechanism for evolution (provided they are at a level of effect that is detectible by natural selection) to build-up new and more complex useful information (energy) content in the DNA, they do not. They destroy information content from a purely information theory standpoint. However, if this is to be linked to energy and entropy effects, do mutations also lower the “energy content” represented by the information stored chemically in the DNA? Or, is a mutation an “equal energy” substitute that does not reduce energy (only substitutes the wrong information in the DNA thus reducing the information value)? There is clearly a “genetic entropy” analogy to thermodynamic entropy, but not necessarily physically correlated. So, the issues seems to boil down to how entropy is defined and then applied to this situation. The Wiki article seems to elude to a potential link but I too was not completely satisfied with its treatment of the issue, particularly w/r to entropy and DNA. However, this has given me more to think about and research and for that, I appreciate the comments. Thanks.
Hey, Robert – haven’t you got that the wrong way around. The entropy of an isolated system can increase, but not decrease. The entropy of part of a system can either increase or decrease. Creationists get the 2nd law wrong because they treat living things as isolated systems – which they clearly aren’t.
Jay, I find your use of entropy and information confusing.
Entropy and enthalpy are measurements of the energetics of reactions or changes in systems. We can combine them in the Gibbs free energy. It seems mystical to me to talk about something “being under the influence of the 2nd law,” the “2nd law invalidates evolution,” “entropy is working on the genetic code”, and “negatively affected by entropy” as if it was some kind of agent.
“Entropy” doesn’t say anything about evolution. It’s just something we can measure in our investigation of the energetics of the processes involved. The only reason it gets dragged into evolution is because of incorrect attempts by creationists to use the 2nd law of thermodynamics (which applies to an isolated systems) to “disprove” evolution by applying it part of an open system.
Similarly your use of “information.” What can it possibly mean to say that mutations cannot add “increased complexity” or that it inevitably causes degradation of genetic information? It’s like saying that when genetic variation leads to a taller/shorter individual, longer/shorter arms, etc., that this is a degradation of genetic information. That is an unwarranted value judgment which is inappropriate in this area.
Of course, shorter or longer arms may lead to better survival of individuals in a specific environment. That is natural selection. And when in operates over a long time the inevitable selection can lead to speciation, particularly when populations become isolated or are reproductively isolated.
Why should you describe the process of selection leading to antibiotic resistance as a loss of genetic information? Surely it is the result of selection. A change in the environment could very well lead to loss of resistance (an apparent reversal). Are you then going to say this was an increase in genetic information?
We can understand information as negative entropy (and I think this is one reason creationists are getting on the information bandwagon – its the inappropriate 2nd law argument all over again). Again it is not an agent – it’s just a description of changes occurring in a system or reaction. In the case of evolutionary processes, just as the entropy change can be negative, the information change can be positive. This is a reflection of selection by the environment. Natural selection.
Sorry Ken you are right, but the point remains with just the terms swapped.
Yes, of course Robert. I keep getting it around the wrong way myself and was wondering if it indicates senility. I find myself checking quite a few things these days.
Uh oh. I think we’re getting things confused again, but in a new area — natural selection. Natural selection is a process that selects favorable genetic combinations and culls those that are not — it sounds like we agree on this point. But, it is not a process that creates new genetic information. It can only select from that which exists. The gene pool of a population has tremendous capability in variation, but this is by recombination of genes that exist in the population. What would create new genes and then add more complex genes such that natural selection has something new and more complex to select from? We’re not just talking about different combinations of existing genes and varation of that sort (i.e., long arms and short arms, blue eyes or brown, big beaks or small, a dark peppered moth or a light colored one). These are all expressions of combinations of genes that exist in the population and upon which natural selection can and does work which is why we see so much variability among types and why these types have survived as well as they have despite the overwhelmingly negative effects of mutations. In none of these cases, has new genetic information been added, only sorted and culled. This is what we observe as fact. When we add mutations to the picture these too are selected (or most often deselected if they are of great enough impact to fitness) but they never add new, more complex genetic information — at least I’ve never heard or read of one case where this has been observed and documented as such — not even after a “millions of years worth” of accelerated fruit fly mutations and many other such experiements and observations.
In bacteria “resistance” to anti-bodies what happens is actually a loss of sensitivity to antibodies because of a mutation that has altered the protein production specificity in the bacteria to which the antibody would otherwise attach (i.e., it now makes a slightly defective protein). The mutant bacteria is resistant because it has lost genetic specificity (information) which becomes “selectable” under the artificial conditions of antibiotic exposure to the population of bacteria among which some have the mutation. Thus, the frequency of the mutant bacteria increases in the population under this artificial selection condition. But, under natural conditions, the mutation is harmful to the fitness of the bacteria and when the population is removed from antibody exposure, the frequency shifts back to favor the normal bacteria without the mutation. Selection in this case also creates no new information — it only selects.
So, I’m a little confused as to how this is considered a value judgment on my part by Ken. I’m really trying to stick with the facts here, but also asking at the same time for any fact that would show otherwise. To my knowledge there are none that I’ve been able to find or that have been brought forward in this discussion.
But, back on the entropy issue, this is something I’m going to look into more, because I think I’m agreeing that there are many similarities to “genetic entropy” as a result of mutations, but this may not be related to entropy as it applies to thermodynamics. I need to look into this more and again appreciate all the comments in this regard. Cheers.
Jay, what is your measure of information, or genetic information? How do you determine whether or not an evolutionary process produces “new information” or causes loss of information? Why do you deny changes of information resulting from changes in utilization of genes?
What do you actually measure to determine what the quantitative change in iformation is?
Sent from my iPod
Ken, thanks for your question. I am attempting to use the same measure that is required by evolution or transmutation. The genetic code of an individual must not just change by recombination of existing genes (information) in the population, but it must change in complexity and function(new useful information) such as adding a new gene and a new feature, not just shuffling expressions of a given genes/variations of a feature. Does this answer your question about measuring? I think this is objective and quantitative and that is where and how I’m trying to constrain my comments. Also, I think it is clear that I am not denying the change in use of existing information by way of genetic recombination. What I am questioning is the lack of any measure or evidence that a mutation can add new and more complex information to the genetic code of any individual as required by evolution to initiate something that can be selected and then eventually accumulated to form something new.
I appreciate your willingness to engage in open dialogue Jay, regarding the introduction of new information in an organism’s genome you may find this recent article I wrote helpful.
Also don’t get too hung up on mutations producing novel traits strictly through mutations in genes, changes in regulatory sequences (those part that tell genes when to turn on or off) can have profound effects on how an individual develops but produce little in the way of “new information” as you may define it.
Thanks
Scepticon has made an important point about the problem of concentration on genes alone.
However, Jay, I still find your description of “information” vague, unusual and not quantitative. You make quantitative claims such as “information” increasing and decreasing. You can’t make decisions on that unless you can measure this “information” quantitativfely. And then, of course, there has to be relevance to this particular measure of “information.”
You seem (?) to want to define “information” as the number of genes (which I suppose one could measure, or a list of specific genes. Scepticon’s point shows how little meaning this can have. Humans and Chimps have most of the their genes in common – are we to conclude there is no difference in “information” between them? Fruit flies and humans have many common genes – but they are expressed differently.
So, back to the drawing board. If you want to discuss evolution in terms of “information” then give us a precise definition of “information” and how to measure it so that quantitative judgments can be made.
Creationists these days make a big thing about “information.” They never seem to be able to define it – yet they draw immense conclusions. The only quantitative measure of “information” I am familiar with relates it to entropy. We have already seen how the “entropy argument” is fallacious. The same fallacies are being committed with “information.”
The claim that “information” cannot increase in living systems or evolving systems is just the claim that entropy cannot decrease. We have already shown that incorrect.
Yet creationists still insist on the “information” argument (although many are still stuck with the naive”entropy argument.”)
I think they do this for 2 reasosn.
(1): It helps to confuse the issue. they are still using the “entropy argument” but claim they aren’t.
(2) When this sort of “information” is dealt with mathematically it can be made to look impressive. The mathematically challenged amongst us may be impressed by the “sciency” appearance of the argument. People like Bill Dembski can use the confusion to then claim they are the “Newton of information theory!”
I am also concerned about the simplistic definition you hold as to how bacterial resistence comes about via a “loss of sensitivity”. Perhaps this definition was used in the interests of brevity but it seems to imply that resistence is not/can not be conferred by a gain of function which is simply incorrect.
I have found this paper which provides details of how resistence can be aquired, in general and for specific examples.
The Wikipedia entry may also be of assitance.
I’ll try to keep my response as brief as possible and sorry for the delay – matters of routine and adventure have prevailed for the last week or so. I also wanted to take some time to read your suggested links and do a bit more research on the latest points raised above, particularly with respect to newer data on genetics, regulatory genes, etc., etc. Because of the complexity of this topic and the detail treatment required to appreciate its significance, I too will refer you to work by others so as to avoid introducing unnecessary “noise” due to any shortcoming of my own.
First, let me say that I agree with the facts (those based solely on repeatable, scientific observations) presented in the papers you suggested. I also agree in part with the final conclusion by Hawkey (1998) that “Bacteria clearly have a wondrous array of biochemical and genetic systems…” and I in no way meant to over-simplify this matter in my previous comments on bacterial resistance (although the one example I gave is correct). However, I find Hawkey’s association of these facts with an evolutionary origin to be unconvincing and speculative (and for Ken’s sake I’m not talking about observed genetic changes in general which clearly exist in great variety, but genetic change which results in ameoba-to-man types of mutational transformation).
In my search, one recent paper I found that integrates and reasonably explains the significance of much of the most current scientific knowledge regarding this topic from a review of almost 100 different scientific journal articles (including more than just antibiotic responses of bacteria) is the following: “A Creationist Perspective of Beneficial Mutations in Bacteria” (by Drs. Anderson and Purdom, 2009) http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v4/n1/beneficial-mutations-in-bacteria
Hopefully this reference will give some pause to the “creationist” strawman arguments that Ken seems to be bringing into this discussion to then additionally impose his assumed motives for this strawman’s actions. Further, it is a “part-to-whole” logical fallacy to assume that because a potential “fallacy” is committed by the strawman on one issue (e.g., entropy, even though it seems that the jury is still out on this issue in the scientific community and there are clear similarities with the effects of mutations on the genome – see “Genetic Entropy & The Mystery of the Genome” by Dr. Sanford, 2005) that then the strawman also is automatically wrong on another issue (e.g., “informational” nature of the genetic code). With respect, these seem to be unnecessary distractions from an otherwise enjoyable and interesting exchange.
Thanks for returning, I am generally less confrontational than Ken but he does tangentially bring up a relevant point for me. While I appreciate your apparent willingness to engage in conversation I have to question whether there is a fruitful outcome here for either of us. You arrived here attempting to use scientific arguments to argue against another area of science. I find it curious that you are willing to accept one area of science while rejecting another.
You must ultimately be rejecting the biological science for non-scientific reasons, ie you have already decided that evolution must be false and are now looking for evidence to support this belief. I say this because science is interconnected, the physics that underlies your thermodynamics argument also helps us understand what goes on inside stars to create new elements. In turn it also underpins our understanding of radioactive decay and allows us to accurately date the age of the Earth and fossils of early life. To selectively accept the science in the way you have betrays ideological biases, not a sincere search for truth, (lower case t, always provisional).
My apologies if I have mischaracterised your intentions but this is how it seems to me.
Thanks again for your comments, you are welcome to continue.
Jay, I really can’t understand where you are at now as you have apparently given up on you entropy/information argument.
Now you seem to suggest evolution includes an amoeba to man mutation. Weird – I haven’t heard that one before.
Also, to go on about creationist strawmen and then introduce a blatant creationist paper is also strange.
Sent from my iPod
Scepticon: Thanks for inviting me to continue. But, I agree this may be drawing to a close. I find it interesting that the focus has seemed to shift to reading into my intentions and not the facts I’m raising and seeking — many of which are inter-related as you suggest. This inter-relationship is extremely important as “true science” does not conflict with itself. We seem to agree on this point. However, I am not rejecting one area of science for another as suggested. Still, I have not found a single fact, except by ideological interpretation based on an a-priori belief in evolutionary cause, showing one mutation leading to decent from one kind of organism to another of a different kind. Instead the facts show diversity within kinds of organisms, but no transformational mutation to support evolution. Contrary to your assertion, this finding does agree with other areas of science. For example, paleontology shows a systematic trend of abrupt appearances and lacking transitional forms that should be ubiquitous in the geologic column if evolution were true – this is why evolutionists have split on the idea of gradual change vs. the “hopeful monster” concept of sudden change. Also, I understand that there are fewer alleged transitional forms today than in Darwin’s time and many have been dismissed and some revealed as intentional hoaxes – even by leading evolutionists/scientists/museums; all rely on an evolutionary presumption. Geology shows vast layers of sedimentary rock deposited rapidly with no signs of long delay or bioturbation between the layers. Furthermore, radiometric dating relies on assumptions to decipher a time-message through the contained radioactive materials and by-products (the actual facts). The assumptions result in an extrapolation of the data that can over-ride the facts and the main assumption is based on evolutionary ideology (i.e., present rates = past rates). As expected from such an affront to scientific method, the results are highly unreliable (e.g., huge discrepancies between methods, newly formed rocks being dated at millions of years, etc.). Also, excessive concentrations of helium gas (a Uranium-lead radiactive decay by-product) are still found in rocks which gives additional strong scientific support for a relatively short age for the geologic column and raises huge implications for past radiactive decay rates. We also find multiple bent layers of rock throughout the geologic column which could only happen if they were rapidly laid down and bent prior to hardening (not to mention the common occurence of polystrate fossils, such as petrified trees, extending up through “millions of years” of layers). We also find vast coal beds that consistently still have substantial C-14 content which can only be there if they are thousands, not millions of years old. This is true even of diamonds. So, you may claim that I am ignoring or contradicting facts. But, I am not. I guess we will have to agree to disagree on these and many other points we have discussed. However, I do appreciate the exchange and have benefitted from it.
For anyone still interested in the original subject of this thread here is a very good explanation of this issue as published in the journal:
Evolution: Education and Outreach
The second law of thermodynamics is indicated to only matter’s attractive force.
In energy with no material movement, the entropy may not increase.
For example, two kinds of electromagnetic waves.
Would you please read my two manuscripts?
Relation of Evolutionary Theory to Second Law of Thermodynamics (Part 1)
– Relation of Chaos Theory to Gene’s Learning Function -. EJSR, 53, 1, 80-83, (2011)
Click to access EJSR_53_1_08.pdf
Relation of Evolutionary Theory to Second Law of Thermodynamics (Part 2)
– Relation of Chaos Theory to Corrected Second Law of Thermodynamics -. EJSR, 53, 1, 84-86, (2011)
http://www.eurojournals.com/EJSR_53_1_09.pd
I attempted to but even the parts that made sense to me didn’t make sense.