# Evolution and the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics



## Zenas (Feb 26, 2009)

I was having a discussion with a friend of mine just now. He brought up an interesting perspective that I hadn't considered regarding evolution and the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. It was his contention that the 2nd Law actually supports evolutionary theory, because complexity and order are not synonymous and that complexity is actually a component of disorder.

He illustrated this by explaining when there were only one-celled organisms, or the singularity pre-existing the big-bang, everything was very simple and yet, very ordered. 

As a result of genetic mutation (which he identified also as a type of entropic disorder) we have vast complexity which has therefore created a lot of disorder.

The base idea here, I think, and I tried to check with him as best I can, is this:
Simplicity=Order
Complexity=Disorder

Evolution functions on mechanisms that create complexity and has created complexity, ergo evolution has created disorder and the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics supports evolution. 

Any thoughts?


----------



## LawrenceU (Feb 26, 2009)

He is truly grasping at straws.


----------



## Zenas (Feb 26, 2009)

Can you tell me how? I didn't have an answer at the time so I told him thanks for the explanation and I'd think about it. By think about it I meant do nothing and ask ya'll. (kidding) 

But seriously I'm an idiot, help.


----------



## Theognome (Feb 26, 2009)

I don't follow the logic, since the 2nd law of thermodynamics demands decay, which is in opposition to positive evolutionary development. By his logic, evolution could only work in reverse ie de-evolution, since disorder must decay to more simplistic forms of order vis entropic development.

Theognome


----------



## VictorBravo (Feb 26, 2009)

This raises an old issue (for me) that I've have never taking the time to think much through, but I always wanted to.

There are two basic ways of looking at the 2nd law or entropy. One is that a system tends to increasing disorder, and another is that the energy available in a system to do work tends to decrease.

If you only focus on order, then the idea that a singularity exploding into complexity, on its face, seems to defy entropy.

But if you look at energy state, the singularity had the most energy of all, and it quickly lost it in the Big Bang (so the theory would go), and the "law" of entropy was followed.

Your friend is jumping back and forth between these two ways of looking at entropy, category shifting more or less. 

He is blurring the idea of increased complexity with the idea of chaos. Sure, chaotic things are complex, but that is merely because the more chaotic things get, the harder it is to model their behavior. That kind of complexity is not what "evolution" has in mind.


----------



## Zenas (Feb 26, 2009)

I'm lost.


----------



## Romans922 (Feb 26, 2009)

I've always thought that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics disproves Evolution.


----------



## VictorBravo (Feb 26, 2009)

Zenas said:


> I'm lost.



I'll try again. 

Your friend's view:



> because complexity and order are not synonymous and that complexity is actually a component of disorder.



Complexity and order can be either synonymous or not, depending upon your definition.

A complex system of an organism is ordered. No question about it.

A complex chaotic system that seems random is not ordered.

So your friend is being equivocal on the meaning of complex. On one hand he says entropy increased complexity because of disorder, and then in the same breath he says that this increased complexity creates ordered entities.

That's what I meant by category shifting.


----------



## SRoper (Feb 26, 2009)

The 2LoT doesn't disprove evolution, but not for the reason your friend suggests. When you take the earth-sun system as a whole you find that the sun's ability to do work has greatly diminished over billions of years. The small purported increase in the ability to do work on earth hardly offsets that.


----------



## Classical Presbyterian (Feb 26, 2009)

GOD is the energy that provides the sustained complexity in the system of the universe!


----------



## discipulo (Feb 26, 2009)

I like the image of Francis Schaeffer, it could be called the law of existential entropy.

I’m writing by heart, so details and wording may be different. 

If we have an environment that is only made by water and out of the fishes happily swimming around one particular fish evolves to develop lungs, he will dye by drowning.

So if on this earth by evolution a particular creature evolved to have the need for meaning, for continuity, for origin, and the universe is void of meaning and can only offer that creature death and absurd, that creature would be the most miserable of all.

That would not be evolution, because that creature would be the least prepared for that universe.

But the Good News we already know!


----------



## Adonis (Feb 26, 2009)

The main problem I see with the argument that the 2LoT supports Evolution (speciazation) is that it lacks observability. Add to that the categorical shifting, and you've started to grasp enough straws to suck the logic out of anything. (or at least a compelling argument)


----------



## Brian Withnell (Feb 26, 2009)

Zenas said:


> I was having a discussion with a friend of mine just now. He brought up an interesting perspective that I hadn't considered regarding evolution and the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. It was his contention that the 2nd Law actually supports evolutionary theory, because complexity and order are not synonymous and that complexity is actually a component of disorder.
> 
> He illustrated this by explaining when there were only one-celled organisms, or the singularity pre-existing the big-bang, everything was very simple and yet, very ordered.
> 
> ...



Maybe I'd be a bit off topic with this, but for someone to buy mechanistic, secular evolution, they would have to buy spontaneous generation (life from non-life) which to me is about as absurd without an intelligent actor (God) directing that it makes me wonder how anyone could even think it possible.

Exponential functions are really different than what most people can fathom. Yet large value exponents are what would have to be reconciled if one was to think "chance" was going to create life. Science supposes the universe to be billions of years old. It isn't long enough by many orders of magnitude to make chance occurrence of life even plausible. We aren't talking billions of years needed, we aren't talking trillions of years ... the amount of time where it would even make sense to contemplate is so long that it just doesn't compute.

All of that without even thinking of "God created" which is the starting point in the first place ... evolution just doesn't make a lot of sense. (And I don't by theistic evolution either, but I don't want to get started on that.)

-----Added 2/26/2009 at 11:52:16 EST-----



Romans922 said:


> I've always thought that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics disproves Evolution.



I would never use the argument. The 2nd law only works in closed systems. The earth is not a closed system and that would be pointed out very quickly (the sun is continually adding energy to the system.)

The real deal is to understand exactly what is required by evolution, realize that the starting point is the weak point in the theory (the beginning of life) and go after that. No evolutionary scientist has a plausible explanation for the origin of life and they certainly have not created an experiment to create life.


----------

