Can evolution be true if it opposes the laws of thermodynamics?

Question

Evolution is about chaos turning up into order and design, while the laws of thermaldynamics say that all nature is going down from order and design into chaos. How can they both be true?

Answer 1

They are both true due to the subjectiveness of the concept of chaos and order. Evolution may seem like it's going from chaos to order, but in actuality it's just more chaos that we define as order because it is a positive change for us. Once you get higher along the evolutionary scale, it has little to do with chaos or order and everything to do with natural selection.

Answer 2

They could both be true the law you are referring to is the 2nd law of thermodynamics. It basically says that any process that occurs spontaneously increases the disorder of the universe, and that process can produce work. Any process that decreases the disorder of the universe requires work. It doesn't say that a process that increases the order of the universe cannot occur, only that it requires work.

The net result is that I might reduce the chaos in a small part of the universe for a limited time but in doing so I have increased the disorder of the universe as a whole.

I see no conflict between the 2nd law and evolution. First evolution doesn't require the entire universe just a small part of it. I assume we are just talking about evolution on this planet. Next the earth is not a closed system. Energy from the sun rains down on the earth constantly. Which provides a steady energy source to do work which could but not necessarily increase the order of earth.

Lastly I don't believe the theory of evolution is about a decrease the chaos but an increase. If something mutates and a new species occurs as a result the previous one is still there so the disorder has actually increased not decreased.

Answer 3

Evolution is not science for many reasons. One of which is that it is not disprovable! Even Darwin wrote: "If it could be found that there is an organ which could not possibly have arisen from natural selection, my theory would completely unravel." Now that is science for you! 'Not possibly'?--- Anything is possible!
But more realistically, the changing of species has never been observed, to put it in simple terms. We can observe millions of generations of bacteria as they grow and breed, and not only do they NOT turn into crickets, they are still the same species of bacteria. Now a million generations ago in the 'human evolutionary tree' we were supposedly pre-Australopithecus monkeys. So we should see, somewhere, the bacteria evolving into more complex life than a single celled creature, but we don't. Not one time has a single celled culture, over millions of generations, been observed to evolve into multiple celled creatures or even from, say, a spirochete form of bacteria to a cocci, or spherical shape, not once!!!
Even with Darwin's statement, he may be on to something. The flagellum, for instance is a little motor that moves bacteria around, and it is made up of over 100 separate proteins. Of these 100 proteins, 40 are absolutely necessary for it to function. Thus the evolutionists would have us believe that all 40 of these necessary mutations happened separately over millions of generations, and each one was alone a positive trait that avoided natural selection and that finally, when all the mutations came together, they just by chance happened to help the bacteria move in it's environment. This is not science, it is a religion. Information theory alone is enough to raise serious doubts about evolutions likelyhood.
You must be careful with using the 2nd law that way, this planet is not a closed system, and even if it was, order could still come from chaos as long as the Total Entropy increased. Thus you could have a decrease in entropy over here and an increase over there, as long as the total is a positive, you are o.k. Really, there are way deeper problems with evolution than this one.

To tigerceratops:
It is not my assumption that evolution leads to complexity, this is a fact that evolution posits: The basic premise of evolution is that life began long ago as simple creatures, and gradually, through the tautology of natural selection, complexity developed. There is nothing anthropocentric about it, we even see this in the fossil record, Pre-Cambrian life is only single celled, but then millions of multi-celled life forms came into existence. So your question about, "If that were true, then why do we still see single celled creatures?" is a good one.... The fact is true, so the mechanism meant to explain it (Evolution) must be false!

Answer 4

Most of the people have already answered this question correctly, that Earth is NOT a closed system. We receive energy from the sun, dust and debris from comets, asteroids and meteors, and cosmic energy from other sources outside our own solar system. All of those things affect the survival of species on this planet.

For Matt the Strong, your assumption that evolution is a sequence leading toward complexity is a common one. But I'm not sure if it's correct. I think it's an anthropocentric view of evolution...basically that we are the most complex organisms, thus the pinnacle of evolution. But IF that assumption were true, why are there still bacteria or other single-celled organisms. Shouldn't their existence have pinched out due to simplicity? But they haven't. Also, why is it that something that's supposedly "simple" the biggest threat to our very own survival if we are to believe that we are the most complex? I don't believe that evolution has a trend toward complex or a trend toward anything. I think that as environments evolve (yes, they evolve too) so too do the organisms. "Complexity," as we view it, is just a by-product of adaptation and really doesn't have any hidden purpose behind it.

Answer 5

Who told you evolution is about chaos? Random mutation and chaos are not the same thing. Besides, thermodynamics is not violated because the amount of energy available to drive evolution is not fixed. I.e, you can go from lower order to higher order as long as you have a supply of energy. For example, your room will not clean itself--it will tend toward greater levels of disorganization. But if you put your filthy clothes in the hamper, your room is more organized thanks your input of energy. Living organism can evolve because they take in and convert energy.

Answer 6

Evolution does not oppose the laws of thermodynamics any more than your building a house does. That statement is typical of someone trying to use "science" to justify a non-scientific view, when they really have no idea of what the laws of thermodynamics really are. The second law:

In a CLOSED INSULATED SYSTEM (no energy can flow in or out) entropy (disorder) cannot decrease. You really think earth is a closed, insulated system?

Answer 7

It's true that the second law of thermodynamics says that a closed system will tend to get disorderly over time. The thing is that the Earth is not a closed system. A huge amount of energy is constantly being added to the planet in the form of sunlight. If that was taken away, living things would go entropic very fast. (That is, everything would die and turn into sludge.)

Think of it this way. If you leave your bedroom alone, it will tend to get messier and messier as time passes. But if you add energy (in the form of you working to tidy it up), your bedroom will tend to be tidy.

Answer 8

even that there is a lot of order in evolution as we see it it is still disordered enough to be acceptable.

also eversince concius and the will to live have come into the equation there is no longer absolute randomness as requested by thermodynamics.

what is however possible, (basically if enthropy wins over concius) is that humans would self destruct or somehow be wiped off the face of the universe and then the system would be back where it started...

Answer 9

The most general form of the second law of thermodynamics states that in any thermodynamic process the entropy of the universe either increases or remains constant. So show that the entropy of the universe is decreasing and you may have something.

Answer 10

you have so asked the perfect question. the thing about life, and might as well be its primary definition, is that it spontaneously organizes itself. you have put your finger on the magical thing itself. most things, especially the ones that i don't think of as alive, do not have this quality, and always tend to decay according to their atomic and molecular parameters. you and i also decay along those very same constraints. but the thing about life is that it spontaneously organizes, and then it has the gaul to evolve in order to become ever better at the task of spontaneously organizing itself! taoist philisophies provide the best context for this 'zero sum' paradigm, 'order is neither created nor destroyed but transformed from one state to the other', etc. it sends my mind hurtling towards 'string theory'. have you heard of the 'extra dimensions' the theory calls for that have the capacity to flesh out some sense for your riddle? best of luck.