Fundies: Is this evidence against evolution?

Question

"One of the most basic laws in the universe is the Second Law of Thermodynamics. This states that as time goes by, entropy in an environment will increase. Evolution argues differently against a law that is accepted EVERYWHERE BY EVERYONE. Evolution says that we started out simple, and over time became more complex. That just isn't possible: UNLESS there is a giant outside source of energy supplying the Earth with huge amounts of energy. If there were such a source, scientists would certainly know about it. [emphasis added]"

This oughta be good for some laughs...

Some of you guys are kind of dense. I know this line of thinking is rubbish, but it's funny to bring it up.

Answer 1

I don't consider myself a fundie. I am a Thermodynamic Engineer. Well, you are close - but not close enough. Entropy says everything tends from order to disorder, from usable to unusable. You got this part right. But it also says, if you cause something to be in order, you cause more disorder somewhere else. In other words, when life started out as simple and became more complex, this was at the cost of something else. We are using up our resources for our development. We weren't doing too bad a couple of thousands years ago, but it's really catching up to us now. Our existance assures us that the earth will be less usable for the next generation. It took from the beginning of earth up to around the year 1800 for our planet to have a population of 1 billion people. That's around 4.5 billion years. 2 billion in 1927 and 4 billion in 1974. We seem to be at a point of population doubling every 20 years. We have over 6 billion today and expect 8 billion in 2050. We are at a point now where are using 20% more energy than the earth can provide. When the population doubles again, we will be using 40% more resources that the earth can provide. We cannot sustain this and the 'party' will be over. It will be payment day for all the evolving we've been doing. If all greenhouse causing agents are stopped being used today, it would take at least 100 years to get the global warming momentum to settle. While the masses wait for the Engineers and Scientists to save the world with a “by the time I get cancer there will be a cure for it” attitude, this is an example of what is;
Nobel chemist Frederick Soddy pointed out over 70 years ago: “Debts are subject to the laws of mathematics rather than physics. Unlike wealth, which is subject to the laws of thermodynamics, debts do not rot away with old age and are not consumed in the process of living. On the contrary, they grow at so much per cent per annum, by the well known mathematical laws of simple and compound interest”
Economist Herman Daly explains the inevitable consequences that result when society pits the mathematical notions of compound interest against the physical reality of thermodynamics. He says that while debt can grow at compound interest forever, real physical wealth cannot continue to grow at the same speed “because its physical dimension is subject to the destructive forces of entropy.” He concludes: “Since wealth cannot continually grow as fast as debt, the one to one relation between the two will at some point in time be broken- i.e. there must be some repudiation or cancellation of debt. The positive feedback of compound interest must be offset by counter acting forces of debt repudiation, such as inflation, bankruptcy, or confiscatory taxation, all of which breed violence.”
At every step in the entire production and exchange process, work is done; namely, energy is expended by both humans and machines. Part of that energy is absorbed into the product and part is wasted. This means that the more stages in the economic process, the more energy is lost. The same principle is at work in the production process as in the simple food chain. In highly industrial societies the stages of the economic process continue to proliferate, meaning more and more energy is dissipated all along the line; and the resultant disorders create even greater long-range problems for society.
If the Entropy Law were fully acknowledged, society would have to face up to the notion that every time we use part of the stock of available matter and energy it means two things: first, that one way or another, the individual, the institutions, the community, or the society ends up paying more for the disorder created in making the product than the value derived from the use of the product; second, less energy is available to be used by other people and creatures sometime in the future. This reality flies in the face of the way we have viewed the world for the past several hundred years. The entire Enlightenment world view is inspired by the principles of Newtonian mechanics, Cartesian mathematics and Baconian scientific methodology. Capitalist and socialist systems attempt to organize the physical world on the basis of these basic conceptualizations. Central to all three ideas is the notion of absolute repeatability of observation (the scientific method) and the absolute reversibility of all processes (universal mathematics and mechanical processes). In the real world, however, nothing is observable in the same manner twice and no occurrence is reversible. The Entropy Law tells us that all physical reality unfolds in only one direction and that while there must be a -X for every +X in math, there is no such reversibility in the physical sojourn of the world around us. It is indeed bewildering that we have been attempting to organize the world for these past few centuries on the basis of mechanics, mathematics and the scientific method, when the real world simply does not conform to the central assumptions of reversibility and absolute repeatability. The reality is that when we leave this world, we leave it less well endowed as a result of our presence. When we glorify high energy production, then, what we are really promoting is an ever greater consumption of the finite store of resources of the planet. Seen in this way, the gross national product is more accurately the gross national cost, since every time resources are consumed they become unavailable for future use.
Actually, the term consumption is a misnomer, for nothing is ever consumed. A thing is used, usually for a very short period of time, and then discarded. Any way you look at them, the statistics are mind-boggling. As a nation, we annually discard 11 million tons of iron and steel; 800,000 tons of aluminum; 400,000 tons of other metals; 13 million tons of glass; and 60 million tons of paper. Add to this 17 billion cans, 38 billion bottles and jars, 7.6 million discarded TV sets, and 7 million junked automobiles. The figures are no less awesome on the personal level. In 1974 the average American used 10 tons of mineral resources, including 1,340 pounds of metal and 18,900 pounds of nonmetallic minerals. In a lifetime, each American uses on an average approximately 700 tons of mineral resources, including nearly 50 tons of metals. If we add fossil fuels and wood, the per capita usage more than doubles to 1,400 tons. And this amount excludes water and food needs. Again, these are 1974 figures, you can imagine where these numbers are now.
It has been said before that the world could not possibly support another America. Looking at these figures, it becomes apparent that even one America is more than the world can afford now. Imagine if the entire world tried to produce and consume as Americans do. It has been estimated that a middle-class American lives a style of life that is equivalent to the work produced by 200 human slaves. Buckminister Fuller refers to us as possessing 200 “energy slaves” that run on nonrenewable resources. Another way of looking at it is in terms of number of calories needed to sustain life. An average human diet consists of 2,000 calories a day. Yet the amount of energy calories we individually consume every day – in our cars, our electricity, our processes foods, and so on – amounts to about 200,000 calories, or more than a hundred times the quantity we absolutely need. In terms of energy consumption, though Americans number only 225 million people, our energy needs are equivalent to that of over 22 billion individuals.

That's pretty funny all right. It seems we may have really evolved from cows instead of monkeys. Monkeys are a lot smarter.

Answer 2

<.< It's like any question that's not on the front page is COMPLETELY IGNORED by these people. Not the asker, but the first response.

Here's your proof of evolution; viruses.
Many viruses are able to be blocked by vaccines. However, occasionally these viruses start to have genetic "defects" which grant them an immunity to these vaccines. It's always happening with the common cold. It happens with bacteria, too, that evolve to be immune to penicillin. You can't say things don't evolve when it happens every day on the microscopic level. Now as for this, I really don't know. I haven't learned about the Second Law of Thermodynamics yet. But there's proof FOR evolution, right there. Stop ignoring it.

Answer 3

If the sun actually gave us energy, then before we even started we wouldl have had to been able to develop a transmitter that would recieve the data of the energy and turn what we can actually use.....

Because, Pearl Harbor had a lot of energy come upon it but did it help? No because there was no transmitter that turned it into positive energy.... It was just energy, and energy by itself can be very dangerous....

Anyone knows this:

Answer 4

That energy needed I guess would be the sun everyday the sun grows hotter soon it will enter it's Quasar stage and burn brighter than ever so I guess you could say that the theory of thermodynamic evolution is supported by the hypothesis that the sun will continue to grow hotter as time passes by

Answer 5

I am in the Seattle area. The sun presumably came up today, but I have not yet seen it. I wonder if it is really there...
Postscript: evolution is a proven fact; details on request.

Answer 6

How could you bring real science into the argument? lol It seems very often in here that a little bit of knowledge (information) makes people feel like they know it all....let's see where this goes for you....

Answer 7

2nd law is for closed systems. Can't use 2nd law to descrive evolution.

Answer 8

Doesn't the sun provide energy?

Answer 9

The evolution cannot explain the space..where the so called evolution took place..

Answer 10

I have an argument against popular view of evolution.

If man has been walking upright for about one million years, why do we still get backaches. You think adaptability of the species would've corrected this weakness.