Confused?
Hmm here a little something to think about for those who believe in the theory of Evolution.
Evolution
The Definition:
Biological evolution, simply put, is descent with modification. This definition encompasses small-scale evolution (changes in gene frequency in a population from one generation to the next) and large-scale evolution (the descent of different species from a common ancestor over many generations).
The process by which one species evolves into another involves random heritable genetic mutations (changes), some of which are more likely to spread and persist in a gene pool than others. Mutations that result in a survival advantage for organisms that possess them, are more likely to spread and persist than mutations that do not result in a survival advantage and/or that result in a survival disadvantage.
In short the entire species gene pool is moving toward a more stable mutation to better adapt to the surroundings.
2nd Law of Thermodynamics or Law of Increasing Entropy
The Definition:
While quantity remains the same (First Law), the quality of matter/energy deteriorates gradually over time.
Entropy is a gauge of randomness or chaos within a closed system. As usable energy is irretrievably lost, disorganization, randomness and chaos increase.
So doesnt this bring about a contradiction? If every system moves toward a state of greater chaos and disorder...how does the genetic system move towards a more stable state?
9 comments:
I cant see any contradiction..
And let me tell you why..
you said:
1. The entire species gene pool is moving toward a more stable mutation to better adapt to the surroundings.
2. As usable energy is irretrievably lost, disorganization, randomness and chaos increase.
(2) obviously says Entropy increases, no matter what.
(1) on the other hand talks about suiting the species' gene to the requirements of the surroundings.
Now, The Laws of Thermodynamics applies to all the particles you consider in the system(which allows no exchange of mass-energy across its boundary, and thus is isolated from everything else)
What you haven't considered while saying
"If every system moves toward a state of greater chaos and disorder...how does the genetic system move towards a more stable state?"
is the fact that the environment/biosphere in which the species exist, IS NOT isolated. It interacts with each and every organism. And whilst the environment itself is undergoing entropy, the various species are simply trying to cope with the changes. THIS effort of trying to cope is what is the driving force behind evolution. Environment, being a part of the universal system, will continue to entropy(or degenerate, if you prefer). And the species will just try acheving the bare-minimum "evolution" to settle down in the contually changing environment...
for they want to survive!! And the only means to do that is to evolve as required by the then present conditions...
That should explain why "the genetic system moves towards a more stable state"(in a fundamentally unstable and entropying environment)
Its like a jar of air, in which the heavier gases like CO2 settle down after sometime.. and yet essentially Entropy occurs with the molecules of different gases scattering along..
Interesting. But one thing I never could understand is, why did simple hydrogen and carbon atoms combine to form basic hydrocarbons and then amino acids in the first place?
As far as I know there are two theories about evolution of life on earth...
1. Life started by a chance combination of simple compounds to form amino acids which was the beginning of 'life'
2. Single cell organisms arrived on our planet after hitching a ride on a meteorite and thus 'life' began
But even then the second theory would require that the single celled organisms had formed on some other earth like planet or asteroid under extremely unique condidtions and then come to earth essentially making the first theory universally true.
If according to what u say, the second law of thermodynamics doesnt hold true in the case of evolution because it is one system (evolution) trying to adapt to another system (environment) which does adhere to the 2nd law, then this is only because of the need for the living organism to adapt and survive.
Why then did the first basic molecules go against the 2nd law to form complex molecules. There was no need to adapt coz basically life hadnt even begun to exist so there is no question of evolving to survive.
Well, I DID NOT state EVOLUTION as a system seperate from the universe. Its simply a process ongoing in concurrence with the remaining processes in the whole giant system(also called universe). Each of those processes DO conform to the Laws of thermodynamics, since the whole system does, to which you'll agree too.
Individual aggregation of atoms to form molecules is simply ongoing of chemical reactions under the given "local" conditions(the term local is in quotes since the other conditions have negligible effect on the reactions, eg imagine the effect of the gravitational force of the moon on the individual atoms combining together on the surface of earth). Plus, it WASNT hydrogen n carbon atoms combining at once into amino acids. If you would like, read the oparin-haldane theory and the miller-urey experiment performed thereafter... look this up.. http://www.natcenscied.org/icons/icon1millerurey.html
That should explain WHY the molecules were formed...
Next, Formation of "LIFE" per se, is argumentative. What level does a bunch of cells actually gain consciousness of life?? I've pondered on it once here.. and received no answers.
However, considering that LIFE did gain consciousness at some form, at some level; then started the process of adapting to the environment. Evolution is in sync with entropy, a point that i think was conclusively proved in my earlier comment.
@facesmasher:
Each of those processes DO conform to the Laws of thermodynamics, since the whole system does
This 2nd law states that all systems, WHETHER OPEN OR CLOSED, have a tendency to disorder. There are some special cases where local order can increase, but this is at the expense of greater disorder elsewhere. Raw energy cannot generate the complex systems in living things, or the information required to build them. Yet, evolution is a building-up process, suggesting that things tend to become more complex and advanced over time. This is directly opposed to the law of entropy.
Somehow evolution seems to be the one system that does not adhere to the rest of the systems as it is trying to cope up with a changing and obviously increasingly chaotic environment.
If evolution has to cope with increasing randomness in nature then is has to adjust by increasing its stability thus conflicting with the 2nd law.
If you would like, read the oparin-haldane theory and the miller-urey experiment performed thereafter... look this up.. http://www.natcenscied.org/icons/icon1millerurey.html
That should explain WHY the molecules were formed...
Sorry but the reason you gave me fails to explain convincingly HOW life originated because from what I gathered by following the link, the Miller-Urey experiment, however revolutionary, was seriously flawed because Geological studies of sedimentary rock going back before the accepted origin of life demonstrates an atmosphere less like the one used in the Miller-Urey experiment, and more like the one we have today.
This eperiment, like several others only provides a PROBABLE explanation and not a definite one as to how life originated on earth and is as probable as the panspermia hypotheses.
1. I repeat again... Evolution IS NOT a system.. its simply a process.. one running alongside billions of others in ONE gigantic system..
And says who that its a building process?? You take an entirely different perspective.. Evolution just a struggle to survive in the given disorder, the one you are talking of. Its just an effort to bridge the gap between the dis-orderliness of the ecology and that of the physiology. Underneath the "built-up" multicellular organisms, lies the unending and unrelenting march of entropy.
Why are you overlookin the fact that underneath each of these "evolved" beings, at the molecular level, there still are chemical reactions, horrendously complex one at that, are still going on, which, you will agree, at all expense DO follow the Laws of thermodynamics..
2. I'm not falling for the "its-just-probable" bait. For now, its the best scientific explanation available as yet, backed up by an adequate amount of proof for majority of the scientific community. And unless someone(may be, you) comes up with something "more-probable" and "more-practical", I will continue believing in it.
Defence rests. :p
Well I find your claim that evolution is not a system to be a bit off the mark coz from what Ive read everyone who argues about this topic, on either side, agrees on one point...that evolution is a system.
The thoeries are backed up by proof as every other theory should be...but whether the proofs are adequate or not is the question. Can u quote any source which claims that the Miller-Urey experiment is accepted by the "majority of the scientific community"?
http://www.nmsr.org/text.htm
Well, what I thought would be a simple question and answer is turning out to be a debate of sorts so I think ill end this here and now.
And I know that these discussions can go on forever so Im not gonna invest anymore time in this one. Sorry i even started it in the forst place :p
switchblade:
do u beleive in evolution, or does it go against your religious belief that man was created by 'God'and didnt evolve from earlier primates?
@anonymous: I believe in Creation and not in Evolution. I thought that was clear from the above debate but then again its good to clarify things.
Post a Comment