|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Uniformitarianism - 8/21/2008 5:10:44 PM
|
|
|
essentialsaltes
Posts: 1083
Joined: 10/14/2007
From: Inglewood, CA
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: DanJames
I don't think we are all working on the same definition of entropy. Is entropy the increase of disorder, or the movement of energy from a higher energy state to a lower energy state?
Entropy has a somewhat slippery definition depending on the context. The change in entropy of a system = the amount of heat absorbed by it divided by the temperature.
At the small scale, entropy can also be related to how many potential states the system can be in - using this view, there's a closer connection between order and low entropy.
If your system is a quantity of sand, there are a lot more ways it can be a random lumpy pile than ways it can be something recognizable as a castle, so the entropy of a sand castle is (all things being equal) less than that of a equal-mass pile of sand.
At the freezing point of water, there are more ways for water molecules to be moving around in random locations than there are ways of being locked into a hexagonal snowflake. So a snowflake has a lower entropy than an equal-mass raindrop.
The wiki entry on Entropy has a nice, reasonably simple, example of ice melting. It shows how the increase in entropy of the melted ice is greater than the decrease in entropy of the surrounding air. So there is a net increase. If we 'run the film backwards,' it would be similar to a snowflake forming in cold air: the snowflake's entropy decreases and the colder surrounding air's increases. Again, the net will be an increase.
_____________________________
"My object in all arguments is not to make any preconceived opinion of mine seem right, but merely to discover and establish the truth, whatever the truth may be."
-- HP Lovecraft, letter to Robert E. Howard 7/27-28/34
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Uniformitarianism - 8/21/2008 5:18:18 PM
|
|
|
DanJames
Posts: 677
Joined: 12/13/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: essentialsaltes
quote:
ORIGINAL: DanJames
I don't think we are all working on the same definition of entropy. Is entropy the increase of disorder, or the movement of energy from a higher energy state to a lower energy state?
Entropy has a somewhat slippery definition depending on the context. The change in entropy of a system = the amount of heat absorbed by it divided by the temperature.
At the small scale, entropy can also be related to how many potential states the system can be in - using this view, there's a closer connection between order and low entropy.
If your system is a quantity of sand, there are a lot more ways it can be a random lumpy pile than ways it can be something recognizable as a castle, so the entropy of a sand castle is (all things being equal) less than that of a equal-mass pile of sand.
At the freezing point of water, there are more ways for water molecules to be moving around in random locations than there are ways of being locked into a hexagonal snowflake. So a snowflake has a lower entropy than an equal-mass raindrop.
The wiki entry on Entropy has a nice, reasonably simple, example of ice melting. It shows how the increase in entropy of the melted ice is greater than the decrease in entropy of the surrounding air. So there is a net increase. If we 'run the film backwards,' it would be similar to a snowflake forming in cold air: the snowflake's entropy decreases and the colder surrounding air's increases. Again, the net will be an increase.
Yet, if the snowflake were to remain at the same temperature, but the molecules were to be moved into a sphere shape, the structure would be just as organized, but in a higher energy state because the molecules don't "want" to be in that shape, they want to have their poles lined up into the hexagonal structure that you mentioned because that's their lowest energy state at that temperature. Just like magnets moving with nobody touching them, they move because where they are going is a lower energy state than where they are even though energy must be used to get them there. My question is: is entropy the increase in disorder or is it the movement of energy into a lower energy state from a higher energy state.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Uniformitarianism - 8/21/2008 6:09:24 PM
|
|
|
essentialsaltes
Posts: 1083
Joined: 10/14/2007
From: Inglewood, CA
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: DanJames
Yet, if the snowflake were to remain at the same temperature, but the molecules were to be moved into a sphere shape, the structure would be just as organized
Not quite. The liquid molecules are free to move, so they have additional degrees of freedom that the snowflake's molecules do not have access to. This means there are many more potential states the water molecules could be in. So the water has a higher entropy than the snowflake.
quote:
My question is: is entropy the increase in disorder or is it the movement of energy into a lower energy state from a higher energy state.
The entropy is a measure of the disorder.
When you add heat to something, there are more ways its atoms can wiggle, so there is more disorder, and the entropy increases.
"In statistical thermodynamics the entropy is defined as (proportional to) the logarithm of the number of microscopic configurations that result in the observed macroscopic description of the thermodynamic system"
That's the definition most useful on the small scale. On the macroscopic scale, it's more convenient to think of entropy as a state-function like temperature and pressure. Then we have mathematical rules for calculating the change in the entropy of a system. The change is the heat added divided by the current temperature. Now we have a solid way to calculate it, but it's harder to see what it 'means'. But it can be related to the amount of work the system can do. If you try to turn your system into a heat engine, the entropy gives a measure of how much of the energy in the system will be unobtainable.
Wiki quotes a bunch of textbook definitions; perhaps the most useful is:
Entropy is "a measure of the unavailability of a system’s energy to do work; also a measure of disorder; the higher the entropy the greater the disorder"
_____________________________
"My object in all arguments is not to make any preconceived opinion of mine seem right, but merely to discover and establish the truth, whatever the truth may be."
-- HP Lovecraft, letter to Robert E. Howard 7/27-28/34
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Uniformitarianism - 8/22/2008 8:09:46 AM
|
|
|
Veritas
Posts: 519
Joined: 4/19/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
quote:
Yes.
According to the Second Law of Thermodynamics there is no process that results in a decrease in entropy. This holds whether a mind, machine, mechanism, any, all or none is involved. This includes, but is not limited to, the processes of evolution and the building of sand castles.
If anyone is under the impression that evolution has a problem with the Second Law of Thermodynamics, that person does not understand evolution or thermodynamics or both.
Entropy never decreases.
So when talkorigins explains:
Entropy may therefore decrease locally on the Earth as long as the entropy of the Earth's environment (which includes the rest of the universe) increases by an equal or greater amount. This is in fact what happens, and it happens regularly. When a snowflake forms, its entropy is reduced at the expense of a greater increase in the entropy of its environment. None of this violates the second law of thermodynamics. As the FAQ on the Second Law of Thermodynamics, Evolution and Probability clearly illustrates, the second law does not make evolution impossible.
They are wrong to say that 'entropy may therefore decrease...'?
Read the very next word in the bolded text you quoted above. "Entropy may therefore decrease locally..." This is consistent with what I said in Post 23 that you quoted in Post 26. Here is the line again:
quote:
ORIGINAL: Veritas
The Second Law of Thermodynamics allows for a local decrease in entropy, provided there is an equal or greater increase in entropy elsewhere.
When I said entropy never decreases, I mean we might see an local entropy increase, but net entropy never decreases.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Uniformitarianism - 8/22/2008 8:20:14 AM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 3145
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
Entropy has a somewhat slippery definition depending on the context. Naturally, just like "evolution"!
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Uniformitarianism - 8/22/2008 9:28:32 AM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 7843
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: offline
|
quote:
When I said entropy never decreases, I mean we might see an local entropy increase, but net entropy never decreases.
Well it's always good to say what you mean, when you are pushed into it.
_____________________________
Jack
It has been said that politics is the second oldest profession. I have learned that it bears a striking resemblance to the first..
- Ronald Reagan
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Uniformitarianism - 8/22/2008 10:20:15 AM
|
|
|
Veritas
Posts: 519
Joined: 4/19/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
quote:
When I said entropy never decreases, I mean we might see an local entropy increase, but net entropy never decreases.
Well it's always good to say what you mean, when you are pushed into it.
I had already said it. You quoted where I said it. I assumed you had read what you quoted and responded to.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Uniformitarianism - 8/22/2008 1:02:17 PM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 7843
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: offline
|
quote:
I had already said it. You quoted where I said it. I assumed you had read what you quoted and responded to.
So when you use the term "I mean" you meant that you actually said it? Then one wonders why you had to qualify it.
I think you are being intentionally vague in a rather silly attempt to make it appear you have some special knowledge of the subject. Speak plainly or stop bothering everyone.
_____________________________
Jack
It has been said that politics is the second oldest profession. I have learned that it bears a striking resemblance to the first..
- Ronald Reagan
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Uniformitarianism - 8/23/2008 12:35:00 AM
|
|
|
iluvatar
Posts: 1944
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
quote:
I had already said it. You quoted where I said it. I assumed you had read what you quoted and responded to.
So when you use the term "I mean" you meant that you actually said it? Then one wonders why you had to qualify it.
I think you are being intentionally vague in a rather silly attempt to make it appear you have some special knowledge of the subject. Speak plainly or stop bothering everyone.
You enjoy this, don't you?
-Dan.
_____________________________
Well, I've been to one world fair, a picnic, and a rodeo, and that's the stupidest thing I ever heard come over a set of earphones.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Uniformitarianism - 8/23/2008 1:53:42 AM
|
|
|
essentialsaltes
Posts: 1083
Joined: 10/14/2007
From: Inglewood, CA
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: iluvatar
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
quote:
I had already said it. You quoted where I said it. I assumed you had read what you quoted and responded to.
So when you use the term "I mean" you meant that you actually said it? Then one wonders why you had to qualify it.
I think you are being intentionally vague in a rather silly attempt to make it appear you have some special knowledge of the subject. Speak plainly or stop bothering everyone.
You enjoy this, don't you?
-Dan.
He certainly appears to enjoy muddying waters that are perfectly clear.
_____________________________
"My object in all arguments is not to make any preconceived opinion of mine seem right, but merely to discover and establish the truth, whatever the truth may be."
-- HP Lovecraft, letter to Robert E. Howard 7/27-28/34
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Uniformitarianism - 8/23/2008 9:41:26 AM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 3145
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
He certainly appears to enjoy muddying waters that are perfectly clear. Are these the same "clear" waters that redefine evolution in every other thread?
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Uniformitarianism - 8/23/2008 10:26:30 AM
|
|
|
HHV5
Posts: 159
Joined: 7/20/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
quote:
He certainly appears to enjoy muddying waters that are perfectly clear. Are these the same "clear" waters that redefine evolution in every other thread?
Care to give examples?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Uniformitarianism - 8/23/2008 10:34:20 AM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 3145
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
No, you'll just claim I'm muddying the waters, HHV5.
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Uniformitarianism - 8/23/2008 12:35:37 PM
|
|
|
HHV5
Posts: 159
Joined: 7/20/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
No, you'll just claim I'm muddying the waters, HHV5.
So you're a YEC soothsayer now.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Uniformitarianism - 8/23/2008 12:50:15 PM
|
|
|
Consecrated2God
Posts: 4940
Joined: 4/4/2005
From: Formerly Jesus Land
Status: online
|
ATTENTION: Moderator's Note
Please bring this Thread back on Topic. Thank you.
Please do not reply to this message within the Community.
Please email Community@salemwebnetwork.com with questions, comments, or concerns.
Please do not send me PMs regarding this message.
Thank you for your attention and complicance in this matter.
Lisa Luper
Faith Community Network
Forums Moderator
_____________________________
<--Plantation house in Louisiana
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Uniformitarianism - 8/24/2008 5:12:35 PM
|
|
|
DanJames
Posts: 677
Joined: 12/13/2007
Status: offline
|
Wow.
quote:
ORIGINAL: essentialsaltes
Not quite. The liquid molecules are free to move, so they have additional degrees of freedom that the snowflake's molecules do not have access to. This means there are many more potential states the water molecules could be in. So the water has a higher entropy than the snowflake.
Right, if I may speak in layman's terms (since I am a layman). When an ice cube melts, the water molecules fall into their lowest energy state of slipping past each other and eventually taking the shape of their container since the molecules have enough energy to free themselves of their bonds. When the water freezes, the water molecules again take their lowest energy state of being electromagnetically bound to a crystalline shape. Neither involve an increase in order that was not already present in the nature of the water molecule. To bring this back to the beach, this is in stark contrast to the sandcastle example where the sand was organized in a manner not already provided for in the nature of the sand. Intelligence had to be inserted. It think, that is the point.
Edit: But to bring this around full circle. A settling of water molecules into the present lowest energy state at a low temperature is not comparable with the arising of specified complexity present in simple living systems.
< Message edited by DanJames -- 8/24/2008 5:21:50 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Uniformitarianism - 8/24/2008 5:54:25 PM
|
|
|
essentialsaltes
Posts: 1083
Joined: 10/14/2007
From: Inglewood, CA
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: DanJames
Neither involve an increase in order that was not already present in the nature of the water molecule.
That treads too close to philosophy for my taste. Whether the order was 'already present' or not, the rules of heat flow and statistical dynamics yield the correct results and refer to the actual order that exists in any particular state.
quote:
To bring this back to the beach, this is in stark contrast to the sandcastle example where the sand was organized in a manner not already provided for in the nature of the sand. Intelligence had to be inserted. It think, that is the point.
That may be a point, but it has nothing to do with the uniformitarian laws of thermodynamics. It doesn't matter if intelligence is involved or not, the total entropy of a closed system always increases. It may require intelligence to reduce the entropy inside your refrigerator, but this does not disobey the laws of thermodynamics. Neither does a snowflake. Neither does evolution.
_____________________________
"My object in all arguments is not to make any preconceived opinion of mine seem right, but merely to discover and establish the truth, whatever the truth may be."
-- HP Lovecraft, letter to Robert E. Howard 7/27-28/34
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Uniformitarianism - 8/24/2008 6:10:08 PM
|
|
|
DanJames
Posts: 677
Joined: 12/13/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: essentialsaltes
quote:
ORIGINAL: DanJames
Neither involve an increase in order that was not already present in the nature of the water molecule.
That treads too close to philosophy for my taste. Whether the order was 'already present' or not, the rules of heat flow and statistical dynamics yield the correct results and refer to the actual order that exists in any particular state.
I didn't make a philosophical statement. It takes less energy for a water molecule to sit with its positive hydrogen up against the negative oxygen than for it to sit hydrogen to hydrogen. Therefore, when water freezes, its lowest energy state is that of a crystal. A non-polar molecule doesn't do this because its lowest energy state is disorganized. The order is present in the nature of the water molecule. That's what I meant.
quote:
quote:
To bring this back to the beach, this is in stark contrast to the sandcastle example where the sand was organized in a manner not already provided for in the nature of the sand. Intelligence had to be inserted. It think, that is the point.
That may be a point, but it has nothing to do with the uniformitarian laws of thermodynamics. It doesn't matter if intelligence is involved or not, the total entropy of a closed system always increases. It may require intelligence to reduce the entropy inside your refrigerator, but this does not disobey the laws of thermodynamics. Neither does a snowflake. Neither does evolution.
I didn't mean to stray from the point. I'm not waxing philosophical, only stating the point that to say that the formation of a snowflake validates the statement that biological evolution faces no stumbling block in regards to objects becoming more ordered due to a change in energy. I'll admit, I had to go back to the first page of posts to see what the point of this conversation was.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Uniformitarianism - 8/24/2008 9:21:51 PM
|
|
|
essentialsaltes
Posts: 1083
Joined: 10/14/2007
From: Inglewood, CA
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: DanJames
I didn't make a philosophical statement. It takes less energy for a water molecule to sit with its positive hydrogen up against the negative oxygen than for it to sit hydrogen to hydrogen. Therefore, when water freezes, its lowest energy state is that of a crystal. A non-polar molecule doesn't do this because its lowest energy state is disorganized. The order is present in the nature of the water molecule. That's what I meant.
The entropy of any substance will decrease when it freezes. It's nothing special about water.
_____________________________
"My object in all arguments is not to make any preconceived opinion of mine seem right, but merely to discover and establish the truth, whatever the truth may be."
-- HP Lovecraft, letter to Robert E. Howard 7/27-28/34
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Uniformitarianism - 8/25/2008 1:42:11 AM
|
|
|
BVZ
Posts: 368
Joined: 11/2/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
quote:
Take a person, some sand and water, and put them in a closed system. A box for instance. It will be dark in there, so you can give him a flashlight too I guess. Now he starts building a sandcastle. You can see the entropy inside the box as all the energy that can no longer be used, since you will need more energy to convert it to usable energy. For instance, the person in the box is using up the oxygen, creating CO2. He does this so that he can release energy, which he then uses to build the sandcastle. Once this is done, some of it will be in the form of CO2 floating around, and some as heat. The grains stacked on top of each other will have more potential energy as well.
The amount of energy that is made unavailable by the system (sancastle builder) is the entropy. Can you see that the heat energy, potential energy in the sand, and the heated up air inside the box can no longer be used by the system?
That is all the second law of thermodynamics is talking about. In a closed system, the total amount of energy that is no longer available to the system can only increase.
Sure; now build that sandcastle applying the same energy in some form, absent a mind and machinery.
Why?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Uniformitarianism - 8/25/2008 2:28:16 AM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 7843
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: offline
|
quote:
Why?
To demonstrate that they aren't required.
_____________________________
Jack
It has been said that politics is the second oldest profession. I have learned that it bears a striking resemblance to the first..
- Ronald Reagan
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Uniformitarianism - 8/26/2008 10:47:13 AM
|
|
|
BVZ
Posts: 368
Joined: 11/2/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
quote:
Why?
To demonstrate that they aren't required.
Why would I want to demostrate this?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Uniformitarianism - 8/26/2008 3:13:42 PM
|
|
|
DanJames
Posts: 677
Joined: 12/13/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
quote:
What laws of nature would those be and in which cases does it suit us for them to be inconstant? The most obvious one is entropy which must be suspended by evolutionists for life to evolve more complex forms over zillions of years. And no, I won't be responding to the tired old "closed/open system" debate if you wish to raise it.
I know that it isn't exactly what the OP is addressing, but I guess this is what started this whole discussion. Have we decided that entropy must be suspended for life to evolve more complex forms over zillions of years?
But as for the question raised by Drj, if by uniformitarianism, we are refering to the thought that the present is the key to the past, I would agree because we can understand geography by observing present day processes. But uniformitarianism to the exclusion of the possibility of catastrophism, I would reject because it is too exclusive. It rules out possible explanations before they have a chance to present themselves.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Uniformitarianism - 8/26/2008 3:28:06 PM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 3145
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
Have we decided that entropy must be suspended for life to evolve more complex forms over zillions of years? I've yet to see a coherent definition of entropy for the last two pages! Which is exactly why I won't be responding to the "debate". The bottom line is simple: UCD resulting in more and more complexity over inderterminate periods of time requires evolutionists to suspend the constancy of uniformitarianism. The classic example is "punctuated equilibrium" as a mechanism to explain away missing links. It's all just smoke and mirrors and wishful thinking!
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Uniformitarianism - 8/26/2008 4:47:05 PM
|
|
|
essentialsaltes
Posts: 1083
Joined: 10/14/2007
From: Inglewood, CA
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: DanJames
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
quote:
What laws of nature would those be and in which cases does it suit us for them to be inconstant? The most obvious one is entropy which must be suspended by evolutionists for life to evolve more complex forms over zillions of years. And no, I won't be responding to the tired old "closed/open system" debate if you wish to raise it.
I know that it isn't exactly what the OP is addressing, but I guess this is what started this whole discussion. Have we decided that entropy must be suspended for life to evolve more complex forms over zillions of years?
It doesn't need to be decided. It's clear that the second law of thermodynamics does not have to be suspended for evolution to take place. The only quibbling in the forum seems to be about the presence or absence of intelligence, but this has no relevance to that law. Despite intelligent input, the internal combustion engine does not disobey the 2nd law.
quote:
But as for the question raised by Drj, if by uniformitarianism, we are refering to the thought that the present is the key to the past, I would agree because we can understand geography by observing present day processes. But uniformitarianism to the exclusion of the possibility of catastrophism, I would reject because it is too exclusive. It rules out possible explanations before they have a chance to present themselves.
Uniformitarianism has a specific meaning in geology, but more generally it refers to the idea that the laws of nature do not change in time. Using this assumption, scientists have demonstrated the occurence of catastrophes like supervolcanoes, asteroid impacts, or even the hypothesized birth of the moon from a collision of a planetoid with the early earth. So, as it is used, uniformitarianism does not exclude catastrophes.
_____________________________
"My object in all arguments is not to make any preconceived opinion of mine seem right, but merely to discover and establish the truth, whatever the truth may be."
-- HP Lovecraft, letter to Robert E. Howard 7/27-28/34
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
