evolution and the second law of thermodynamics

[hazetwostep]

question... how do evolutionists feel about evolution being the only natural process where there is not decay but actual movement toward greater complexity? i know the law mentioned specifically refers to energy but the principle is solid i believe....

hazetwostep Reviewed by hazetwostep on 07-21-2007. evolution and the second law of thermodynamics question... how do evolutionists feel about evolution being the only natural process where there is not decay but actual movement toward greater complexity? i know the law mentioned specifically refers to energy but the principle is solid i believe.... Rating: 5

[Darth Vapor]

Better, or more easily adaptive, does not necessarily mean "more complex". Watch your phraseology, hazetwostep. Anyone that doesn't see a link between man and ape, by this point and time, is a buffoon. That's not to say that I don't believe in God. I do. Evolution is God's tool for change. What takes Him/Her/It one split second to evolve, looks like it takes a billion years to us.

[MadSativa]

I dont know about the link between man and ape where is the dna to prove this we have been the same as aps have been the same ...... I must add MY GRANDPARENTS WERE NOT MONKEYS and also when the whole ape to man was being disscussed their were soo many frouds and that little female ape they have that is sopoed to have a brain steam out the bottom of the skull is mising all of the verabrea in the upper portins so how do we know if that skull even gows with those bones they never let use match em I realy question our evolution cause we dont have any proof of our link too apes but yet their are facts and proof which link us to other mamales. even still where and when did our DNA change cause they found man bones not monkey or ape Man long before the supposed change all this is debunked because of this evolution theroy . when I think we need to start almost completely over with this project monkeys have always been monkeys and man is simular but not monkey or ape. When the sasqush is found I think alot of answers will come from teir reserch. Their is aND organization serching for the sasquach as we speak

[Oh My High]

The second law of thermodynamics only applies to closed systems. We live in an open system with the sun providing us a constant source of energy for the next 4 billion years. That's 4 billion years for creationists to wait for their argument to possibly matter and by then life on earth will long have perished due to the sun's inevitable gobbling up the earth for dinner.

Oh, and another natural process from simplicity to complexity was the formation of the universe.

[hazetwostep]

interesting... i was not saying this was my stance. i heard it argued quite well one time and i wanted to hear some other people's thoughts on it.

[Oneironaut]

question... how do evolutionists feel about evolution being the only natural process where there is not decay but actual movement toward greater complexity? i know the law mentioned specifically refers to energy but the principle is solid i believe....

It is solid, but it's poorly understood by laypeople and especially by creationists (like all the other scientific discoveries they have to ignore in order to support their claims).

As already mentioned before, the second law of thermodynamics applies to closed systems. The Earth, receiving a constant influx of energy from the Sun, does not qualify as a closed system. Ask any physicist.

Also, by no means is evolution the only natural process where there is not decay but actual movement toward greater complexity. Haven't you ever seen a snowflake? That used to be a formless drop of water at one point, yet a completely natural process converted it into a complex shape with order and symmetry.

If you're looking for more information on why evolution does not violate the laws of thermodynamics, I would suggest reading some of the articles here:
The Talk.Origins Archive Outline

EDIT: By the way, what's up with this word "evolutionist" for anyone who doesn't deny the theory of evolution? I think it's ridiculous that we even need such a term. It's as if we lived in a society where you were labeled a "Holocaustist" if you did not deny the Holocaust or an "HIV-ist" if you did not deny that HIV causes AIDS. These questions have already been settled by historians and viral pathologists, just like the question of whether or not evolution occurs has already been long settled by biologists. There is no more serious scientific debate about these issues anymore, yet denying these facts is somehow vogue among certain groups of laypeople who don't bother to properly educate themselves about them.