Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 618:
Line 618: − + − + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Talk:Counterexamples to Evolution (view source)
Revision as of 16:48, September 18, 2016
, 16:48, September 18, 2016Replied
Ancestral languages were only spoken and not written, so it is very hard to reconstruct them. Writing was invented much later. However is there any proof that linguists accept that there was no common ancestral language?--[[User:JoeyJ|JoeyJ]] ([[User talk:JoeyJ|talk]]) 13:17, 13 February 2016 (EST)
Ancestral languages were only spoken and not written, so it is very hard to reconstruct them. Writing was invented much later. However is there any proof that linguists accept that there was no common ancestral language?--[[User:JoeyJ|JoeyJ]] ([[User talk:JoeyJ|talk]]) 13:17, 13 February 2016 (EST)
== Added section: Evolution and the second law ==
== Evolution and the second law of thermodynamics ==
The second law is a statistical law and says that entropy tends to increase, not that it always increases, so already this particular argument against evolution is flawed. Furthermore, it only applies to a closed system, the earth is not a closed system as the sun pours energy onto the earth. Also some systems can become more ordered, but you have to dp work. For example, if you cool a glass of water in a refrigerator, it's entropy decreases.
The second law is a statistical law and says that entropy tends to increase, not that it always increases, so already this particular argument against evolution is flawed. Furthermore, it only applies to a closed system, the earth is not a closed system as the sun pours energy onto the earth. Also some systems can become more ordered, but you have to do work. For example, if you cool a glass of water in a refrigerator, it's entropy decreases.
This isn't to say evolution is true, rather that this argument is not. [[User:Richardm|Richardm]] ([[User talk:Richardm|talk]]) 11:57, 16 September 2016 (EDT)
This isn't to say evolution is true, rather that this argument is not. [[User:Richardm|Richardm]] ([[User talk:Richardm|talk]]) 11:57, 16 September 2016 (EDT)
:This argument is quite correct. Entropy means ''"lack of order or predictability; gradual decline into disorder."''[https://www.google.com/search?q=entropy&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8] The 2nd Law states that everything goes from order to disorder, from complex to simple; you cannot avoid it. And if the earth is not a closed system, as you and too many others harp on, then why is the 2nd Law so observable everywhere you go? Does an apple get better or worse if you slice one open and leave it on the counter for a month? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] ([[User talk:Karajou|talk]]) 14:08, 16 September 2016 (EDT)
:This argument is quite correct. Entropy means ''"lack of order or predictability; gradual decline into disorder."''[https://www.google.com/search?q=entropy&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8] The 2nd Law states that everything goes from order to disorder, from complex to simple; you cannot avoid it. And if the earth is not a closed system, as you and too many others harp on, then why is the 2nd Law so observable everywhere you go? Does an apple get better or worse if you slice one open and leave it on the counter for a month? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] ([[User talk:Karajou|talk]]) 14:08, 16 September 2016 (EDT)
::To answer your question, a I would expect the apple to get worse and rot. However I feel reading my earlier comment, I was not very clear. Let's talk about closed systems since you mention it, and let's simplify matters by neglecting the statistical nature, so that we can assume entropy '''never''' decreases.
My point is that the second law only applies to closed systems and can easily be disproven if one tries to apply it to an open system.
For example, suppose you make a cup of coffee, and leave it on the table. Let's says the coffee is at 60°C and the room at 20°C. You will agree that the coffee is an open system, it can exchange heat with its surroundings. So let's take the coffee (but not the cup to make it easier later on) as our system. What happens?
Well over time the coffee will cool down, i.e. its temperature will decrease and there will be a flow of heat out of the cup of coffee and into the room.
So what has happened to the entropy of the cup of coffee? Given that the entropy change <math> \Delta S</math>, is given by:
<math> \Delta S = \int_1^2 \frac{dQ}{T}</math>
Where <math> Q </math> is heat, <math> T </math> is the temperature and 1 and 2 represent the initial and final states. Since we can express the heat lost as
<math> dQ = mc dT</math>
Where <math> m</math> mass of coffee and <math> c</math> is its specific heat capacity. We can substitute this in and so
<math> \Delta S = \int^{T_2}_{T_1} \frac{mc}{T} dT = mc (\ln{T_2}- \ln{T_1})</math>
Where <math> T_1</math> and <math> T_2 </math> are the initial and final temperatures respectively. Hence we can see that the entropy of the coffee must '''decrease'''.
So I hope you can see my point that the second law simply isn't valid for an open system. I'm not saying that in an open system, entropy can't increase.
Also, disorder is a good starting point when thinking about entropy, but it is not a perfect description of entropy, so some you have to careful when thinking about it in that way. Though I believe your example to be correct. [[User:Richardm|Richardm]] ([[User talk:Richardm|talk]]) 12:48, 18 September 2016 (EDT)
(username removed)