Changes
/* My answers to Randall7 */
::::::::Now, I can concede your argument about the crystals, but only to a certain extent. It cannot be a model for living organisms because the crystals are lifeless. Evolution is not a thermodynamic process, but as I said above, the core point of the 2nd Law - and this is confirmed every day by direct observation - is that complex always goes to simple. Period. The explanations by scientists - and I stress the fact that they are nothing more than explanations - concerning evolution is that life came from ''simple'' cells which evolved into more and more complex life forms. It is on that context which violates the 2nd Law. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 02:56, 14 June 2012 (EDT)
:Andy, how do you explain the growth of a crystal (an ordered arrangement of ions) from a solution (a disordered arrangement), if "the Second Law does ban disorder becoming more orderly", as you say? --[[User:FrederickT3|FrederickT3]] 03:39, 9 June 2012 (EDT)
[[User:JudyJ|JudyJ]] 00:51, 14 June 2012 (EDT)
:Thank you, JudyJ, for your context and your perspective. One thing I was a little confused about was the heat budget of the Sun-Earth system "driving" the entropy of the reactions you discussed. But I think your point about materials going back and forth between high- and low-entropy states is a good one. This is absolutely possible as long as the total entropy of the materials and their surroundings always increases (so this is not true reversibility in a thermodynamic sense). Even ashes can go back to logs, but this requires substantial work, changes at the atomic level, and usually many processes, all generating net entropy.
:Mr. Schlafly, no one here is seriously arguing that perpetual motion machines are possible, so please stop bringing them up as a distraction. Instead, please address the substantial criticism of your position: Entropy/disorder is not always increasing everywhere all the time. Local decreases in entropy can occur without violating the Second Law. Simply saying that entropy or disorder is always increasing cannot be used as an argument against evolution because it is not always true - it is true for the universe as a whole, but not for every single thing in the universe. --[[User:Randall7|Randall7]] 21:02, 14 June 2012 (EDT)
