Snowflakes move NATURALLY from disorder to order as they form. Snowflake formation is an exothermic process. The heat-of-formation from a snowflake forming ensures that the disorder of the universe is always increasing. DNA does the same thing. When it becomes more ordered, it gives off heat, which makes the universe more chaotic, and the NET entropy is +. If you are trapped on this concept as evidence against evolution. GO TO THE LIBRARY, DIMWIT!
@drgoldteef Besides, it takes heat, energy to lift the water up from a warm body of water to a height where it is cold enough to create the snowflake. Snow is a sign of a huge thermal engine at work evaporating and lifting vasts amount of water vapor into the air.
What about blackholes? Not even light (including heat) can escape them. They keep eating up matter and light thus always reducing the entropy of the universe!!!!!
@Edy5656 False. How do we detect black holes? They do emit radiation!!
Note that "eating up matter" is kind of a strange saying. There is no mass lost in a black hole (that is why it is so terribly heavy-it distorts space(singularity)).
@RTRVII I thought we detected black holes due to the gravitation pull they have on other matter that we can observe? And yes, I fully understood that mass was conserved...
This is a great example of the second law, but it does not explain it in it's entirety. To apply this video to "the second law broken by evolutionists" would be a mistake. With that being said, that video also had so many things wrong with it I don't know where to start. I am a Christian and please don't judge all of us based on that disgrace of science. We may be few but their are those of us that can, and do, practice GOOD science. Thank You.
@RTRVII Ex-creationist. I grew up in an evangelical church and thats all i heard. Then I took a class on the subject at a reformed college and was educated in both evolutionary science and the Biblical text. I believe that God created the world, but I don't know how, or when. He may have used the process of evolution to create life. All I do know for sure is who created us, and why.
@Mayhem108 To prove God scientifically is impossible. To prove God philosophically is very possible. I know that every effect has a cause, I call that cause God. If the existence of God could be proven with 100% certainty, then there would be need for faith. And if you've spent any time in a lab or know anything about the way things are proven scientifically you would know that nothing we hold as scientific fact can actually be 100% conclusive. Why do you ask?
@Mayhem108 To prove God scientifically is impossible. To prove God philosophically is very possible. I know that every effect has a cause, I call that cause God. If the existence of God could be proven with 100% certainty, then there would be need for faith. And if you've spent any time in a lab or know anything about the way things are proven scientifically you would know that nothing we hold as scientific fact can actually be 100% conclusive. Why do you ask?
@Mayhem108 To prove God scientifically is impossible. To prove God philosophically is very possible. I know that every effect has a cause, I call that cause God. If the existence of God could be proven, then there would be need for faith. Why do you ask?
you've just proven your lack of skills to properly argue on a Philosophical debate, but yet toooooo far from proving God. The Khalam argument is falacious. If an uncaused being must exists to prove the existence of a finite being, then why can't the finite being known as Universe be uncaused itself. Your premise is bogus then your whole argument falls as a superfluous construct thats -at best- uneeded on your own terms.
but what i think is really confusing is trying to the debate between the existance of a god...as of now God's existance can not be proved or disproved and arguing towards either point is being close minded...I mean come on, people stop trying to make yourselves feel more secure about your own beliefs (or disbeliefs) and start respecting others peoples ideas...jeez talk about moving towards a state or lower energy.
But i say that the second law still holds true and that everything does still turn towards a maximum entropy...Life is not 100% efficient (or reversible for that matter) Despite all the "Work" we do to survive (evolution included) death is still inevitable and death still decreases the entropy of the world (Carbon emmisions and what not) as it should. This is true regardless of what practicality are lives hold or how "evolved" we are when we live them. So, no evolution doesn't defy the law
I think besides the first quote the information of this video was not really helpful in the so called "Debate". I say this because the first quote concerning entropy is what the law is based on and the other two statements (heat and work) are different ways of saying the same thing about the disorder or "entropy" of a system and the statement about entropy is really what these creationists are arguing over. They believe that if a system tends towards disorder so does the universe.
Anyone who says evolution violates the second law has to prove that they evolutionary process sends more energy to the sun than it receives from the sum.
I've lectured KW on this before. The earth/sun system is entropic. "Disorder'" is increasing. What do you think the solar wind is? They are particles whose possible set of microstates have been vastly increased since being ejected from the sun as a byproduct of thermonuclear reactions. The set of possible microstates the earth/sun system can be in is increasing. "Disorder" is therefore increasing.
This is the only way 'disorder/order' applies to thermodynamics. Entropy is energy dispersal in a system and since it increases disorder in the system, the disorder of a system is a measure of it's entropy, of it's level of energy dispersal.
T2LoT does not state what a system can or can't do, it simply says it can only do whatever it does with a finite set of energy transfers and then the system dies.
Until that happens though, the entropy of the Earth can decrease and shift further away from the thermodynamic equilibrium of the universe. The same applies to all life forms on the Earth; we obtain energy ultimately from the Sun, which allows us to remain far away from the thermodynamic equilibrium of the universe.
ally0138: I taught science for 26 yrs. I have studied the subject for 40 yrs. I know the difference between an open and closed system. Entropy effects BOTH.
A decrease in entropy is possible, it does not contradict the 2nd law. The 2nd law explicitly states "For an isolated system".
If I am wrong can you please explain to me how refrigeration is possible, because it would contradict the 2nd law were it able to apply to anything other than an isolated system?
" 2nd law explicitly states "For an isolated system"."
You are just stubborn, aren't you.
Should I throw away my Oxford Dictionary which says, "All REAL processes..."? Should I throw out the Smithsonian article, the examples which Asimov used were all OPEN systems? Should I throw away my book by Hawking who does EXACTLY the same thing in A Brief History of Time? Evolutionists are so shallow(!) They say 'closed systems only' but all their illustrations are OPEN systems!
ally0138: No. Everything wears down, everyting ages. Everything grows old and eventually comes to disuse both physical and organic. Entropy has its affect in all of them.
Get used to it. It is the way of the world, not evolution.
Kirk, you continue to call me stubborn and claim I was badly taught, but you dont seem to have realised the difference between an open system a closed system and an isolated system.
As I said in my previous comment and I am getting tired of repeating the 2nd law EXPLICITLY STATES that it applies to AN ISOLATED SYSTEM. To suggest otherwise is incorrect at best and outright dishonesty at worst.
Yes, I would throw away that dictionary. you did not provide any specific examples for Azimov, you included a passage about him talking about the universe generally. The universe is an isolated system.
You have refused to answer my question for a second time now, I ask again:
If I am wrong can you please explain to me how refrigeration is possible, because it would contradict the 2nd law were it able to apply to anything other than an isolated system?
No matter what you say, entropy is the reason why nature does not develop life of its own accord. There is no example that nature does or even could do this by itself.
You can pretend all you wish but nothing is going to change the present reality: the world is degenerating, not evolving.
Unfortunately that is still not an answer to my question. I get the feeling here that you're just here to troll. You are dishonest if you are suggesting that the entropy of an open system cannot decrease.
I am not willing to continue this discussion unless you are willing to respond to my questions and the points that I have actually made, not some straw man argument about the world running down.
Kirkwhisper you are wrong. The increase in entropy applies over the entire universe. Therefore a slight decrease of entropy here on earth (evolution if you like, or a tree growing) means on overall increase somewhere else (the sun for example)
Thank you tasker. You are absolutely correct on this point. This seems to be where most people get confused and I've no idea why, it's really not that complicated.
As I have already pointed out, the Earth is such a system; we receive a constant input of energy from the Sun. When this energy supply runs out the entropy of the Earth will increase as it cools to the same temperature as the surrounding space and we will all freeze to death (if we have not been engulfed by the Sun itself before that).
@ally0138 "When this energy supply [of the Sun] runs out the entropy of the Earth will increase as it cools to the same temperature as the surrounding space"
Actually, the Earth system's entropy will *decrease* as it is cooled:
Delta S(earth) = -Q(from earth) / T(earth)
Turn off the Sun, heat flows from earth to universe, entropy of earth goes down.
If you have one take away from the second law, may it be the knowledge that entropy and temperature are related.
The analogy of the air-conditioner and the second form of the 2nd law above should make it clear that whilst the total entropy of an isolated system (including the universe) will always increase as equilibrium is approached; the entropy of an open (or closed) system can decrease. This is not a violation of the 2nd law, since the entropy of the surroundings (i.e. the universe as a whole) still increases.
The universe is gradually moving towards thermodynamic equilibrium, at which point all locations within it will be at a constant uniform temperature and no energy will be available to perform useful work. Thankfully this looks like its still a long way off.
Now, if you have understood everything up to now and have understood the air conditioner analogy I made in the video this next but shouldnt be a problem for you either.
It may be useful here to consider another form of the law: In a system, a process that occurs will tend to increase the total entropy of the universe.
As Asimov stated, the amount of useful work you can obtain from the energy in the universe is constantly decreasing, despite the amount of energy remaining constant. This is simply another description of the 2nd law and is entirely correct.
Now, if you are familiar with the 2nd law of thermodynamics it is normally stated as: The entropy of an isolated system not in equilibrium will tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value at equilibrium.
As you have correctly pointed out, the universe as a whole is an isolated system; therefore the 2nd law applies generally to the universe and the entropy of the universe is constantly increasing with time.
An isolated system is one which exchanges neither energy nor matter with the external surroundings. In practice this applies to the universe as a whole, but it is physically impossible to have a completely isolated system within the universe. (In much the same way as its physically impossible to have a total vacuum).
A closed system is one which may exchange energy (work) with its surroundings. This flow of energy or work may go in either direction, into or out of the system.
...The piston/cylinder arrangement described in the video is one example of such a system.
An open system is one which, as the name suggests, is open to its surroundings. Energy and matter are free to flow into and out of the system from the surrounding environment.
The entropy of the universe AS A WHOLE is increasing all the time, since as far as I'm aware there is no energy source outside the universe providing energy to it. However, entropy may decrease in isolated pockets within the universe (e.g. the Earth). Again, see my example with the air conditioner, if entropy of open systems could not decrease refrigeration would be impossible.
"Another way of stating the second law then is, 'The universe is constantly getting more disorderly!' Viewed that way we can see the second law all about us. We have to work hard to straighten a room, but left to itself it becomes a mess again very quickly and very easily. Even if we never enter it, it becomes dusty and musty. How difficult to maintain houses, and machinery, and our own bodies in perfect working order: how easy to let them deteriorate." Isaac Asimov: Smithsonian June 1970.
(Smithsonian, continued) "In fact, all we have to do is nothing, and everything deteriorates, collapses, breaks down, wears out, all by itself - and that is what the second law is all about."
"The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics states that the amount of available work you can get out of the energy of the universe is constantly decreasing. If you have a great deal of energy in one place, a large intensity of it, so that you have a high temperature here & a low temperature there, then you.."
(Smithsonian, continued) "Now, according to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, there is always a tendency for the hot areas to cool off and the cool areas to warm up so that less and less work can be obtained out of it. Until finally, when everything is one temperature, you cannot get any work out of it, even though all the energy is still there. And this is true for EVERYTHING in general, the universe all over."
That's right, Isaac: EVERYTHING is affected by entropy, the measure of disorder.
Thanks for all those quotes. I shall focus on the final point you quote from Isaac Asimov as I believe this is where the confusion lies. Unfortunately YouTube, with its limited comment length, is not a good medium for discussing this I am not optimistic that I will be able to explain sufficiently well where you appear to be misunderstanding the whole open/closed system distinction.
First of all I need to know that you understand the distinction between an open, closed and an isolated system. Apologies for the lack of sufficient distinction in some previous posts. Apologies also if any of what I am about to say comes across as patronising, but it is vital that you understand certain points in order for me to explain my reasoning. So can you confirm that you do indeed understand the distinction?
@Kirkwhisper Tidying up a room does not decrease entropy you idiot. It increases it. All work increases entropy. Making a room 'messier' increases it. Making a room 'neater' increases it. The energy source will always destroy more molecular bonds than the system will create. Therefore THERMODYNAMIC DISORDER will always increase in a system. You do know that the disorder being talked about is thermodynamic disorder and not your laughable 'neat room/messy room' laughable nonsense. Right? MORON!
@TerrencePhillip66 Do you understand that in any system that does work the energy is stored in molecular bonds or atomic bonds? These bonds are destroyed to produce the energy to do work. The 1 pound lump of coal now goes up the chimney as gases and fine particulates. It is in a much (snicker) 'messier' state than before it was burned for energy. It has a much greater set of microstates it can be in than when it was a lump of coal. Thermodynamic disorder has increased. As it always will.
I don't know what Oxford Dictionary you quoted, but mine says the following:
Entropy: (noun) a thermodynamic quantity expressing the unavailability of a systems thermal energy for conversion into mechanical work, often INTERPRETED as the degree of disorder or randomness in the system.
Unavailability of thermal energy to do work is by far a better description as it is specific and not open to INTERPRETATION.
Entropy can change in a system depends on the processes that take place- entropy in a system can decrease- JUST for that system- the overall entropy of the universe though will increase! Evolution does not contradict the second law of TD!
BTW: this is another perfect example of what creationists do. They LIE, they display PERFECT ignorance of the subject matter at hand, and then they get offended when you call them on their bullshit.
"you've just admitted you're a complete total moron."
No, just the opposite, 'genius'.
In reality, the position fools like you espouse can be likened unto one who has terrible arthritis in his hands & he decides to eliminate the problem by cutting off his hands. How's that for 'adapting' to ones environment? (wink)
...and yet you STILL don't know anything about genetics? You eat, drink, and sleep genetics and think that you're genetically closer to your grandparents than your parents?
And you just displayed the PERFECT example of how creationists butcher the 2nd LoT by confusing the boundary of an individual organism with the boundary of the evolutionary space (ie, Earth).
Thanks for that. Your conclusions are fatally flawed.
Hogwash. You don't know what the heck you're talking about and like your friends in 'scientism' you refuse to think outside the box and see for yourself the awful, real truth: the world is degenerating, not evolving.
Learn this, ignorant one: Each succeeding generation of living organisms is less complex, less organized, and less integrated in its genetic structure and the biological world is doing just the OPPOSITE to what you've been taught.
See. Once again, another PERFECT example of how creationists butcher the 2nd LoT.
The 2nd LoT has to do with the flow of HEAT, NOT with "complexity, organization, or integration" of genetic structures. In biology, the 2nd LoT is not violated because organic organisms constantly take in energy from the environment - either directly through sunlight or indirectly through eating.
Your understanding of the 2nd LoT would make ALL biological system impossible, including the germination of seeds.
I'd like to see the peer-review publication that supports your claim that each succeeding generation of living organisms is less complex. According to YOUR theory, we should have greater genetic homogeneity today than we did 2000 years ago. Problem is, YOU have 150 unique mutations from your parents, as do I and every other human.
Empty threats, just like all simple-minded theists when shown they have nothing but empty space between their ears.
I have the peer review science, published just LAST WEEK. Xue Y et al. Human Y chromosome base substitution mutation rate measured by direct sequencing in a deep-rooting pedigree. Current Biology 2009;doi:10.1016/j.cub.2009.07.032.
What do YOU have? Baseless assertions. Let's see YOUR peer-review research, Skippy.
Plus, it doesn't even make the slightest bit of logical sense. You're claiming in essence, that we are genetically MORE similar to our grandparents than our parents.
Can anyone spot the flaw in this assertion? I think most people can. It doesn't even take a geneticist to figure out that you're hopelessly misinformed.
Other things that would be impossible if each succeeding generation of living organism is less complex.
* New breeds of dogs, cats, cows, horses, sheep, goats, rabbits, chickens, and the myriad other animals that we subject to selective breeding (ie, guided evolution)
* Drug-resistant TB, malaria, staph, and other bacterial infections. By your reckoning, our drugs should be MORE effective with each successive generation.
I think we can see who the ignorant one really is here.
"New breeds of dogs, cats, cows, horses, sheep, goats, rabbits, chickens, & the myriad of ... (ie, guided evolution)"
Check them out for yourself. The dogs change but are still dogs. The cats, cows, horses, sheep, etc. change but they are still cats, or cows, or horses, etc. The change is always horizontal within the range of the genome and not vertical.
"Drug-resistant TB", etc. True but those changes that involve a loss of information & therefore a loss of certain functions..
Turn on all the other audio equipment in your house and have every one there talking. The noise level will eventually all equalize and you should be OK.
You know what, i still have no idea what Thermodynamics means........ i read somewhere else that it just means that there is no such thing as a perfect system, where we can use 100% of the energy efficiently, with out any loss of that energy.... There is always energy wasted in a system. So i watched like 5 films to get a better grip of the idea and i cant find it. Any1 kno where i can get a "Thermodynamics
I was just saying the same thing. I'm not sure what it even is, but some creationist like to use it as a weapon. I don't think they even know what it is?
Put very simply: heat will always flow from a hot region to a cold region, you can use this heat flow to generate work. You can reverse the heat flow (cold to hot), but only by applying work TO the system.
I don't disagree with a thing ally0138 said on his video clip. So entropy (the measure of disorder) increases with the exchange of heat over time. So why are you complaining about creationists who are saying the very same thing?
Are you one who denies the disorder factor in the definition?
The primary issue with the way creationists butcher the 2nd LoT is that the 2nd LoT only counts for CLOSED SYSTEMS. Earth is NOT A CLOSED SYSTEM.
The Earth receives energy from the sun. The total solar energy absorbed by Earth's atmosphere, oceans and land masses is approximately 3,850,000 exajoules per year. An exajoule is 10^18th joule. 1 joule = energy required to lift a small apple one meter straight up.
That's a lot of energy that the creationists discount.
Kirk, the problem isn't anyone (creationist or otherwise) claiming that entropy increases over time, this is correct. The problem is people claiming that processes such as evolution somehow violate the 2nd law - they dont.
Like many people you have equated entropy to disorder and come to the conclusion that everything tends to disorder therefore no process that makes things more ordered is possible.
This is entirely wrong and a misunderstanding of the 2nd law. It is this misconception that creationists use in an attempt to persuade those from a non-scientific background that evolution is impossible because it violates the 2nd law.
There are 2 problems with it:
1.Entropy is NOT the same thing as disorder. This is a thermodynamic law; it applies to the realm of thermodynamics. Disorder in this context means more homogenous thermodynamically.
2.Neither the Earth nor living beings are closed systems. Both receive energy from external sources (ultimately the sun). As with the example of the air conditioner, the entropy of an open system (or part of a larger closed system) can decrease, but the system entropy as a whole will always increase. In this way the 2nd law applies only to closed systems.
You dont have to believe that evolution is true, but dont let your opinion on it be swayed by the argument that it violates the 2nd law, as this is incorrect, it is perfectly consistent with the 2nd law.
"2.Neither the Earth nor living beings are closed systems."
That makes no difference. Being an open system that exchanges energy with the environment does not keep either living nor non-living systems from age, degeneration, and death or non-usefulness. All living organisms grow old, degenerate, die, and decay. There are no exceptions. That's entropy at work. It affects all systems that we know of.
The closed system argument is empty. You were poorly taught.
It makes all the difference in the World. I dont think I nor anyone else ever claimed that being in an open system prevents us from age and decay, you misunderstand the applicability of the 2nd law and its implications if you think that simply being in an open system would have such effects. The reason that I point out that the Earth and individual organisms are open systems is that the 2nd law applies only to closed systems.
The entropy of a isolated system not in equilibrium will tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value at equilibrium. the 2nd law of thermodynamics. An open system can receive energy from an external source, therefore the entropy of that system can decrease. People growing old and dying is simply the aging process, I fail to see what impact thermodynamic equilibrium has on the process of getting older.
Look, I taught science for 26 yrs and thermodynamics is a field I know well. The closed system argument is nothing but window dressing for those who wish to escape the disorder factor. But if you really think you can escape it then see if you can eat enough good food, good vitamins, and exercise your body so well that it will NOT age, degenerate, and die.
Just try it.
All systems wear down. There are no exceptions to entropy.
I do not care how long you taught science for. If you have indeed taught it for 26 years then you will know that this is not how you have scientific discourse. Quoting prominent scientists and flouting credentials amounts to nothing more than arguments from authority, they will not convince anyone but the easily manipulated.
It is a subject that I know well also, I have studied it at university and it plays a large role in my day-to-day job, but Im not going to start bragging about my credentials, no matter how impressive they may be they do not back up my argument.
I understand that we all age, regardless of eating well and exercise, etc. etc. I still fail to see the link between the aging process and the 2nd law of thermodynamics. All the 2nd law says in laymans terms is that closed systems are always in the process of approaching thermal equilibrium and that once they do entropy is at a maximum and useful work cannot be extracted from the system.
Did you actually watch my video? Did you see the example with the air conditioner? Where I point out that the entropy of the air-conditioned room INCREASES due to the air conditioner. Rudolf Clausius, who postulated the 2nd law said it himself isolated system. If it were not possible to increase entropy by adding energy then refrigeration would be impossible.
Did you see the example with the air conditioner? Where I point out that the entropy of the air-conditioned room INCREASES due to the air conditioner. "Rudolf Clausius, who postulated the..."
And will the cool air keep the room from degenerating? Will the air conditioner (pumping cool air into the room on a temporary basis) keep the air cool forever? Will it stay continuously in a state of high 'order' to perform its function indefinitely? No. It will dissipate.
Assuming no mechanical fault with the air conditioner (which has nothing to do with entropy or the 2nd law) it will continue to keep the room cool indefinitely AS LONG AS ENERGY IS CONTINUALLY ADDED.
Surround it with a coiled pipe and pump cold water or refrigerant through it?
A heat sink is just something which will remove heat from the system (I know this is a really non-technical definition, but it's sufficient for the purposes of this scenario), anything sufficiently cold would do, you just have to think what would be practical in the situation.
"how would you make a heat sink for a piston and cylinder arrangment"
More than like they already come with one. Such as a radiator, or cooling fins on the head and engine block in an air cooled engine like a motorcycle or chainsaw. I guess in all the entire outer area of the engine could be considered a heat sink to a degree.
This is one of the best non-mathematical explanations of the Second Law. Explaining entropy with equations is easier and more clear, but most people don't want to know that ds=dq/T in a reversible process. The ramifications of this equation didn't make sense to me even with a professor explaining it until I played around with the differential forms of equations for enthalpy, Gibbs free energy, etc. Messing around with equations can really help if you know the meaning of the terms.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
evolution is itself a failure of evolutions law of the suvival of the fittest entropy
why did evolution allow DNA to dominate its only known intelegent beeing MAN why is DNA an attack on its own selfdesturction
like a depressed teen it is suicidal
always changing and telling its parrents you dont know me and leave me alone its my life...yet she copies the peers of her surroundings and listens to the music of her generation...entropy is cool
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
However, the 3rd law of Thermo-nucleardynamics of Post-Fusion Matters suggests that an isolated system not in equilibrium are a source of energy, when released, immediately becomes carbon gas, due to extreme sublimation in the object's particle arrangement.
What? What is the "3rd law of Thermo-nucleardynamics of Post-Fusion Matters"? I've never heard of it before. Where can I find any information on this?
You misunderstand. The 2nd law states: "The entropy of a closed system not in equilibrium will tend to increase over time..." No work is required for this to occur; work is required to DECREASE the entropy of the system.
Assuming that's what you meant the answer to your question is: anywhere. It doesn't matter where the energy comes from, what's important is that work must be done to decrease the entropy.
The phrasing of your question doesn't quite make sense, sorry. Entropy is not 'caused to happen'; every system has a value of entropy (entropy doesn't mean disorder; it is more accurate to refer to it as 'unusable energy').
The 2nd law applies to closed systems not in equilibrium. For example, you have a perfectly insulated cylinder full of air; the air at one end of the cylinder is hot, the air at the other end is cold. At the moment the entropy of this system is low because you could use the heat from the warm air to do work whilst it flows to the cold air region.
However, as time passes the heat will naturally flow from the warm air to the cold air, this will continue until all of the air is at the same temperature. When it reaches this equilibrium you will no longer be able to extract work from it.
There are no closed systems. For humans, the sun unleashes lotsa energy which hits earth; plants absorb this which powers the Kreb's cycle. Sun energy is fused into new molecules (in atomic bonds, to fuse atoms). We eat the plant and get the molecules which have their energy from the sun. We break those molecules to release energy which powers our muscles. I know that's a very crude explanation but that's the basics.
No sun, no life. Hence why earth isn't a closed system.
our bodies has a heat otherwise you will get freeze
and will transfer the heat with the surrounding .
and how told you that the 2nd low for closed system ? its for both open and closed system. or how can we find the "s" entropy in the turbine ??????????
My thermodynamics lecturers told me that. I know our bodies have heat and transfer this heat to the surroundings, but my point is they are not closed systems.
"The entropy of an isolated system not in equilibrium will tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value at equilibrium."
I draw your attention to the words "isolated system". The entropy of a CLOSED SYSTEM always increases over time until equilibrium is reached. This is not necessarily the case for an open system - here the entropy can decrease due to energy exchange with external sources.
the food we eat we dosnt convert all of it to energy .we exhaust some of it to the surronding by several ways .so there is nothing has an effecncy 100%
Thank you for this extremely informational video. I hope to use this should anyone ever attempt to argue with me on this matter. I never knew what the Second law of Thermodynamics was but you did a great job in explaining it. It's just how heat transfers between two objects!(basically) That has very little to do with evolution!
Saying "evolution cannot happen because it defies second law" is like saying "a horse cannot pull a cart, coz the cart pulls back the horse with same force with which the horse pulls it - so by newton's third law its impossible". Anybody with a basic knowledge of mechanics and thermodynamics can say where the fallacy is.
you are welcome. :). It irks me when science ignorants like creationists try to put in some random scientific words or use laws they have no idea about to support their weird claims.
No. It is not. Anyone who tells you otherwise is either lying or doesn't properly understand the second law of thermodynamics. I think much of the confusion is over the use (or misuse) of the terms 'order' and 'disorder'. Disorder is not an appropriate synonym for entropy; it is better described as unusable energy.
I refer you to Volume 1 of Coulson & Richardson's Chemical Engineering Series, titled 'Fluid Flow, Heat Transfer and Mass Transfer', Chapter 2.2 Internal Energy. I don't wish to regurgitate all of the mathematics here. I will point out though, that mathematical models of real systems don't show that anything is true, the proof that it is true has been shown in experiments including those performed by Rudolf Clausius and James Joule.
The earth isn't an isolated system. It receives energy from the sun. If you took the sun out, life wouldn't survive, and evolution wouldn't happen. The same way a heat engine doesn't work without any heat added to it, and refrigerators don't work without creating extra heat. All the waste life produces: carbon dioxide, feces, urine, etc, is the analog to that extra "output". But again, I stress that the sun provides energy to the earth, which makes it NOT an isolated, closed system.
I do not see anywhere, such as a plan or mechanism which sets forth how to organize random particles into particular people? And in regards to the "open system", Where does one see a "complicated motor" which converts the continual flow of solar radiant energy which coverts the earth into "the work" such as building chemical elements into replicating cellular systems, etc.?
Could you please explain to me, some vast program ,mechanism,.....
What? I don't understand your question. I assume where you have said "coverts" that it is just a typo and you mean 'converts', but I don't know what you mean about converting the earth into work, that doesn't make any sense.
If you are asking about a mechanism which converts solar energy into work (which I assume you are) the most obvious example is photosynthesis of sunlight by plants which use the solar/thermal energy directly to aid in their growth.
second law says heat flows from hot to cold, and that entropy is there is no change in entropy if the system is isolated or in another words no heat transfer(heat being energy). So i dont c how evolution defies that.
Actually, Cell membranes and nucleic acids have been shown in laboratory to self-assemble given the right balance of conditions. It takes thousands, even millions of years to form, but they've done it in the laboratory before.
Of course the second law is consistent... the first thought of the second law being rubbish was by James Maxwell in the 19th century... he introduced the "Demon thought Experiment". Looking at it in a microscopic sense the 'impossible' experiment (hence 'thought' experiment) proves that entropy can decrease. But even though it seems as though entropy decreases it was concluded that it actually increases due to other factors contributing to the system. One only has to look at the BIG picture!
Everything in your video looked fine, but please, get rid of the phrase "doesn't even have anything to do with it." and "only" the relationship between heat and work in your text box. While the 2nd law is most commonly applied to and stated in re these things, it still applies to all processes, including evolution (I have a B.Sci in physics research if you want to know) But great video!!
I have taken your advice into consideration killingthyme, and removed those comments. I am aware that the 2nd law applies universally, although considering neither an individual organism nor the Earth are closed systems the 2nd law is irrelevant when applied to them (I'm soon to graduate with an M.Eng in Chemical Engineering if you want to know). Thanks for the comment though.
anyone seriously interested in complex dissipative systems (gradients) and thermodynamic processes google Ilya Prigogine, also IntotheCool. evolution tends toward non equilibriun dissipative structures..does not violate 2ndLaw, it (complexity) enforces it more efficiently..creationists like grasping at short and weak straws.
'in a closed system all things tend towards entropy' (i only know the 3rd law due to a bad joke my friend used to tell) the god botherers will always miss off 'in a closed system' not that important but in the first evolution can happen and in the second it cant.
I came here looking for a revision aid and was rather disapointed to find most videos on thermodynamics are about some silly argument about evolution and creationism... Thanks for making a helpfull revision aid. I hope more people will do the same! Anyone know of links to some films explaining the maths behind it?
I'm all in favour of scientific discussions of the origins of the universe/life/etc. but it must be pointed out when peoples scientific arguments are wrong. I'm not so much concerned about the hardcore creationists, but I fear too many laypeople may be swayed by something like this which appears to be a genuine scientific argument despite being complete nonsense.
Anyone else think its better without the music......not that its bad music.....its good music.....really......
just sort of a distraction....
Don't really get it....Sorry not very smart (me).....
CAPRICASHAW 4 months ago
noooobody said it was easssy...=)
bleedingnumetal 5 months ago
Its funny to see creationist try to use this law to debunk evolution, LOL:
gulbirk 8 months ago
I can't hear myself think or learn!!! STFU Chris Martin!!!!!!
orbazel 9 months ago
Nice, thanks!
snailes 1 year ago
I'm scanning through all of the comments as Coldplay captivates the soundtrack to the argumentative vibe.
Shapoopy25 1 year ago
LOVE LOVE LOVE THIS SONG
<3 :))
kirbohydrate 1 year ago
I have studied the Laws of Thermodynamics at the University of Youtube.
TheToxicRadio 1 year ago
Big yellow thing in sky give heat for Earth, yellow thing have life for many billions of years.
LouisPlume 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Free Energy is real and its here but the coverup is strong, if you are interested in a REAL free energy machine then
just go to LT-MAGNET-MOTORdotCOM and download the blueprints ,it is probably the ONLY working magnet
motor out there. Join the free energy revolution!!
urgencyharviefcem 1 year ago
Snowflakes move NATURALLY from disorder to order as they form. Snowflake formation is an exothermic process. The heat-of-formation from a snowflake forming ensures that the disorder of the universe is always increasing. DNA does the same thing. When it becomes more ordered, it gives off heat, which makes the universe more chaotic, and the NET entropy is +. If you are trapped on this concept as evidence against evolution. GO TO THE LIBRARY, DIMWIT!
drgoldteef 1 year ago
@drgoldteef Besides, it takes heat, energy to lift the water up from a warm body of water to a height where it is cold enough to create the snowflake. Snow is a sign of a huge thermal engine at work evaporating and lifting vasts amount of water vapor into the air.
TerrencePhillip66 1 year ago
What about blackholes? Not even light (including heat) can escape them. They keep eating up matter and light thus always reducing the entropy of the universe!!!!!
Edy5656 1 year ago
@Edy5656 False. How do we detect black holes? They do emit radiation!!
Note that "eating up matter" is kind of a strange saying. There is no mass lost in a black hole (that is why it is so terribly heavy-it distorts space(singularity)).
RTRVII 1 year ago
@RTRVII I thought we detected black holes due to the gravitation pull they have on other matter that we can observe? And yes, I fully understood that mass was conserved...
Edy5656 1 year ago
This is a great example of the second law, but it does not explain it in it's entirety. To apply this video to "the second law broken by evolutionists" would be a mistake. With that being said, that video also had so many things wrong with it I don't know where to start. I am a Christian and please don't judge all of us based on that disgrace of science. We may be few but their are those of us that can, and do, practice GOOD science. Thank You.
jdw3150 1 year ago
@jdw3150 Are you a creationist then? I hope not.
RTRVII 1 year ago
@RTRVII Ex-creationist. I grew up in an evangelical church and thats all i heard. Then I took a class on the subject at a reformed college and was educated in both evolutionary science and the Biblical text. I believe that God created the world, but I don't know how, or when. He may have used the process of evolution to create life. All I do know for sure is who created us, and why.
jdw3150 1 year ago
@jdw3150 how do you know for sure it was god? Do you have 100% conclusive proof?
Mayhem108 1 year ago
@Mayhem108 To prove God scientifically is impossible. To prove God philosophically is very possible. I know that every effect has a cause, I call that cause God. If the existence of God could be proven with 100% certainty, then there would be need for faith. And if you've spent any time in a lab or know anything about the way things are proven scientifically you would know that nothing we hold as scientific fact can actually be 100% conclusive. Why do you ask?
jdw3150 1 year ago
@Mayhem108 To prove God scientifically is impossible. To prove God philosophically is very possible. I know that every effect has a cause, I call that cause God. If the existence of God could be proven with 100% certainty, then there would be need for faith. And if you've spent any time in a lab or know anything about the way things are proven scientifically you would know that nothing we hold as scientific fact can actually be 100% conclusive. Why do you ask?
jdw3150 1 year ago
@Mayhem108 To prove God scientifically is impossible. To prove God philosophically is very possible. I know that every effect has a cause, I call that cause God. If the existence of God could be proven, then there would be need for faith. Why do you ask?
jdw3150 1 year ago
@jdw3150 sorry for the repeats, chrome freaked out there for a second
jdw3150 1 year ago
@jdw3150
you've just proven your lack of skills to properly argue on a Philosophical debate, but yet toooooo far from proving God. The Khalam argument is falacious. If an uncaused being must exists to prove the existence of a finite being, then why can't the finite being known as Universe be uncaused itself. Your premise is bogus then your whole argument falls as a superfluous construct thats -at best- uneeded on your own terms.
DrErkencho 7 months ago 2
@jdw3150 however is its very possible to disprove certain definitions of god scientificaly.
VarykGerai 3 weeks ago
@jdw3150 You dont know, you believe in something that created us, or you believe you know that something created us.
VarykGerai 3 weeks ago
Neat video the Second Law of Thermodynamics is not easy to explain.
nickharvey7 1 year ago
but what i think is really confusing is trying to the debate between the existance of a god...as of now God's existance can not be proved or disproved and arguing towards either point is being close minded...I mean come on, people stop trying to make yourselves feel more secure about your own beliefs (or disbeliefs) and start respecting others peoples ideas...jeez talk about moving towards a state or lower energy.
XBlakea 2 years ago
But i say that the second law still holds true and that everything does still turn towards a maximum entropy...Life is not 100% efficient (or reversible for that matter) Despite all the "Work" we do to survive (evolution included) death is still inevitable and death still decreases the entropy of the world (Carbon emmisions and what not) as it should. This is true regardless of what practicality are lives hold or how "evolved" we are when we live them. So, no evolution doesn't defy the law
XBlakea 2 years ago
I think besides the first quote the information of this video was not really helpful in the so called "Debate". I say this because the first quote concerning entropy is what the law is based on and the other two statements (heat and work) are different ways of saying the same thing about the disorder or "entropy" of a system and the statement about entropy is really what these creationists are arguing over. They believe that if a system tends towards disorder so does the universe.
XBlakea 2 years ago
Coldplay and the Second Law go quite badly together, sorry.
hyperseauton 2 years ago 22
Anyone who says evolution violates the second law has to prove that they evolutionary process sends more energy to the sun than it receives from the sum.
It's that simple.
jhbbunch 2 years ago 2
I've lectured KW on this before. The earth/sun system is entropic. "Disorder'" is increasing. What do you think the solar wind is? They are particles whose possible set of microstates have been vastly increased since being ejected from the sun as a byproduct of thermonuclear reactions. The set of possible microstates the earth/sun system can be in is increasing. "Disorder" is therefore increasing.
jhbbunch 2 years ago
This is the only way 'disorder/order' applies to thermodynamics. Entropy is energy dispersal in a system and since it increases disorder in the system, the disorder of a system is a measure of it's entropy, of it's level of energy dispersal.
T2LoT does not state what a system can or can't do, it simply says it can only do whatever it does with a finite set of energy transfers and then the system dies.
jhbbunch 2 years ago
Until that happens though, the entropy of the Earth can decrease and shift further away from the thermodynamic equilibrium of the universe. The same applies to all life forms on the Earth; we obtain energy ultimately from the Sun, which allows us to remain far away from the thermodynamic equilibrium of the universe.
ally0138 2 years ago
ally0138: I taught science for 26 yrs. I have studied the subject for 40 yrs. I know the difference between an open and closed system. Entropy effects BOTH.
You were wrongly taught. You need to correct it.
Kirkwhisper 2 years ago
A decrease in entropy is possible, it does not contradict the 2nd law. The 2nd law explicitly states "For an isolated system".
If I am wrong can you please explain to me how refrigeration is possible, because it would contradict the 2nd law were it able to apply to anything other than an isolated system?
ally0138 2 years ago
" 2nd law explicitly states "For an isolated system"."
You are just stubborn, aren't you.
Should I throw away my Oxford Dictionary which says, "All REAL processes..."? Should I throw out the Smithsonian article, the examples which Asimov used were all OPEN systems? Should I throw away my book by Hawking who does EXACTLY the same thing in A Brief History of Time? Evolutionists are so shallow(!) They say 'closed systems only' but all their illustrations are OPEN systems!
We're done.
Kirkwhisper 2 years ago
After reading the debate I'd say you are most stubborn.
MusicHypno 2 years ago
ally0138: No. Everything wears down, everyting ages. Everything grows old and eventually comes to disuse both physical and organic. Entropy has its affect in all of them.
Get used to it. It is the way of the world, not evolution.
Kirkwhisper 2 years ago
Kirk, you continue to call me stubborn and claim I was badly taught, but you dont seem to have realised the difference between an open system a closed system and an isolated system.
As I said in my previous comment and I am getting tired of repeating the 2nd law EXPLICITLY STATES that it applies to AN ISOLATED SYSTEM. To suggest otherwise is incorrect at best and outright dishonesty at worst.
ally0138 2 years ago
Yes, I would throw away that dictionary. you did not provide any specific examples for Azimov, you included a passage about him talking about the universe generally. The universe is an isolated system.
You have refused to answer my question for a second time now, I ask again:
If I am wrong can you please explain to me how refrigeration is possible, because it would contradict the 2nd law were it able to apply to anything other than an isolated system?
ally0138 2 years ago
No matter what you say, entropy is the reason why nature does not develop life of its own accord. There is no example that nature does or even could do this by itself.
You can pretend all you wish but nothing is going to change the present reality: the world is degenerating, not evolving.
Kirkwhisper 2 years ago
Unfortunately that is still not an answer to my question. I get the feeling here that you're just here to troll. You are dishonest if you are suggesting that the entropy of an open system cannot decrease.
I am not willing to continue this discussion unless you are willing to respond to my questions and the points that I have actually made, not some straw man argument about the world running down.
ally0138 2 years ago
Any further comments from you will be removed UNLESS you provide a response to my question first.
Please stop repeating this argument about the world degenerating, it is irrelevant to discussions of thermodynamics.
ally0138 2 years ago
Kirkwhisper you are wrong. The increase in entropy applies over the entire universe. Therefore a slight decrease of entropy here on earth (evolution if you like, or a tree growing) means on overall increase somewhere else (the sun for example)
tasker41 2 years ago 4
Thank you tasker. You are absolutely correct on this point. This seems to be where most people get confused and I've no idea why, it's really not that complicated.
ally0138 2 years ago
As I have already pointed out, the Earth is such a system; we receive a constant input of energy from the Sun. When this energy supply runs out the entropy of the Earth will increase as it cools to the same temperature as the surrounding space and we will all freeze to death (if we have not been engulfed by the Sun itself before that).
ally0138 2 years ago
@ally0138 "When this energy supply [of the Sun] runs out the entropy of the Earth will increase as it cools to the same temperature as the surrounding space"
Actually, the Earth system's entropy will *decrease* as it is cooled:
Delta S(earth) = -Q(from earth) / T(earth)
Turn off the Sun, heat flows from earth to universe, entropy of earth goes down.
If you have one take away from the second law, may it be the knowledge that entropy and temperature are related.
terrymorse 1 year ago
The analogy of the air-conditioner and the second form of the 2nd law above should make it clear that whilst the total entropy of an isolated system (including the universe) will always increase as equilibrium is approached; the entropy of an open (or closed) system can decrease. This is not a violation of the 2nd law, since the entropy of the surroundings (i.e. the universe as a whole) still increases.
ally0138 2 years ago
The universe is gradually moving towards thermodynamic equilibrium, at which point all locations within it will be at a constant uniform temperature and no energy will be available to perform useful work. Thankfully this looks like its still a long way off.
Now, if you have understood everything up to now and have understood the air conditioner analogy I made in the video this next but shouldnt be a problem for you either.
ally0138 2 years ago
It may be useful here to consider another form of the law: In a system, a process that occurs will tend to increase the total entropy of the universe.
As Asimov stated, the amount of useful work you can obtain from the energy in the universe is constantly decreasing, despite the amount of energy remaining constant. This is simply another description of the 2nd law and is entirely correct.
ally0138 2 years ago
Now, if you are familiar with the 2nd law of thermodynamics it is normally stated as: The entropy of an isolated system not in equilibrium will tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value at equilibrium.
As you have correctly pointed out, the universe as a whole is an isolated system; therefore the 2nd law applies generally to the universe and the entropy of the universe is constantly increasing with time.
ally0138 2 years ago
An isolated system is one which exchanges neither energy nor matter with the external surroundings. In practice this applies to the universe as a whole, but it is physically impossible to have a completely isolated system within the universe. (In much the same way as its physically impossible to have a total vacuum).
A closed system is one which may exchange energy (work) with its surroundings. This flow of energy or work may go in either direction, into or out of the system.
ally0138 2 years ago
...The piston/cylinder arrangement described in the video is one example of such a system.
An open system is one which, as the name suggests, is open to its surroundings. Energy and matter are free to flow into and out of the system from the surrounding environment.
ally0138 2 years ago
The entropy of the universe AS A WHOLE is increasing all the time, since as far as I'm aware there is no energy source outside the universe providing energy to it. However, entropy may decrease in isolated pockets within the universe (e.g. the Earth). Again, see my example with the air conditioner, if entropy of open systems could not decrease refrigeration would be impossible.
ally0138 2 years ago
"Another way of stating the second law then is, 'The universe is constantly getting more disorderly!' Viewed that way we can see the second law all about us. We have to work hard to straighten a room, but left to itself it becomes a mess again very quickly and very easily. Even if we never enter it, it becomes dusty and musty. How difficult to maintain houses, and machinery, and our own bodies in perfect working order: how easy to let them deteriorate." Isaac Asimov: Smithsonian June 1970.
Kirkwhisper 2 years ago
(Smithsonian, continued) "In fact, all we have to do is nothing, and everything deteriorates, collapses, breaks down, wears out, all by itself - and that is what the second law is all about."
"The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics states that the amount of available work you can get out of the energy of the universe is constantly decreasing. If you have a great deal of energy in one place, a large intensity of it, so that you have a high temperature here & a low temperature there, then you.."
Kirkwhisper 2 years ago
(Smithsonian, continued) "Now, according to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, there is always a tendency for the hot areas to cool off and the cool areas to warm up so that less and less work can be obtained out of it. Until finally, when everything is one temperature, you cannot get any work out of it, even though all the energy is still there. And this is true for EVERYTHING in general, the universe all over."
That's right, Isaac: EVERYTHING is affected by entropy, the measure of disorder.
Kirkwhisper 2 years ago
Kirk,
Thanks for all those quotes. I shall focus on the final point you quote from Isaac Asimov as I believe this is where the confusion lies. Unfortunately YouTube, with its limited comment length, is not a good medium for discussing this I am not optimistic that I will be able to explain sufficiently well where you appear to be misunderstanding the whole open/closed system distinction.
ally0138 2 years ago
First of all I need to know that you understand the distinction between an open, closed and an isolated system. Apologies for the lack of sufficient distinction in some previous posts. Apologies also if any of what I am about to say comes across as patronising, but it is vital that you understand certain points in order for me to explain my reasoning. So can you confirm that you do indeed understand the distinction?
ally0138 2 years ago
@Kirkwhisper Tidying up a room does not decrease entropy you idiot. It increases it. All work increases entropy. Making a room 'messier' increases it. Making a room 'neater' increases it. The energy source will always destroy more molecular bonds than the system will create. Therefore THERMODYNAMIC DISORDER will always increase in a system. You do know that the disorder being talked about is thermodynamic disorder and not your laughable 'neat room/messy room' laughable nonsense. Right? MORON!
TerrencePhillip66 1 year ago
@TerrencePhillip66 Do you understand that in any system that does work the energy is stored in molecular bonds or atomic bonds? These bonds are destroyed to produce the energy to do work. The 1 pound lump of coal now goes up the chimney as gases and fine particulates. It is in a much (snicker) 'messier' state than before it was burned for energy. It has a much greater set of microstates it can be in than when it was a lump of coal. Thermodynamic disorder has increased. As it always will.
TerrencePhillip66 1 year ago
I don't know what Oxford Dictionary you quoted, but mine says the following:
Entropy: (noun) a thermodynamic quantity expressing the unavailability of a systems thermal energy for conversion into mechanical work, often INTERPRETED as the degree of disorder or randomness in the system.
Unavailability of thermal energy to do work is by far a better description as it is specific and not open to INTERPRETATION.
ally0138 2 years ago
Entropy can change in a system depends on the processes that take place- entropy in a system can decrease- JUST for that system- the overall entropy of the universe though will increase! Evolution does not contradict the second law of TD!
Abundanceieri 2 years ago
BTW: this is another perfect example of what creationists do. They LIE, they display PERFECT ignorance of the subject matter at hand, and then they get offended when you call them on their bullshit.
kirkwhisper is a troll, liar, and an idiot.
middlekk 2 years ago
"you've just admitted you're a complete total moron."
No, just the opposite, 'genius'.
In reality, the position fools like you espouse can be likened unto one who has terrible arthritis in his hands & he decides to eliminate the problem by cutting off his hands. How's that for 'adapting' to ones environment? (wink)
You've called me 'moron' for the last time, kid.
Bye.
Kirkwhisper 2 years ago
Wait, I thought you were going to kick ME out of the discussion...Hmmm...looks like I'm still here and you're RUNNING AWAY.
Coward.
Just like every other theist with a WRONG-HEADED notion who can't stand the thought of being shown to be a simple-minded science illiterate.
Run away, troll. Run away.
middlekk 2 years ago
...and yet you STILL don't know anything about genetics? You eat, drink, and sleep genetics and think that you're genetically closer to your grandparents than your parents?
How does THAT work?
middlekk 2 years ago
And you just displayed the PERFECT example of how creationists butcher the 2nd LoT by confusing the boundary of an individual organism with the boundary of the evolutionary space (ie, Earth).
Thanks for that. Your conclusions are fatally flawed.
middlekk 2 years ago
"Your conclusions are fatally flawed."
Hogwash. You don't know what the heck you're talking about and like your friends in 'scientism' you refuse to think outside the box and see for yourself the awful, real truth: the world is degenerating, not evolving.
Learn this, ignorant one: Each succeeding generation of living organisms is less complex, less organized, and less integrated in its genetic structure and the biological world is doing just the OPPOSITE to what you've been taught.
Kirkwhisper 2 years ago
See. Once again, another PERFECT example of how creationists butcher the 2nd LoT.
The 2nd LoT has to do with the flow of HEAT, NOT with "complexity, organization, or integration" of genetic structures. In biology, the 2nd LoT is not violated because organic organisms constantly take in energy from the environment - either directly through sunlight or indirectly through eating.
Your understanding of the 2nd LoT would make ALL biological system impossible, including the germination of seeds.
middlekk 2 years ago
I'd like to see the peer-review publication that supports your claim that each succeeding generation of living organisms is less complex. According to YOUR theory, we should have greater genetic homogeneity today than we did 2000 years ago. Problem is, YOU have 150 unique mutations from your parents, as do I and every other human.
That's a LOT of heterogeneity.
Methinks you're talking out of your ass.
middlekk 2 years ago
"YOU have 150 unique mutations from your parents, as do I and every other human."
You are lying to yourself and you know NOTHING about the genetic entropy and how it works.
"Methinks you're talking out of your ass."
And Methinks that I'm going to kick your sorry posterior out of this discussion if you keep talking like that. Got me?
Kirkwhisper 2 years ago
Empty threats, just like all simple-minded theists when shown they have nothing but empty space between their ears.
I have the peer review science, published just LAST WEEK. Xue Y et al. Human Y chromosome base substitution mutation rate measured by direct sequencing in a deep-rooting pedigree. Current Biology 2009;doi:10.1016/j.cub.2009.07.032.
What do YOU have? Baseless assertions. Let's see YOUR peer-review research, Skippy.
middlekk 2 years ago
Plus, it doesn't even make the slightest bit of logical sense. You're claiming in essence, that we are genetically MORE similar to our grandparents than our parents.
Can anyone spot the flaw in this assertion? I think most people can. It doesn't even take a geneticist to figure out that you're hopelessly misinformed.
middlekk 2 years ago
Other things that would be impossible if each succeeding generation of living organism is less complex.
* New breeds of dogs, cats, cows, horses, sheep, goats, rabbits, chickens, and the myriad other animals that we subject to selective breeding (ie, guided evolution)
* Drug-resistant TB, malaria, staph, and other bacterial infections. By your reckoning, our drugs should be MORE effective with each successive generation.
I think we can see who the ignorant one really is here.
middlekk 2 years ago
"New breeds of dogs, cats, cows, horses, sheep, goats, rabbits, chickens, & the myriad of ... (ie, guided evolution)"
Check them out for yourself. The dogs change but are still dogs. The cats, cows, horses, sheep, etc. change but they are still cats, or cows, or horses, etc. The change is always horizontal within the range of the genome and not vertical.
"Drug-resistant TB", etc. True but those changes that involve a loss of information & therefore a loss of certain functions..
Kirkwhisper 2 years ago
Umm....but according to YOU, this would be impossible.
And if you agree that drug-resistant TB, etc is impossible under your theory, you've just admitted you're a complete total moron.
What "loss of information" is involved in drug-resistant staph? You OBVIOUSLY do not know a THING about this subject.
Really, you're like a guy yelling "BLACKJACK" in a Hold-em tournament who wonders why everyone thinks you're a moron.
middlekk 2 years ago
"....but according to YOU, this would be impossible."
Really? Quote me.
Kirkwhisper 2 years ago
YOU said that each successive generation is LESS complex.
By DEFINITION, reduced complexity = genetic homogeneity. Genetic homogeneity = NO NEW BREEDS.
Honestly, could you be any more ill-educated about this?
middlekk 2 years ago
"The dogs change" -- exactly what mechanism do you think is REQUIRED for dogs to "change", Skippy? Why, that would be genetic DIVERSITY.
The very thing you claim is moving in the opposite direction.
You contradict yourself and then get mad at ME?
Why do people laugh at creationists? This is why.
middlekk 2 years ago
Have you ever heard of Mute? Turning the volume on your speakers down? Or is that too much work for you to handle?
chrsstms 2 years ago
Brilliant observation, and no it wasn't. It was about as much trouble as it would have been to post the video without the song.
Nightsurf59 2 years ago
Please re-post without the soundtrack......
Nightsurf59 2 years ago
Turn on all the other audio equipment in your house and have every one there talking. The noise level will eventually all equalize and you should be OK.
newcoyote 2 years ago
Bravo!
Nightsurf59 2 years ago
So wait....
If i took a cold peice of iron and a hot peice of iron of equal size and put them togather...
The entropy would continue to increase until they are both the same temperature, and the same temperature of thier suroundings (room temperature)
Then if i put a candle under one of them.. entropy would decrease correct?????
Thanks!
0teh0killah 2 years ago
You know what, i still have no idea what Thermodynamics means........ i read somewhere else that it just means that there is no such thing as a perfect system, where we can use 100% of the energy efficiently, with out any loss of that energy.... There is always energy wasted in a system. So i watched like 5 films to get a better grip of the idea and i cant find it. Any1 kno where i can get a "Thermodynamics
for DUMMY'S" ?? lol
john2010nyc 2 years ago
Wikipedia "Thermodynamics". That will give you a very general overview of what it's about.
ally0138 2 years ago
I was just saying the same thing. I'm not sure what it even is, but some creationist like to use it as a weapon. I don't think they even know what it is?
Jahkillian 2 years ago
Several comments have been removed because they were nothing to do with the video or it's subject matter. Please keep discussions relevant.
ally0138 2 years ago
dQ=dW...simple
GravyInThePants 2 years ago
5 stars, mainly for the song, I still can't understand this thermodynamics thing though..
spliffythree 2 years ago
Put very simply: heat will always flow from a hot region to a cold region, you can use this heat flow to generate work. You can reverse the heat flow (cold to hot), but only by applying work TO the system.
ally0138 2 years ago
why didnt you just say so, now i get it, just a matter of common sense and experience of your environment
hieu1994 2 years ago
ally
Please tell me the name of the song? It haunted me...I had to come back and ask you.
Cootabux 2 years ago
Read the video description.
ally0138 2 years ago
Thanks man. I shoulda done that huh? LOLs
Thanks
Coldplay is awesome.
Cootabux 2 years ago
I don't disagree with a thing ally0138 said on his video clip. So entropy (the measure of disorder) increases with the exchange of heat over time. So why are you complaining about creationists who are saying the very same thing?
Are you one who denies the disorder factor in the definition?
Kirkwhisper 2 years ago
The primary issue with the way creationists butcher the 2nd LoT is that the 2nd LoT only counts for CLOSED SYSTEMS. Earth is NOT A CLOSED SYSTEM.
The Earth receives energy from the sun. The total solar energy absorbed by Earth's atmosphere, oceans and land masses is approximately 3,850,000 exajoules per year. An exajoule is 10^18th joule. 1 joule = energy required to lift a small apple one meter straight up.
That's a lot of energy that the creationists discount.
middlekk 2 years ago
Kirk, the problem isn't anyone (creationist or otherwise) claiming that entropy increases over time, this is correct. The problem is people claiming that processes such as evolution somehow violate the 2nd law - they dont.
Like many people you have equated entropy to disorder and come to the conclusion that everything tends to disorder therefore no process that makes things more ordered is possible.
ally0138 2 years ago
This is entirely wrong and a misunderstanding of the 2nd law. It is this misconception that creationists use in an attempt to persuade those from a non-scientific background that evolution is impossible because it violates the 2nd law.
There are 2 problems with it:
1.Entropy is NOT the same thing as disorder. This is a thermodynamic law; it applies to the realm of thermodynamics. Disorder in this context means more homogenous thermodynamically.
ally0138 2 years ago
2.Neither the Earth nor living beings are closed systems. Both receive energy from external sources (ultimately the sun). As with the example of the air conditioner, the entropy of an open system (or part of a larger closed system) can decrease, but the system entropy as a whole will always increase. In this way the 2nd law applies only to closed systems.
ally0138 2 years ago
You dont have to believe that evolution is true, but dont let your opinion on it be swayed by the argument that it violates the 2nd law, as this is incorrect, it is perfectly consistent with the 2nd law.
ally0138 2 years ago
"2.Neither the Earth nor living beings are closed systems."
That makes no difference. Being an open system that exchanges energy with the environment does not keep either living nor non-living systems from age, degeneration, and death or non-usefulness. All living organisms grow old, degenerate, die, and decay. There are no exceptions. That's entropy at work. It affects all systems that we know of.
The closed system argument is empty. You were poorly taught.
Kirkwhisper 2 years ago
It makes all the difference in the World. I dont think I nor anyone else ever claimed that being in an open system prevents us from age and decay, you misunderstand the applicability of the 2nd law and its implications if you think that simply being in an open system would have such effects. The reason that I point out that the Earth and individual organisms are open systems is that the 2nd law applies only to closed systems.
ally0138 2 years ago
The entropy of a isolated system not in equilibrium will tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value at equilibrium. the 2nd law of thermodynamics. An open system can receive energy from an external source, therefore the entropy of that system can decrease. People growing old and dying is simply the aging process, I fail to see what impact thermodynamic equilibrium has on the process of getting older.
ally0138 2 years ago
"It makes all the difference in the World."
Look, I taught science for 26 yrs and thermodynamics is a field I know well. The closed system argument is nothing but window dressing for those who wish to escape the disorder factor. But if you really think you can escape it then see if you can eat enough good food, good vitamins, and exercise your body so well that it will NOT age, degenerate, and die.
Just try it.
All systems wear down. There are no exceptions to entropy.
Kirkwhisper 2 years ago
I do not care how long you taught science for. If you have indeed taught it for 26 years then you will know that this is not how you have scientific discourse. Quoting prominent scientists and flouting credentials amounts to nothing more than arguments from authority, they will not convince anyone but the easily manipulated.
ally0138 2 years ago
It is a subject that I know well also, I have studied it at university and it plays a large role in my day-to-day job, but Im not going to start bragging about my credentials, no matter how impressive they may be they do not back up my argument.
ally0138 2 years ago
I understand that we all age, regardless of eating well and exercise, etc. etc. I still fail to see the link between the aging process and the 2nd law of thermodynamics. All the 2nd law says in laymans terms is that closed systems are always in the process of approaching thermal equilibrium and that once they do entropy is at a maximum and useful work cannot be extracted from the system.
ally0138 2 years ago
Adding energy to the system can drive it further away from thermal equilibrium. I ask again, what bearing does this have on the aging process?
ally0138 2 years ago
Did you actually watch my video? Did you see the example with the air conditioner? Where I point out that the entropy of the air-conditioned room INCREASES due to the air conditioner. Rudolf Clausius, who postulated the 2nd law said it himself isolated system. If it were not possible to increase entropy by adding energy then refrigeration would be impossible.
ally0138 2 years ago
Did you see the example with the air conditioner? Where I point out that the entropy of the air-conditioned room INCREASES due to the air conditioner. "Rudolf Clausius, who postulated the..."
And will the cool air keep the room from degenerating? Will the air conditioner (pumping cool air into the room on a temporary basis) keep the air cool forever? Will it stay continuously in a state of high 'order' to perform its function indefinitely? No. It will dissipate.
Kirkwhisper 2 years ago
Assuming no mechanical fault with the air conditioner (which has nothing to do with entropy or the 2nd law) it will continue to keep the room cool indefinitely AS LONG AS ENERGY IS CONTINUALLY ADDED.
ally0138 2 years ago
Correction: The entropy of the air conditioned room DECREASES.
ally0138 2 years ago
U rawk man, thanks for posting this!
Allocator2008 2 years ago
Thank you.
ally0138 2 years ago
how would you make a heat sink for a piston and cylinder arrangment
cardcutter 2 years ago
Surround it with a coiled pipe and pump cold water or refrigerant through it?
A heat sink is just something which will remove heat from the system (I know this is a really non-technical definition, but it's sufficient for the purposes of this scenario), anything sufficiently cold would do, you just have to think what would be practical in the situation.
ally0138 2 years ago
"how would you make a heat sink for a piston and cylinder arrangment"
More than like they already come with one. Such as a radiator, or cooling fins on the head and engine block in an air cooled engine like a motorcycle or chainsaw. I guess in all the entire outer area of the engine could be considered a heat sink to a degree.
preacher4thedeaf 2 years ago
What an excellent explanation. I was initially skeptical, but you did a really good job. Thanks!
(shame about the song)
richardcadbury 2 years ago 3
Thank you.
ally0138 2 years ago
This is one of the best non-mathematical explanations of the Second Law. Explaining entropy with equations is easier and more clear, but most people don't want to know that ds=dq/T in a reversible process. The ramifications of this equation didn't make sense to me even with a professor explaining it until I played around with the differential forms of equations for enthalpy, Gibbs free energy, etc. Messing around with equations can really help if you know the meaning of the terms.
Savaga 2 years ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
evolution is itself a failure of evolutions law of the suvival of the fittest entropy
why did evolution allow DNA to dominate its only known intelegent beeing MAN why is DNA an attack on its own selfdesturction
like a depressed teen it is suicidal
always changing and telling its parrents you dont know me and leave me alone its my life...yet she copies the peers of her surroundings and listens to the music of her generation...entropy is cool
reconorder 2 years ago
What?
ally0138 2 years ago
I cant make sense of what he/she is saying either!
michelhack1 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
However, the 3rd law of Thermo-nucleardynamics of Post-Fusion Matters suggests that an isolated system not in equilibrium are a source of energy, when released, immediately becomes carbon gas, due to extreme sublimation in the object's particle arrangement.
KennethBar 3 years ago
What? What is the "3rd law of Thermo-nucleardynamics of Post-Fusion Matters"? I've never heard of it before. Where can I find any information on this?
ally0138 3 years ago
ok i kind get it, i think
now my question is where the energy comes from, to create work - to increase the entropy of a close system?
michelhack1 3 years ago
You misunderstand. The 2nd law states: "The entropy of a closed system not in equilibrium will tend to increase over time..." No work is required for this to occur; work is required to DECREASE the entropy of the system.
Assuming that's what you meant the answer to your question is: anywhere. It doesn't matter where the energy comes from, what's important is that work must be done to decrease the entropy.
ally0138 3 years ago
my question pretty much is asking what is causing the entropy to happen.
why it just is not stable? why it has to disorder?
michelhack1 2 years ago
The phrasing of your question doesn't quite make sense, sorry. Entropy is not 'caused to happen'; every system has a value of entropy (entropy doesn't mean disorder; it is more accurate to refer to it as 'unusable energy').
ally0138 2 years ago
The 2nd law applies to closed systems not in equilibrium. For example, you have a perfectly insulated cylinder full of air; the air at one end of the cylinder is hot, the air at the other end is cold. At the moment the entropy of this system is low because you could use the heat from the warm air to do work whilst it flows to the cold air region.
ally0138 2 years ago
However, as time passes the heat will naturally flow from the warm air to the cold air, this will continue until all of the air is at the same temperature. When it reaches this equilibrium you will no longer be able to extract work from it.
ally0138 2 years ago
entropy is a balancing out of the universe. it's making things more stable.
EricZombie 2 years ago
There are no closed systems. For humans, the sun unleashes lotsa energy which hits earth; plants absorb this which powers the Kreb's cycle. Sun energy is fused into new molecules (in atomic bonds, to fuse atoms). We eat the plant and get the molecules which have their energy from the sun. We break those molecules to release energy which powers our muscles. I know that's a very crude explanation but that's the basics.
No sun, no life. Hence why earth isn't a closed system.
kryptilian 2 years ago
thanks
ahmetsametx 3 years ago
how told you that ???
our bodies has a heat otherwise you will get freeze
and will transfer the heat with the surrounding .
and how told you that the 2nd low for closed system ? its for both open and closed system. or how can we find the "s" entropy in the turbine ??????????
lio0onheart 3 years ago
My thermodynamics lecturers told me that. I know our bodies have heat and transfer this heat to the surroundings, but my point is they are not closed systems.
ally0138 3 years ago
"The entropy of an isolated system not in equilibrium will tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value at equilibrium."
I draw your attention to the words "isolated system". The entropy of a CLOSED SYSTEM always increases over time until equilibrium is reached. This is not necessarily the case for an open system - here the entropy can decrease due to energy exchange with external sources.
ally0138 3 years ago
entropy only occurs in closed systems, its part of the definition
theviolator23 3 years ago
The First Law of Thermodynamics states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed... unless it meets Chuck Norris.
dasrgefgkoiu 3 years ago 4
we also can apply the 2nd low in our bodies
the food we eat we dosnt convert all of it to energy .we exhaust some of it to the surronding by several ways .so there is nothing has an effecncy 100%
lio0onheart 3 years ago
Thank you for this extremely informational video. I hope to use this should anyone ever attempt to argue with me on this matter. I never knew what the Second law of Thermodynamics was but you did a great job in explaining it. It's just how heat transfers between two objects!(basically) That has very little to do with evolution!
ZombieGuy1 3 years ago 2
Thanks, glad to be of help.
ally0138 3 years ago
Matter/energy/Force can never be destroyed, nor created.
Omid45 3 years ago
Saying "evolution cannot happen because it defies second law" is like saying "a horse cannot pull a cart, coz the cart pulls back the horse with same force with which the horse pulls it - so by newton's third law its impossible". Anybody with a basic knowledge of mechanics and thermodynamics can say where the fallacy is.
agg323181 3 years ago 11
Excellent analogy. I think I'll be stealing it.
AtSwimTwoBricks 3 years ago 3
you are welcome. :). It irks me when science ignorants like creationists try to put in some random scientific words or use laws they have no idea about to support their weird claims.
agg323181 3 years ago 4
This comment has received too many negative votes show
great song but fucking video
LebenWerden 3 years ago
Thanks for the constructive feedback!
ally0138 3 years ago
"Don't you think that the idea and process of evolution is negated by the Second Law?
"HOW" does it work? What mathematical model exists that shows if this is even true.
youVSmee 3 years ago
No. It is not. Anyone who tells you otherwise is either lying or doesn't properly understand the second law of thermodynamics. I think much of the confusion is over the use (or misuse) of the terms 'order' and 'disorder'. Disorder is not an appropriate synonym for entropy; it is better described as unusable energy.
ally0138 3 years ago
I refer you to Volume 1 of Coulson & Richardson's Chemical Engineering Series, titled 'Fluid Flow, Heat Transfer and Mass Transfer', Chapter 2.2 Internal Energy. I don't wish to regurgitate all of the mathematics here. I will point out though, that mathematical models of real systems don't show that anything is true, the proof that it is true has been shown in experiments including those performed by Rudolf Clausius and James Joule.
ally0138 3 years ago
The earth isn't an isolated system. It receives energy from the sun. If you took the sun out, life wouldn't survive, and evolution wouldn't happen. The same way a heat engine doesn't work without any heat added to it, and refrigerators don't work without creating extra heat. All the waste life produces: carbon dioxide, feces, urine, etc, is the analog to that extra "output". But again, I stress that the sun provides energy to the earth, which makes it NOT an isolated, closed system.
NeutroniumIon 3 years ago 3
I do not see anywhere, such as a plan or mechanism which sets forth how to organize random particles into particular people? And in regards to the "open system", Where does one see a "complicated motor" which converts the continual flow of solar radiant energy which coverts the earth into "the work" such as building chemical elements into replicating cellular systems, etc.?
Could you please explain to me, some vast program ,mechanism,.....
youVSmee 3 years ago
Evolution by natural selection is the mechanism which sets forth how to organise particles into people or any other organism.
ally0138 3 years ago
What? I don't understand your question. I assume where you have said "coverts" that it is just a typo and you mean 'converts', but I don't know what you mean about converting the earth into work, that doesn't make any sense.
If you are asking about a mechanism which converts solar energy into work (which I assume you are) the most obvious example is photosynthesis of sunlight by plants which use the solar/thermal energy directly to aid in their growth.
ally0138 3 years ago
second law says heat flows from hot to cold, and that entropy is there is no change in entropy if the system is isolated or in another words no heat transfer(heat being energy). So i dont c how evolution defies that.
yumchahere 3 years ago
Actually, Cell membranes and nucleic acids have been shown in laboratory to self-assemble given the right balance of conditions. It takes thousands, even millions of years to form, but they've done it in the laboratory before.
NeutroniumIon 3 years ago
Of course the second law is consistent... the first thought of the second law being rubbish was by James Maxwell in the 19th century... he introduced the "Demon thought Experiment". Looking at it in a microscopic sense the 'impossible' experiment (hence 'thought' experiment) proves that entropy can decrease. But even though it seems as though entropy decreases it was concluded that it actually increases due to other factors contributing to the system. One only has to look at the BIG picture!
Aneon77 3 years ago
terrible music! y would u choose a song with lyrics? it distracts the viewer while they are trying to read the text!
TranceDevotee 4 years ago 3
Everything in your video looked fine, but please, get rid of the phrase "doesn't even have anything to do with it." and "only" the relationship between heat and work in your text box. While the 2nd law is most commonly applied to and stated in re these things, it still applies to all processes, including evolution (I have a B.Sci in physics research if you want to know) But great video!!
killingthyme 4 years ago
I have taken your advice into consideration killingthyme, and removed those comments. I am aware that the 2nd law applies universally, although considering neither an individual organism nor the Earth are closed systems the 2nd law is irrelevant when applied to them (I'm soon to graduate with an M.Eng in Chemical Engineering if you want to know). Thanks for the comment though.
ally0138 4 years ago
the last minute of the vid is what really matters in the 2nd law of thermodynamics, and THAT is what it's all about. great example with the aircon!
Jukonja 4 years ago
anyone seriously interested in complex dissipative systems (gradients) and thermodynamic processes google Ilya Prigogine, also IntotheCool. evolution tends toward non equilibriun dissipative structures..does not violate 2ndLaw, it (complexity) enforces it more efficiently..creationists like grasping at short and weak straws.
tokamak9master 4 years ago 2
'in a closed system all things tend towards entropy' (i only know the 3rd law due to a bad joke my friend used to tell) the god botherers will always miss off 'in a closed system' not that important but in the first evolution can happen and in the second it cant.
shepshepshep 4 years ago
I came here looking for a revision aid and was rather disapointed to find most videos on thermodynamics are about some silly argument about evolution and creationism... Thanks for making a helpfull revision aid. I hope more people will do the same! Anyone know of links to some films explaining the maths behind it?
woolo 4 years ago 3
tnxs this helped me out in my homewrok lol
kekoymariel 4 years ago
I'm all in favour of scientific discussions of the origins of the universe/life/etc. but it must be pointed out when peoples scientific arguments are wrong. I'm not so much concerned about the hardcore creationists, but I fear too many laypeople may be swayed by something like this which appears to be a genuine scientific argument despite being complete nonsense.
ally0138 4 years ago