Second Law of Thermodynamics

This was actually an essay that I had to do for one of my physics classes. I am a christian, but I wasn't about to turn in a paper to my atheist teacher, cos y'know, I'd quite like a good grade :-)

The basic laws of science are meant to be fundamental, unchanging, and can be applied anywhere within our universe, however the second law of thermodynamics appears to go against common scientific belief concerning evolution. The second law of thermodynamics states that “In all energy changes, if no energy enters or leaves the system the potential energy of the state will always be less than that of the initial state ”, generally referred to as an increase in entropy of a system and therefore an increase in the measure of disorder. This is in conflict with evolution as evolution leads to increasingly complex yet more beneficial systems, which are less disordered, which suggests a decrease in entropy, which goes against the second law. There are numerous arguments discussing whether evolution breaks the second law or not, such as open versus closed systems, and is there a greater force at work in the universe.

The second law of thermodynamics is very important to science, and it governs all that scientists know of the universe. There is no currant way to beat this basic law, as the flow of energy is what maintains order and life throughout the universe, and is evident when organisms die naturally, as they have ceased to take in energy, therefore entropy wins.

Creationists argue that evolution is not possible, as “There is no recorded experiment in the history of science that contradicts the second law or its corollaries .” Naturalistic evolution requires that physical laws and atoms always arrange themselves into increasingly more complex but ordered arrangements. This implies that things are supposed to develop upward becoming more complex and orderly; evidence for this can be seen by looking at how humans have developed from apes to homosapiens. However, the basic law of science says the opposite should happen, and that over time, complex arrangements should become simpler, making evolution appear impossible in the real world, as the second law affects everything in the universe.

There is an argument which says that chemical compounds ultimately break apart into simpler ones, and do not become more complex in the long run. Outside forces can increase order for some time through large amounts of energy, but this is not permanent, and once energy stops being provided, processes return to natural disorder . Therefore all complex ordered systems will eventually become simpler and disorderly with time, thus increasing the entropy of the universe. Either evolution will get to a point where it stops and reverses, which would be in agreement with the second law, or continue on the trend it does, going against the second law.
For the second law to be broken, and evolution to forever work by continuing on the upward trend, creationists believe that there must be an extremely powerful force at work within the universe, such as a god, but no such force in nature has been found yet. Creationists believe that this force is bigger than nature and therefore can’t be measured.

The second law of thermodynamics allows for local pockets or systems where entropy can decrease (thus an increase in order), as long as there is an expenditure of energy somewhere else . For example, a refrigerator is able to produce order (such as crystals in ice), from disorder (random water molecules), as long as energy is used. Therefore it is possible for evolution to happen, as energy is being used to maintain this, such as by an embryo is able to produce order (a more complex system as it develops), by receiving energy from an outside source (the mother).
A number of scientists argue that evolution is possible through the use of open systems. By considering the earth as an open system , it is able to receive light energy from the sun, which “powers” evolution . Therefore, if we stop receiving energy from the sun, it would suggest that things return to simpler less complex systems, in agreement with the second law as energy would have to be spread more thinly. There is an argument which suggests that an open sun-earth system is not enough to sustain life. For example, when a plant dies, supplying it with energy, and other needs, would suggest that it would become alive again, thus breaking the second law. However, it is shown that supplying light energy speeds up the disorganization process of decay, which is when an organism is returning to its simpler compounds, even though energy is being supplied, which seems contradictory. Also by considering the entire universe as a closed system, suggests that there will come a time when all the energy is used up, and decay across the universe will set in due to lack of new energy being spread throughout the universe.


In contrast, by considering the conservation of energy it is possible for positive evolution based on how evolution is not a perfect system. Positive evolution tends towards complexity, but sometimes organisms de-evolve or become extinct as they are not able to adapt successfully to their surroundings, and die out due to entropy. Therefore it can be argued that life is just battling entropy, and the ones that aren’t good at this die out first, and they return to simpler systems/compounds. Therefore, other organisms are able to take this energy, which they can then use themselves to evolve and grow. This is an ongoing cycle, where organisms die out; their energy is broken down into simpler forms and then used again, which does not violate the second law, as order is being created from disorder, but that order will eventually be returned and reused, thus not violating the conservation of energy or the second law. This is all due to random adaptation, not a notable effort to evolve. Bad adaptations just collapse to entropy quicker, but ultimately each one dies out.

You could also argue that you could treat every organism or species as a separate closed system and within those they all die as entropy increases. The only thing different about treating the entirety of life as a closed system is the assumption that something has directly happened between species A and slightly improved species B. The only reason there is an improvement is because adaptation is random. They will still all die as entropy increases, hence extinction.

By not looking at the importance of closed/open systems and conservation of energy, it is easy to see why a number of scientists and people believe that evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics, as the idea of increasing complexity and therefore order, goes against the idea that organisms should become simpler to increase entropy. It is also argued that energy can’t be continuously added to a system to increase order, and once this stops, to comply with the second law, everything will return to a state of disorder, therefore the idea of a god is brought in to prevent this from happening.

However, by considering the idea of open and closed systems where energy is merely moved around continuously, and neither added nor destroyed then the second law is not at all violated . Order is created from disorder, but that has been an expenditure of energy, and this new order will eventually become disorder again in an ongoing cycle, so again the law is not violated. Therefore organisms can become more and more complex, and thus evolve positively, as long as energy has been expended, but ultimately they will die due to entropy. Therefore in a closed system there is always energy, and no new energy needs to be added due to the conservation of energy, although some of the energy will become less useful. However, in an open system, less energy needs to be expended as new energy is constantly being added.

In conclusion, evolution is possible, as although everything is still tending towards disorder, the complexity of an organism can still increase, as there would have been energy expenditure at some point, and eventually the organism itself will die, releasing energy which is then used again to create something more complex in an ongoing process. Therefore the second law of thermodynamics is not violated.

Spoiled

Y'know what, I'm spoiled.

I may not get what I want, but I get all my needs provided.

Which is more than can be said for a lot of people in this world.

I don't walk miles to a tap for water, I don't wake up in the mornings wondering whether I will be able to eat today or not. I don't wonder whether my children will be able to get an education, or whether I can keep them free from disease.

No I get to fill my bath tub right to the top and waste as much water as I want. I wake up in the morning, spoilt for choice over what to eat, then complain there isn't enough to choose from. I receive a top education and go to a good university. Granted I pay high fees, but I still have the oppotunity. My healthcare needs are looked after by the government and I know I am in safe hands.

Each day I am grateful for all the needs that are met. Being adopted, I know that I once faced a bleak future, but by some miracle I was adopted, and will forever be grateful. If I wasn't adopted, my needs as a human would not be met, but they are.

So yes, I am spoiled but so are each of us. We don't have to worry about things, and know we have a roof over our heads. All my needs as a human are met, but soo many millions aren't and this makes me sad.

Luck

Everyone says it's easy to forget how lucky we are to live in the Western world, and that we take loads of things for granted. It's true a lot of us do, and we always forget this, and yes it is a bad thing. I guess we can't help it though, we don't see poverty, death, disease every day now. We don't have to walk miles to get dirty water, we walk a few paces to a nice shiny tap. We live in a cotton ball world, far away from all the drama in places such as Africa and Haiti, and so all these bad things don't really resonate with us. I am just as guilty as the next person. I may be aware of certain things, but that doesn't mean I feel it.

I was born into a country where my future was very bleak, and unhappy. I was born to a woman who couldn't even support herself, and was living on less than a dollar a day (yeah I'm one of those stories!), but luckily I was adopted. I was adopted into a western household and given all that I needed, and each day I am grateful that I have soo much more than my fellow Sri Lankans who live in dire poverty. I am grateful that I am able to go to a good university, and not have to worry about where my next meal comes from, I am grateful that I have heating when it's cold, and not have a metal sheet above my head for a roof of a shack on the side of a road. I am very grateful that although I was born into poverty, I was plucked from it, but this is a rareity on the grand scale.

For everyone, we are not born with equal oppotunities, and it literally boils down to, where you were born. Where you were born for the majority decides your fate. And it shouldn't be that. If I wasn't adopted, then I would not have any of the things I have today, whereas because my counterpart in say the USA was born in the USA, he would be entitled to a first class education, and any problems would generally be resolved by the state. He has a safety net in the form of the government to provide for his needs should something happen. For a kid born in Zimbabwae, the story is so very differant.

It's a bleak realisation that being born in certain places decides whether you will get anywhere in life. In England, you can easily advance yourself through education, and we take this for granted, yet in some countries, education is merely a distant dream. If I was born in North Korea, man I would lead a life of suppression, under an autocratic government that is exceedingly corrupt, and have the threat of being taken to a labour camp (a gulag in Russia), should I say anything vaguely out of line.

With the whole tuition fees arguement, everyone is pissed off at the prospect of entering the professional life crippled with debt, it's shown that everyone seems to believe that they have the right to go to university, and I suppose if we have the ability, we should be able to, but for the vast majority of teenagers in this world, university isn't even a dream because it's that unattainable, because the state has no provisions for them. The West has definately become exceedingly greedy at the expense of other nations.

It saddens me, that a lot of people have soo much given to them, yet they don't make use of it, or seem grateful for it. I don't always seem grateful for a lot of things, I am not saint.

choices

All I've wanted to do all my life is be a bum.

Shocking huh?

Well not really. I want to have endless pots of cash, that allows me to travel all over this world. To me, this world is soo bloody beautiful, and amazing, and our time on this planet so short, that all I want to do is see it's true awesomeness.

But I can't.

I have to get a job, I have to do certain things and be a good citizen.

I feel sometimes that society is my judge, jury and executioner and I have to stay within it's confines to function as a member of society. I can't just fuck off for a few years with just a rucksack.

I hate the fact that I can't do what I want with MY life. I have options, but because of the way the world works (due to the way humans have decided it to be), I am limited.

Why should I allow my responsibilities towards society stop me from doing what I want with MY life? The simple answer is because I have to. I am a sheep.