Questions about Evolution

[swansont]

The way you have phrased this, you have that entropy increased elsewhere BECAUSE of life. Instead, the entropy was increasing ANYWAY, thus allowing life to decrease in entropy without violation of the 2nd Law.

 

For instance, plants decrease entropy by using the energy of sunlight to combine carbon dioxide and water to make sugars. It takes a lot of work to create glucose from carbon dioxide and water. The way you stated it, "so the entropy increased elsewhere" that would mean that the decrease in entropy in plants causes the solar system to increase in entropy. That's the "so" in the sentence. Instead, as you well know, the solar system increases in entropy due to the nuclear fusion in the sun. The solar system would increase in entropy whether there were any plants or other life or not.

 

 

 

Not ALL the processes of living beings increase entropy. As we noted, the photosynthesis of sugars by plants decreases entropy and does NOT "reject heat". In heterotrophs, there is conversion of foods to energy. Synthesizing proteins and DNA decrease entropy. This is more than balanced by the increase in entropy due to the combustion of the food.

 

I would view this as life tests the validity of the 2nd Law of Thermo. Since life never exists in a system where the TOTAL entropy is not increasing, then the 2nd Law is not challenged by the existence of life.

 

 

You're comparing different situations. In photosynthesis you cannot have a closed system without including the sun. Combustion of food does not. When you do a complete analysis (pdf file) you find that photosynthesis increases entropy. Any situation that has a decrease in entropy is the result of analyzing only part of a closed system. Challenging the 2nd law was never any part of this. The thesis, as I understand it (and in proper context) is that life is thought to be a more efficient increaser of entropy than inert systems, and that it would be interesting to analyze it like that.

[insane_alien]

As I said I've read stuff which said the probability for the first cell assembling was basically 0 and I had some ideas(non-creationist) to still "explain" the emerging of life against all odds. But if the probability is in fact nonzero than my ideas are irrelevant.

 

this arguement comes from a horrendous misunderstanding of probability.

 

even if the probability is staggeringly low. if the prerequisites occur in enough places for long enough then it becomes likely.

 

take the lottery. 1 in 14 million chance of that happening(approximately) now the prerequisite of that is having bought a lottery ticket. if only one person buys a ticket per year, choosing different numbers each time, he will probably have won within the 14 million years. though it is possible that it could take longer, or he could win on his first go.

 

if 14 million people play once a year and all pick different numbers then the probability of one of them winning is 1. if they don't pick the same numbers then it is less than one but a lot higher than 1 in 14 million.

 

now, the universe(and the earth) is a big place. they are both quite old too. so chances are that there are/were billions of places where the conditions were right(the equivalent of people who bought a lottery ticket) and they also had a few trillion tries each. suddenly, it doesn't seem so ridiculous. then, if you take into account that the only way we can appreciate this is for i to happen then the odds take a jump to 1:1 because it has already happened.

[pioneer]

Life does not increase entropy. Life is a phenomena that decreases entropy. For example, a tree uses CO2, water and minerals. The CO2 can float in the atmosphere for 75 years or so. That is a lot of entropy. Once the plant gets it, it is fixed into a cellulose structure for 100 years.

 

Another good example is the duplication of the DNA. This is nearly perfect. The 0.01% or less changes get all the attention as mutations. This tiny bit is the only entropy in the DNA's duplication. It is only a tiny loss relative to all the molecules that combine into the DNA. Nearly all these base-triphosphates are moving toward lowest enthalpy and lowest entropy. This lowering of enthalpy is assisted by the lowering of energy associated with perfect hydrogen bonding.

 

Stable eco-systems have little disorder or entropy, such that everything is integrated. Even a little disorder, i.e., pertubation, can have an impact on the eco-system. But the eco-system will adjust itself so it can once again lower this entropy.

 

If we start with the soup of life before there was any life, this was the state of maximum entropy. All the small molecules can freely float and collide in the water, in sort of a random way with very little order. As order begins to forms, by whatever mechanism, the entropy begins to decrease. Stable implies lower energy states or states of lowered enthlapy and entropy. That has been the direction of life. For example, the human body is the most complicated body of them all. It fully integrates a lot of biology in a very ordered way. Yet we only seem to focus on the 0.01% disorder and base all our theories on that. The life sciences get too empirical, precluding reason and common sense. The disorder of life is the acception; order is the rule of life. Theory needs to address the rule.

 

If you look at selective advantage in any shape or form, that makes a new center onto which order in the environment integrates around. The evolution of the eye allows energy input to focus/order even better. It does not make the light scatter with increasing chaos. The progression of the brain adds further orders to this, by fixing this focused energy input into memories. Even those memories become orderred so we can make sense of what we see and know.

[foodchain]

Life does not increase entropy. Life is a phenomena that decreases entropy. For example, a tree uses CO2, water and minerals. The CO2 can float in the atmosphere for 75 years or so. That is a lot of entropy. Once the plant gets it, it is fixed into a cellulose structure for 100 years.

 

Another good example is the duplication of the DNA. This is nearly perfect. The 0.01% or less changes get all the attention as mutations. This tiny bit is the only entropy in the DNA's duplication. It is only a tiny loss relative to all the molecules that combine into the DNA. Nearly all these base-triphosphates are moving toward lowest enthalpy and lowest entropy. This lowering of enthalpy is assisted by the lowering of energy associated with perfect hydrogen bonding.

 

Stable eco-systems have little disorder or entropy, such that everything is integrated. Even a little disorder, i.e., pertubation, can have an impact on the eco-system. But the eco-system will adjust itself so it can once again lower this entropy.

 

If we start with the soup of life before there was any life, this was the state of maximum entropy. All the small molecules can freely float and collide in the water, in sort of a random way with very little order. As order begins to forms, by whatever mechanism, the entropy begins to decrease. Stable implies lower energy states or states of lowered enthlapy and entropy. That has been the direction of life. For example, the human body is the most complicated body of them all. It fully integrates a lot of biology in a very ordered way. Yet we only seem to focus on the 0.01% disorder and base all our theories on that. The life sciences get too empirical, precluding reason and common sense. The disorder of life is the acception; order is the rule of life. Theory needs to address the rule.

 

If you look at selective advantage in any shape or form, that makes a new center onto which order in the environment integrates around. The evolution of the eye allows energy input to focus/order even better. It does not make the light scatter with increasing chaos. The progression of the brain adds further orders to this, by fixing this focused energy input into memories. Even those memories become orderred so we can make sense of what we see and know.

 

I would say the life sciences have to stick purely to physical observation and empirical proof not only because its sound scientifically, but because the field is attacked far to much for reasons that have nothing to do with science, such as religion.

 

As for ordered structure, well I get rather interested in all of it too, the molecular basis of life that is. I don’t see the code as in DNA coming online in the beginnings of life if you will, and I started a thread asking people there views on what came first, the cell or the code. I personally think it was the cell, or protocell that managed to basically keep integrity or equilibrium and over time doing this managed to develop more and more complexity. I don’t however see it as just chemistry, there is a devout physical aspect to biology. Such as biofilm, or why the virus? As you say the structure and function of life in many regards is to obtain order, or really the structure probably evolved into order for function which is survival. I think the problem is people cannot view the evolution of life in the actual timeframe that such occurred. I don’t think people cannot cognitively put together the pieces in such a large amount of time, I try to think about it, typically I get hung up on thinking just how damn big dinosaurs were.

 

For instance, which is more common in Europe, a mutation came about that basically makes people immune to the HIV virus and or aids. It came about far earlier then aids and current thought on the subject links the mutation with people that survived previous plagues. Its one minor mutation but in a reality it would allow those people to survive a fatal virus as it stands. Another aspect is the human immune system in general, in which a push of immunity is to make the germs or virus basically mutate itself into a fatal mutation basically for the population. Or mutate to death overall.

 

I see a lot of biology as constantly trying to play catch up, because it has to try to develop how the current form came from the past form. The idea of a giant symbiosis of life all on its own is a massive puzzle really. Its also the idea that a simple organism can be effectively studied from so many disciplines, and trying to get all those disciplines to communicate effectively. About one of the only ways I see this making it day to day as is evident I think in reality from reading on the subject extensively is via of course evolution.

[Billy Ray]

this arguement comes from a horrendous misunderstanding of probability.

Why do you think so? I think those guys are quite aware of what you said and still claim the probability is low.

 

I was pretty pleased with the approachability to the science of prebiotic life offered in the below article. You may want to check it out.

 

http://www.as.utexas.edu/astronomy/education/spring07/scalo/secure/BergBiochemEvo.pdf

 

Looks like a nice paper, I'll read it. Thanks iNow.

[swansont]

Life does not increase entropy. Life is a phenomena that decreases entropy. For example, a tree uses CO2, water and minerals. The CO2 can float in the atmosphere for 75 years or so. That is a lot of entropy. Once the plant gets it, it is fixed into a cellulose structure for 100 years.

 

Another good example is the duplication of the DNA. This is nearly perfect. The 0.01% or less changes get all the attention as mutations. This tiny bit is the only entropy in the DNA's duplication. It is only a tiny loss relative to all the molecules that combine into the DNA. Nearly all these base-triphosphates are moving toward lowest enthalpy and lowest entropy. This lowering of enthalpy is assisted by the lowering of energy associated with perfect hydrogen bonding.

 

Stable eco-systems have little disorder or entropy, such that everything is integrated. Even a little disorder, i.e., pertubation, can have an impact on the eco-system. But the eco-system will adjust itself so it can once again lower this entropy.

 

If we start with the soup of life before there was any life, this was the state of maximum entropy. All the small molecules can freely float and collide in the water, in sort of a random way with very little order. As order begins to forms, by whatever mechanism, the entropy begins to decrease. Stable implies lower energy states or states of lowered enthlapy and entropy. That has been the direction of life. For example, the human body is the most complicated body of them all. It fully integrates a lot of biology in a very ordered way. Yet we only seem to focus on the 0.01% disorder and base all our theories on that. The life sciences get too empirical, precluding reason and common sense. The disorder of life is the acception; order is the rule of life. Theory needs to address the rule.

 

If you look at selective advantage in any shape or form, that makes a new center onto which order in the environment integrates around. The evolution of the eye allows energy input to focus/order even better. It does not make the light scatter with increasing chaos. The progression of the brain adds further orders to this, by fixing this focused energy input into memories. Even those memories become orderred so we can make sense of what we see and know.

 

You are only looking at part of the system that has lower entropy and are ignoring the rest, where the entropy is higher. To say that any process lowers entropy is a tacit admission that it is an open system, and if one were to properly identify the closed system the total entropy would increase. No exceptions.

[lucaspa]

You're comparing different situations. In photosynthesis you cannot have a closed system without including the sun. Combustion of food does not. When you do a complete analysis (pdf file) you find that photosynthesis increases entropy. Any situation that has a decrease in entropy is the result of analyzing only part of a closed system. Challenging the 2nd law was never any part of this.

 

Neither of us are claiming that life violates the 2nd Law. When dealing with the 2nd Law you have to specify the system. The whole system increases in entropy, even if subsystems decrease in entropy. In the paper you included, instead of taking the solar system as the "system", the author takes instead that total amount of light that hits the leaf. He is assuming that enough is reflected to provide enough increase in entropy to counter the decrease seen with formation of glucose:

 

"By hypothesis, only the part rU, of the energy is used in the photochemical reaction (1), while the remainder (1 - -) U, is emitted as blackbody radiation having volume V, temperature TE - T, and thus the entropy (4/3) (1 - n) U,/T."

 

"When radiation of volume V and energy U, is absorbed by the

leaf, only the fraction i of the energy is utilized in the reaction (1), and thus reappears as the excess of the free energy of the products over that of the chemical reactants; the remaining fraction 1 - 7, we assume, is emitted by the leaf as equilibrium radiation of temperature TE and volume V. The accompanying (negative) increase of the entropy of the reacting molecules and the (positive) increase of the radiation entropy are ASm and AS, say."

 

So here the system is all the light that hits the leaf, with the subsystem being the amount of light absorbed by chlorophyll and used in the reaction. It's a more constrained system than the entire solar system, but still broader than the individual chlorophyll molecule. As such, it is still valid and, within this smaller system, the increase of entropy does appear to be greater than the decrease in entropy in the synthesis of glucose (altho here the author is very weak on providing the equations for that entropy; he simply asserts it, referring back to a very obscure 1951 book.)

 

The thesis, as I understand it (and in proper context) is that life is thought to be a more efficient increaser of entropy than inert systems, and that it would be interesting to analyze it like that.

 

That's pretty close to the thesis as I understand it and it is that thesis that I am challenging. Mostly because non-living systems have very few processes that will decrease entropy, whereas living systems, by their very nature, must have processes that do so. For instance, look at the balance of ions across cell membranes. In terms of ionic concentrations of Na, K, PO4, etc, cells have decreased entropy and maintain it by energy using ion pumps. So, is the net increase of entropy greater in the cell (increase in entropy of pump - decrease in entropy of ion concentration) than the increase in entropy we would see by placing comparable solutions of salts adjacent to one another and then removing the barrier and allowing them to mix freely?

 

As far as I can tell, Sampson made the assertion without doing the work.

 

Life does not increase entropy. Life is a phenomena that decreases entropy. For example, a tree uses CO2, water and minerals. The CO2 can float in the atmosphere for 75 years or so. That is a lot of entropy. Once the plant gets it, it is fixed into a cellulose structure for 100 years.

 

This again is about specifying the system. You forgot that the tree also uses light to make glucose. So yes, looking only at the formation of glucose, you have a decrease in entropy. However, you can't do that. You have to also look at the formation of the light that was used to make glucose. When you do that, then there is a net increase of entropy.

 

Also, cellulose is a polymer of hexoses (not all of which are glucose). In order to make the bonds connecting the individual hexoses to each other, you must use energy. This total energy ends up being an increase in entropy overall.

 

Another good example is the duplication of the DNA. This is nearly perfect. The 0.01% or less changes get all the attention as mutations. This tiny bit is the only entropy in the DNA's duplication. It is only a tiny loss relative to all the molecules that combine into the DNA. Nearly all these base-triphosphates are moving toward lowest enthalpy and lowest entropy. This lowering of enthalpy is assisted by the lowering of energy associated with perfect hydrogen bonding.

 

Again, you aren't looking at the total system. Remember you said "duplication of DNA". Yes, the hydrogen bonding is such that, using Gibb's Free Energy equation, the formation of the helix is spontaneous because of the hydrogen bonds. However, if you look at the "duplication" of adding nucleotides to the chain and all the reactions involved in that, you have a very large increase in entropy overall to get the decrease in entropy of the DNA polymer. Thus, the net entropy increases even tho you have a decrease in entropy in the chain.

 

If we start with the soup of life before there was any life, this was the state of maximum entropy. All the small molecules can freely float and collide in the water, in sort of a random way with very little order. As order begins to forms, by whatever mechanism, the entropy begins to decrease.

 

Again, you have to look at the total system. In order for amino acids to react to form proteins, you must add heat. The generation of that heat is a larger increase in entropy than the decrease in entropy of the proteins.

 

In making proteins by directed synthesis in cells, the energy is supplied by the cleavage of ATP. Only part of the energy is used in forming the covalent bonds between amino acids. The rest is dissipated as heat -- increase in entropy. Even in making an ATP by combustion of food, only part of the energy is used to make the high energy phosphate bond. The rest is dissipated as heat -- increase in entropy. When you look at the total change in entropy by formation of ATP and then cleavage of ATP to make the covalent bonds and the change in entropy from amino acids to protein, you find that the net change in entropy is an increase.

 

Yes, life does carve out a volume of decreased entropy -- a subsystem of decreased entropy. But it does so within a larger system where entropy increases and that increase in the larger system is so large that the net entropy of the entire system -- larger system + life -- still increases.

 

And biochemists have addressed this phenomenon in great detail. They have studied in great detail exactly how life decreases entropy, but that includes studying how the overall entropy of the system increases.

 

By real cell I mean a cell that can evolve into a human being(and everything else).

 

Then the protocell qualifies. It has the ability to evolve further, since replication is going to give variations among the daughter cells.

 

"The ease with which such protocell units arise under possible primitive Earth conditions has been abundantly documented, especially in the elegant experiments of Sidney Fox and his collaborators on the proteinoid microspheres. .. For our purposes it is sufficient to note that preformed primitive polypeptides (proteinoids) have properties enabling them to aggregate spontaneously to form remarkably uniform spherical units of bacterial dimensions which contain complex internal morphology including a double wall, exchange materials with the ambient medium, grow, cleave in two, fuse, exhibit weak catalytic activiity, and move when ATP is added to the medium. Protocells containing both proteinoid and polynucleotide have been shown to carry on a primitive kind of protocoding activity (27,29) The proteinoid microsphere is a compelling model for the high-probability prebiotic origin of discrete individual units of evolving organic mattter which could conceivably compete with one another and thus provide the basis for a primitive selection process." Dean H. Kenyon, Prefigured ordering and protoselection in the origin of life. In The Origins of Life and Evolutionary Biochemistry, ed. Dose, Fox, Deborin, and Pavlovskaya, 1974, pg 211.

 

This is one possible sequence of events for abiogenesis:

1. Formation of amino acids from primordial precursors (water, ammonia, carbon dioxide, methane, oxygen, hydrogen, etc.) [M-U experiments and Miller and Orgel].

2. Formation of proteins by polymerization of sets of amino acids. [Fox and others].

3. Formation of microspheres by contact of proteins with water [Fox and others].

4. Synthesis of RNA within the microspheres [Fox]

5. Replication of RNA. [Orgel]

6. Development of the genetic code.

The first 5 steps have been done in the lab. I will be happy to provide a full set of references if you are interested. They are simple chemical steps whose probability is close to 1 (100% likely to happen). Step 5 also depends upon the chemical properties of RNA and is nearly 100% likely to happen. Development of the genetic code is still under investigation. However, internal evidence from the code itself indicates it started as a 2 letter code for only 16 amino acids. Here again is a stepwise movement. There is a paper describing how directed protein synthesis could evolve once you have RNA, with each of the steps being advantageous.

 

It is also interesting to note:

"In more recent work, Fox and his colleagues have shown that basic proteinoids, rich in lysine residues, selectively associate with the homopolynucleotides poly C and poly U but not with poly A or poly G. On the other hand, arginine-rich proteinoids associate selectively with poly A and poly G. In this manner, the information in proteinoids can be used to select polynucleotides. Morever, it is striking that aminoacyl adenylates yield oligopeptides when incubated with proteinoid-polynucleotide complexes, which thus have some of the characteristics of ribosomes. Fox has suggested that proteinoids bearing this sort of primitive chemical information could have transferred it to a primitive nucleic acid; the specificity of interaction between certain proteinoids and polynucleotides suggests the beginning of the genetic code." A. Lehninger, Biochemistry, 1975, pp 1047-1048

 

So this is how the genetic code gets started: again simple chemistry.

[bombus]

If that is what Sampson is saying, then it is wrong. Life doesn't "disperse" energy, but concentrates it. Remember, life is a DECREASE in entropy: it is an INCREASE in the energy available to do work.

 

Life disperses energy. Life increases entropy in the universe. Life is NOT order from disorder.

 

I disagree. I think you need to distinguish between the process and the entity.

 

Without getting into the details of what life is, the processes of living beings increase entropy. View the body as an engine: it does work and rejects heat. It definitely increases entropy. The being itself, i.e. all of the molecules that comprise it, represents a decrease in entropy. But it took a lot of work to create that being, so the entropy increased elsewhere.

 

I agree, except that I would argue that life is order from order, not order from disorder.

[lucaspa]

Life disperses energy. Life increases entropy in the universe. Life is NOT order from disorder.

 

The universe is increasing in entropy, but life represents a local decrease in entropy. In doing thermodynamic calculations you must consider the system and surroundings.

 

The entropy of the system and surroundings must increase, BUT the entropy of the system can decrease. Consider a compressed gas cylinder such that the output goes thru a turbine that in turn runs and electrical motor. Open the cylinder and the expanding gas increases in entropy. However, in the process you get a decrease in entropy in the electric motor.

 

Or think about cleaning the garage. The system is the garage and the system + surroundings is you, the atmosphere, and the garage. As you put items in the garage in order, you are decreasing the entropy of the garage. However, when you consider yourself and the atmosphere, there is an increase in entropy as you convert food to carbon dioxide, water, waste heat, and work. Thus the entropy of the system + surroundings increases.

 

Life is like that. Life itself does not "increase entropy in the universe". Life decreases entropy BUT that decrease is much smaller than the increase in entropy as the universe expands. Therefore the total entropy of the universe (system + surroundings) continues to increase despite the decrease in entropy (system) in living organisms.

 

"First, it must be emphasized that in entropy calculations it is important to distinguish between the system and the surroundings of the system. The system is that part on which we focus our attention. It may be part of a mechanical system, or more chemically, a gas, liquid, solid, or a reaction mixture. The surroundings constitute all other parts that might interact with the system. The surroundings will most frequently consist of heat reservoirs that can add to or subtract heat from the system or mechanical devices which can do work on or accept work from that system. The entropy change, not only of the system but also of the surroundings, will be of interest, and it will be important in all entropy considerations to distinguish these components clearly. The combination of the system and its surroundings correspond to an "isolated system", as suggested in Fig. 7.4, since the process being considered affects nothing outside of the system and its surroundings" pg 191-192. Physical Chemistry by Gordon M. Barrow

[immortal]

 

 

Then the protocell qualifies. It has the ability to evolve further, since replication is going to give variations among the daughter cells.

 

This is one possible sequence of events for abiogenesis:

1. Formation of amino acids from primordial precursors (water, ammonia, carbon dioxide, methane, oxygen, hydrogen, etc.) [M-U experiments and Miller and Orgel].

2. Formation of proteins by polymerization of sets of amino acids. [Fox and others].

3. Formation of microspheres by contact of proteins with water [Fox and others].

4. Synthesis of RNA within the microspheres [Fox]

5. Replication of RNA. [Orgel]

6. Development of the genetic code.

The first 5 steps have been done in the lab. I will be happy to provide a full set of references if you are interested. They are simple chemical steps whose probability is close to 1 (100% likely to happen). Step 5 also depends upon the chemical properties of RNA and is nearly 100% likely to happen. Development of the genetic code is still under investigation. However, internal evidence from the code itself indicates it started as a 2 letter code for only 16 amino acids. Here again is a stepwise movement. There is a paper describing how directed protein synthesis could evolve once you have RNA, with each of the steps being advantageous.

 

 

Yes if proteins had formed in the primitive stages of the Earth then it can easily lead to formation of microspheres-->organelles-->cells-->tissues-->organs-->organ systems-->organisms-->populations-->ecosystems-->biodiversity. There are several studies which suggests that the proteins replicate,compete for same resources and also show symbiosis (i.e. symbiotic hypercycle).

 

But it raises a question in my mind whether we are for the survival of the 'GENES' or for the 'PROTEINS' or may be for both. If life is the emergent property of the proteins then we are surely for the PROTEINS because a gene as such can not survive without the help of proteins. Life is due to the symbiosis of proteins and DNA. Not only the genes are passed from generation to generation even the proteins present in the sperm and ovum is passed on. If a gene gets altered even the resultant protein gets altered and also it is the proteins which are visible to natural selection and not the genes (genes which do not express). Therefore natural selection select proteins and there by select genes. It is not right to limit evolution only for genes even we have to consider the proteins. Please correct me if I am wrong.

[pioneer]

If you look at life and entropy, there are two ways to look at it. Life itself is an orderred system that evolved from chemicals that were originally in states of higher entropy. But at the same, it survives by metabolism, which increases entropy. But when it replicates itself, it brings choas or the high entropy of smaller chemicals into growing polymer states, which themselves group and order into even lower entropy. Life itself is order, but to achieve and maintain this order it takes energy, increasing entropy.

 

If we grew a crystal from a solution, the entropy decreases. The lowering of enthalpy will more than make up for the loss of entropy. The living state takes this one step further and creates a dynamic state. The food comes from the environment. As we digest it, we increase its entropy into smaller and smaller easier to digest molecules. Then the cells funnel or actively transport these into very systematic pathways, lowering their entropy once again, even during transport. Much of it adds to make larger molecules like proteins. These proteins have specific spots in the cell.

 

The primary net entropy generation is connected to waste products. These increase entropy until another life form takes them it to order them. Even if you look at ATP energy within the cell, this is not helta-skelta. This has a sense of direction, moving in a way within the cells, that will reduce its entropy below what it would be, if it was just randomly floating in water.

 

If you look at a single cell replicating over and over, making dozens of cells, from the point of view of the cells as a whole, entropy has increased. But all the chemical swithin the cells are very orderred such that, pound for pound, chemical entropy have decreased. I think the problem people face is that chaos theory breaks down with life. Yet there is a tendancy to make this acception in the living state,the rule anyway. The genetic mutation approach, instead of looking at evolution being a logical extrapolation of all the orderring within cells, looks at evolution as due to some type of random disorder that then creates better order?

 

It is sort of like observing diamonds always forming a nice tetrahedral crystal structure. There are often some defects. So we focus on the defects and explain the 99% perfect diamondf in terms of some chaos principle. The choas represents a degenerate state of the diamond not its perfection. Random mutations are a degenerate state of a cell's perfect order. Directed or ordered genetic changes are what make the cell even more evolved and allow life to become even more like a pure diamond.

 

Science can't figure out how to explain orderred changes in the genetics twhich can allow life to evolve lower and lower entropy. So it adds higher entropy within a mutation, that is now suppose to help lower entropy. I will give you a little hint. Lower entropy can be addressed at the level of the hydrogen proton. The biggest problem with the hydrogen analysis is getting rid of the mutation mythology. This is made more diffucult because chaos is an empirical theory that fits empirical science. It is the blind leading the blind making everyone unable to see the light of reason.

[bombus]

The universe is increasing in entropy, but life represents a local decrease in entropy. In doing thermodynamic calculations you must consider the system and surroundings.

 

The entropy of the system and surroundings must increase, BUT the entropy of the system can decrease. Consider a compressed gas cylinder such that the output goes thru a turbine that in turn runs and electrical motor. Open the cylinder and the expanding gas increases in entropy. However, in the process you get a decrease in entropy in the electric motor.

 

Or think about cleaning the garage. The system is the garage and the system + surroundings is you, the atmosphere, and the garage. As you put items in the garage in order, you are decreasing the entropy of the garage. However, when you consider yourself and the atmosphere, there is an increase in entropy as you convert food to carbon dioxide, water, waste heat, and work. Thus the entropy of the system + surroundings increases.

 

Life is like that. Life itself does not "increase entropy in the universe". Life decreases entropy BUT that decrease is much smaller than the increase in entropy as the universe expands. Therefore the total entropy of the universe (system + surroundings) continues to increase despite the decrease in entropy (system) in living organisms.

 

"First, it must be emphasized that in entropy calculations it is important to distinguish between the system and the surroundings of the system. The system is that part on which we focus our attention. It may be part of a mechanical system, or more chemically, a gas, liquid, solid, or a reaction mixture. The surroundings constitute all other parts that might interact with the system. The surroundings will most frequently consist of heat reservoirs that can add to or subtract heat from the system or mechanical devices which can do work on or accept work from that system. The entropy change, not only of the system but also of the surroundings, will be of interest, and it will be important in all entropy considerations to distinguish these components clearly. The combination of the system and its surroundings correspond to an "isolated system", as suggested in Fig. 7.4, since the process being considered affects nothing outside of the system and its surroundings" pg 191-192. Physical Chemistry by Gordon M. Barrow

 

Well if we agreed that life uses energy from the system to delay (or even temporarily reverse) the effects of 2nd law of Thermodynamics, it's effect is to increase the overall entropy of the universe. Life captures solar energy and ultimately converts it to heat better than a bare rock would (less reflection, convertion of photons to heat...), so ultimately the universe increases entropy by having life. Thusly, life may be a very effective way of increasing entropy, thus could be just a side effect of the eddies in spacetime of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Still with me?

[swansont]

Well if we agreed that life uses energy from the system to delay (or even temporarily reverse) the effects of 2nd law of Thermodynamics,

 

I don't think anyone has agreed with that. If you would reread carefully, you will note that a local decrease in entropy is not synonymous with delaying or reversing the 2nd law. It is synonymous with either (a)defining your system to be open, or (b) as part of a larger, closed system. Any mention of not following the second law is sloppy and incorrect.

 

What I think has been agreed upon is that life represents a local decrease in entropy.

[lucaspa]

Life captures solar energy and ultimately converts it to heat better than a bare rock would (less reflection, convertion of photons to heat...), so ultimately the universe increases entropy by having life.

 

Not "better". There is a maximum to entropy and you simply can't do "better" than maximum entropy. As it happens, light hitting a rock is re-radiated at more entropy than life hitting a leaf. Why? Because part of the light hitting the leaf is converted to sugar -- lower entropy.

 

Now, later the sugar will be "burned" by the plant or an animal. At that point the heat radiated will be equal to that the rock did initially.

 

Thusly, life may be a very effective way of increasing entropy, thus could be just a side effect of the eddies in spacetime of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Still with me?

 

With you but disagree. This doesn't make life a "very effective way of increasing entropy" but rather a very INeffective way of increasing entropy. Life has to go thru extra steps to get the same increase of entropy.

 

And what in the world does "eddies in spacetime" have to do with this subject? What are "eddies in spacetime" anyway? In Einsteinian gravity, those would be stars and planets and other matter.

 

Any mention of not following the second law is sloppy and incorrect.

 

What I think has been agreed upon is that life represents a local decrease in entropy.

 

Well, this is what I have agreed to.

[swansont]

Not "better". There is a maximum to entropy and you simply can't do "better" than maximum entropy. As it happens, light hitting a rock is re-radiated at more entropy than life hitting a leaf. Why? Because part of the light hitting the leaf is converted to sugar -- lower entropy.

 

Now, later the sugar will be "burned" by the plant or an animal. At that point the heat radiated will be equal to that the rock did initially.

 

But the outstanding question is whether the entropy increase will be the same.

[bombus]

Not "better". There is a maximum to entropy and you simply can't do "better" than maximum entropy. As it happens, light hitting a rock is re-radiated at more entropy than life hitting a leaf. Why? Because part of the light hitting the leaf is converted to sugar -- lower entropy.

 

Now, later the sugar will be "burned" by the plant or an animal. At that point the heat radiated will be equal to that the rock did initially.

 

Surely energy reflected off a rock would be on average of a much higher frequency than energy emitted as heat/infra red radiation by a plant. Photons emitted into deep space may travel for millions of years before being able to hit something and be converted to heat. Life captures many more photons and ultimately turns them to heat far more quickly than a bare rocky planet would.

 

 

 

With you but disagree. This doesn't make life a "very effective way of increasing entropy" but rather a very INeffective way of increasing entropy. Life has to go thru extra steps to get the same increase of entropy.

 

I refer you to my comment above

 

And what in the world does "eddies in spacetime" have to do with this subject? What are "eddies in spacetime" anyway? In Einsteinian gravity, those would be stars and planets and other matter.

 

Aaahhh, well, they exist but cannot be detected. Matter is a result of eddies in the flow of spacetime, just like peacocks tails and tigers stipes are the result of eddies in the flow of eco-energy. I have absolutely no scientific proof of this whatsoever, but science would not be capable of proving it either way anyway. A bit like the ether.

[swansont]

Aaahhh, well, they exist but cannot be detected. Matter is a result of eddies in the flow of spacetime, just like peacocks tails and tigers stipes are the result of eddies in the flow of eco-energy. I have absolutely no scientific proof of this whatsoever, but science would not be capable of proving it either way anyway. A bit like the ether.

 

Of course "they exist but cannot be detected" is, from a science standpoint, excrement. It needs to be bagged up and removed from the discussion.

[bombus]

Of course "they exist but cannot be detected" is, from a science standpoint, excrement. It needs to be bagged up and removed from the discussion.

 

Fine by me.

 

(Oh ye of little faith)

 

Should we also stop talking about superstring theory? No, don't answer that one...

[pioneer]

In chemistry, instead of talking about entropy, they talk about Gibb's free energy, which is sort of the sum of entropy and enthalpy. The enthalpy is sort of the energy given off when chemicals go to a lower energy state. If you form a crystal, atoms lower entropy when they leave the molten or solution phase to enter the orderred state of the crystal. This is driven by the lowering of enthalpy, since atoms forming crystals will give off energy as they form the crystal lattice. Inthis case, the Gibb's free energy is still lower. It is not in violation of thermodynamics. The final state was able to decrease entropy because it gained from an enthalpy affect.

 

The living state can decrease the entropy of chemicals because the Gibb's free energy is still lowering when this occurs. No violation of thermo. The amount of enthalpy change, due to burning or metabolizing fuel or food, is the big kicker. This max potential can lower entropy, as well as increase enthalpy, on a smaller scale, such as making membrane lipids. But the Gibb's free energy, if we sun it for a celll, is lowering via thermo-law. In terms of evolution, one may say life and evolution both lower GFE.

[bombus]

In chemistry, instead of talking about entropy, they talk about Gibb's free energy, which is sort of the sum of entropy and enthalpy. The enthalpy is sort of the energy given off when chemicals go to a lower energy state. If you form a crystal, atoms lower entropy when they leave the molten or solution phase to enter the orderred state of the crystal. This is driven by the lowering of enthalpy, since atoms forming crystals will give off energy as they form the crystal lattice. Inthis case, the Gibb's free energy is still lower. It is not in violation of thermodynamics. The final state was able to decrease entropy because it gained from an enthalpy affect.

 

The living state can decrease the entropy of chemicals because the Gibb's free energy is still lowering when this occurs. No violation of thermo. The amount of enthalpy change, due to burning or metabolizing fuel or food, is the big kicker. This max potential can lower entropy, as well as increase enthalpy, on a smaller scale, such as making membrane lipids. But the Gibb's free energy, if we sun it for a celll, is lowering via thermo-law. In terms of evolution, one may say life and evolution both lower GFE.

 

Great stuff. I like it!

[lucaspa]

But the outstanding question is whether the entropy increase will be the same.

 

It should be because 1) in both cases the radiation will be in the infrared, 2) eventually both processes will end up with energy that cannot do any further work (maximum entropy).

 

Surely energy reflected off a rock would be on average of a much higher frequency than energy emitted as heat/infra red radiation by a plant.

 

Not necessarily. Remember, we are talking about photons that have been absorbed by the chemicals of the rock, pushing the electrons to a higher energy state. When the electrons fall back, they re-emit photons in the infrared. All you need do is feel that rocks sitting in the sun are warm.

 

Now, if you are talking "reflected", that simply means the photons bounce off the material. Wavelength is unchanged. The chlorophyll of plants is such that it is very good at absorbing at particular wavelengths BUT some photons are reflected -- the ones in the green of the spectrum. Which is why, of course, plants are green.

 

Life captures many more photons and ultimately turns them to heat far more quickly than a bare rocky planet would.

 

That's the fallacy. Plants capture photons in the red frequencies and converts them to SUGAR, not heat. A rock either reflects them or absorbs them and re-emits them as heat. Thus the rock goes to increasing entropy more quickly.

 

Aaahhh, well, they exist but cannot be detected. Matter is a result of eddies in the flow of spacetime, just like peacocks tails and tigers stipes are the result of eddies in the flow of eco-energy. I have absolutely no scientific proof of this whatsoever, but science would not be capable of proving it either way anyway. A bit like the ether.

 

Actually, remember that science was able to DISprove the aether. Look up Michelson-Morely experiments. And I would think that this theory of matter as "eddies" in the flow of spacetime could be detected by looking in the past. After all, spacetime is flowing faster now than in the past, so by your theory there should be more matter now than in the past. Yet as I recall, the amount of matter seen by Hubble in the past is the same as we see now.

 

In chemistry, instead of talking about entropy, they talk about Gibb's free energy, which is sort of the sum of entropy and enthalpy. The enthalpy is sort of the energy given off when chemicals go to a lower energy state.

 

Gibb's free energy measures whether a reaction is spontaneous. And yes, you can get a spontaneous reaction that lowers entropy if the enthalpy has a larger negative value than the positive value of the decreasing entropy.

 

The formula is:

deltaG = deltaH -TxdeltaS, where deltaH is the change in heat given off (-)

or heat required (+) for the reaction, T is temperature in degrees Kelvin,

and deltaS is the change in entropy. Increasing entropy is positive and

decreasing entropy is negative. You can see that if entropy decreases the

-deltaS times -T yields a positive number and would tend to indicate that the

reaction is not spontaneous. However, if deltaH is negative (gives off

heat), it can compensate for a positive TxdeltaS to yield a negative deltaG

and the reaction will still be spontaneous. One example of this is the

combustion of hydrogen and oxygen to form water. The hydrogen and oxygen

gases have greater entropy than water, but the heat given off by the reaction overcomes the decrease in entropy and the reaction is spontaneous (as the passengers aboard the Hindenburg witnessed). Interestingly, helical DNA has less entropy than single strand DNA. Double strand, helical DNA is much more organized than single strand, random DNA. Yet DNA does NOT spontaneously unwind. It must be heated (energy added) to unwind and go to a state of greater entropy. In the case of DNA, the hydrogen bonds between the nucleotide pairs of the 2 DNA strands have enough negative deltaH to overwhelm the positive TxdeltaS.

 

The free energy equation operates only in a closed system, where no outside

energy is available. If outside energy is available, then it can be applied

to overcome a positive deltaH or decrease in entropy. This would drive the reaction to occur even if it is not spontaneous.

 

But the Gibb's free energy, if we sun it for a celll, is lowering via thermo-law. In terms of evolution, one may say life and evolution both lower GFE.

 

Since evolution applies to populations of organisms and Gibb's Free Energy applies to chemical reactions, it would be a mistake to say that evolution lowers GFE.

[bombus]

Actually, remember that science was able to DISprove the aether. Look up Michelson-Morely experiments.

 

Science proved that the aether could not be detected (by scientific investigation), which isn't exactly the same thing. Einstein just ignored it because of this, but never said it didn't exist.

 

"More careful reflection teaches us, however, that the special theory of relativity does not compel us to deny ether...To deny the ether is ultimately to assume that empty space has no physical qualities whatever". Albert Einstein

 

Not necessarily. Remember, we are talking about photons that have been absorbed by the chemicals of the rock, pushing the electrons to a higher energy state. When the electrons fall back, they re-emit photons in the infrared. All you need do is feel that rocks sitting in the sun are warm.

 

Yes, but most of that heat is reflected into space.

 

Now, if you are talking "reflected", that simply means the photons bounce off the material. Wavelength is unchanged. The chlorophyll of plants is such that it is very good at absorbing at particular wavelengths BUT some photons are reflected -- the ones in the green of the spectrum. Which is why, of course, plants are green.

 

That's the fallacy. Plants capture photons in the red frequencies and converts them to SUGAR, not heat. A rock either reflects them or absorbs them and re-emits them as heat. Thus the rock goes to increasing entropy more quickly.

 

Yes, but the sugar is eventually emitted as heat, far more quickly than the reflected infra red photons ever will. Life is a great way of increasing entropy.

 

Since evolution applies to populations of organisms and Gibb's Free Energy applies to chemical reactions, it would be a mistake to say that evolution lowers GFE.

 

Life, therefore evolution, is just chemical reactions.

[swansont]

It should be because 1) in both cases the radiation will be in the infrared, 2) eventually both processes will end up with energy that cannot do any further work (maximum entropy).

The problem is with the "eventually." If one happens faster, it is more efficient at generating entropy.

 

That's the fallacy. Plants capture photons in the red frequencies and converts them to SUGAR, not heat. A rock either reflects them or absorbs them and re-emits them as heat. Thus the rock goes to increasing entropy more quickly.

 

But you are ignoring the rest of the reactions. While the rock is sitting there (in the dark, too) radiating away, what is the plant doing?

[foodchain]

Aaahhh, well, they exist but cannot be detected. Matter is a result of eddies in the flow of spacetime, just like peacocks tails and tigers stipes are the result of eddies in the flow of eco-energy. I have absolutely no scientific proof of this whatsoever, but science would not be capable of proving it either way anyway. A bit like the ether.

 

I don’t know if it pertains to the subject but somewhere I read that the pattern to a Siamese cat for instance is due to differentiation temperature wise if memory serves impacting certain chemicals really.

 

I would doubt that save for natural selection there is no real universal mechanism to why certain species display certain phenotypic characters overall.

 

As for the movement of energy in a terrestrial or aquatic or etc type of ecosystem some of the more standard though biologically speaking can be found in the following websites.

 

http://www.bioedonline.org/slides/slide01.cfm?q=%22ecology%22&dpg=10

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_chain

[bombus]

I don’t know if it pertains to the subject but somewhere I read that the pattern to a Siamese cat for instance is due to differentiation temperature wise if memory serves impacting certain chemicals really.

 

I would doubt that save for natural selection there is no real universal mechanism to why certain species display certain phenotypic characters overall.

 

As for the movement of energy in a terrestrial or aquatic or etc type of ecosystem some of the more standard though biologically speaking can be found in the following websites.

 

http://www.bioedonline.org/slides/slide01.cfm?q=%22ecology%22&dpg=10

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_chain

 

To be honest, I'm talking more metaphysically. I suppose what I am trying to say is that the reality we exist within is due to infinitely complex patterns occurring within spacetime. After the big bang matter and anti matter cancelled each other out, leaving a tiny amount of matter left - but actually hardly anything at all. Reality is a 'wafer thin' ripple in perhaps nothing. I'm also being flippant and as has been said above, my comment has no real place in this discussion.

 

To add to the above, reality is an incredibly complex mathematical structure, and that is what ultimately determines the patterns of tiger stripes...