| Online: | |
| Visits: | |
| Stories: |
| Story Views | |
| Now: | |
| Last Hour: | |
| Last 24 Hours: | |
| Total: | |
Will They Never Tire Of the Second Law? [EvolutionBlog]
Secondlawapalooza has broken out over at Uncommon Descent, with a series of posts trying one more time to convince the thinking world that either evolution or abiogenesis violates the second law of thermodynamics. They are unmoved by the fact that the violation exists only in their minds.
One recent post, by Eric Anderson, is entitled, “Second Thoughts on the Second Law: Extending an Olive Branch.” He outlines what he sees as myths that each side holds about the other, and then imagines that he is laying down a little clear thinking and common sense. I’m afraid, though, that his olive branch is rejected. At times he is tantalizingly close to getting it, but then, sadly, he steps back from the brink. The first part of the post describes “Myths” he believes “abiogenesis proponents” hold about the ID folks. Let’s have a look.
Myth #2: The 2nd Law does not present a problem for abiogenesis because Earth is an “open” system and receives energy from the Sun.
This myth is likewise based on a misunderstanding of the skeptics’ arguments. If skeptics were wondering where most of the energy on the Earth comes from, then pointing out that Earth is an “open” system and receives energy from the Sun would be relevant. But that is not the focus of the skeptics’ question. Nor is the skeptics’ question about where energy is from generally or whether enough energy is available. Don’t use the common `Earth-is-an-open-system’ refrain to try to explain why the skepticism about abiogenesis is silly, or to insinuate that skeptics are foolish because they aren’t aware of energy transfer or energy availability or similar such matters.
The “Earth-is-an-open-system” refrain is meant to show that it is foolish to ground your skepticism of abiogenesis (or evolution) on the second law. That’s it.
The second law is a specific, concrete, mathematical inequality about the change in entropy resulting from a thermodynamical process. In its classical form it says this:
This inequality applies to any sort of system. To claim of a proposed physical process that it violates the second law is to claim that this inequality is violated.
There are other ways of characterizing the second law, of course, but you cannot avoid its essentially mathematical character. If you prefer the statistical conception of entropy, for example, then you are going need to talk sensibly about probability distributions over the relevant microstates.
If your argument is that abiogenesis violates, or at least appears to violate, the second law, but your argument make no use of this mathematical machinery, then your argument is nonsense. Full stop.
Let’s move on:
Myth #4: The 2nd Law does not pose any practical constraints on abiogenesis because it does not absolutely prohibit abiogenesis.
Those who entertain this myth make much of the fact that living systems exist, ergo, the 2nd Law does not prohibit such systems from existing. They may carry on about how the 2nd Law does not absolutely, as a matter of sheer logic, prohibit the spontaneous formation of far-from-equilibrium systems. This myth is, again, borne of a misunderstanding of the skeptics’ argument, although in this case, as discussed below, it is sometimes due to the skeptics’ poor efforts to make clear their argument. In either case, it simply does not follow that because the 2nd Law does not prohibit such living systems from existing, that it does not prohibit them from initially forming on their own from inanimate matter under natural conditions. Such formation has definitely never been demonstrated. Additionally, it certainly does not follow that because an absolute prohibition against naturalistic abiogenesis does not exist that the 2nd Law does not pose any serious or significant constraints on such an event.
Absolute prohibitions are precisely what the second law is about, at least in its classical form. In its statistical form it is about declaring certain sorts of things to be extremely improbable. Your proposed physical process either violates the second law or it does not. If it does not, then the second law exits the discussion. The only constraint the second law poses on your theorizing is the one that says you better not violate the inequality.
It’s perfectly reasonable to ask how the tremendous influx of energy from the Sun fuels the various processes that lead to abiogenesis or evolution. But if that’s what you’re interested in, then stop talking about the second law. It’s irrelevant to whatever point you think you’re making.
Saying that a proposed physical process is consistent with the second law is very faint praise. Such a claim does not at all imply that you think the process is likely or plausible. There might be a hundred perfectly good reasons for thinking the process will not happen, but those reasons will have nothing to do with the second law.
As it happens, though, Anderson has anticipated me:
Myth #6: The 2nd Law can only be applied or fruitfully studied in its initial, most basic formulation relating to thermal energy.
Again, abiogenesis skeptics are not the first to raise the idea of applying the 2nd Law – or at the very least the concepts of the 2nd Law as they relate to entropy – to other areas, including informational entropy and organizational entropy. These are intriguing areas that merit careful consideration, not handwaving dismissals by people who are unable to see beyond the initial formulation. These areas are clearly applicable to the problems of creating an information-rich, functionally-organized living system. (Furthermore, as noted above, origin of life researchers also recognize that the 2nd Law, even in its basic formulation relating to thermal energy, raises issues in the origin of life context that must be dealt with.)
The phrase “the concepts of the 2nd Law as they relate to entropy” is pure crackpotese. It deserves nothing more than a handwaving dismissal. The second law does not have concepts. It’s a concrete statement about entropy change, and that’s all it is. Of course, the concept of “entropy” has uses outside of strict applications of the second law, and the idea has, indeed, been extended to areas beyond classical thermodynamics. But using the word “entropy” does not mean you’re talking about the second law.
There’s plenty more to roll your eyes at in Anderson’s post, so feel free to have a look and pick out your favorite bits. Also have a look at the comments, where “keith s” tries to talk sense to Anderson, only to have his efforts cruelly rebuffed. I’ll give the final word to keith, since I think he sums it up perfectly:
The second law forbids violations of the second law. That’s all it does. OOL and evolution don’t violate the second law. They involve open systems which can export entropy into their surroundings. The second law is not a problem for them.
Source: http://scienceblogs.com/evolutionblog/2015/03/21/will-they-never-tire-of-the-second-law/
