Thermodynamics versus Evolutionism
The misunderstanding that the second law of thermodynamics disproves the possibility of evolution occurring gives rise to passionate discussions among evolutionists and creationists alike, however the argument reflects more so a lack of understanding of physics, and science in general, than a lack of understanding of biology and evolution. The statement evolution does not violate the second law of thermodynamics can be made because of correct scientific information, and research that provides proof. Unlike the opposing argument, there is no scientific evidence behind it.
Dr. Henry Morris, founder for the Institute of Christian Research (ICR), holds seminars, conferences, and similar presentations around
…show more content…
the United States claiming to teach and enlighten the Christian community. “Remember this tendency from order to disorder applies to all real processes. Real processes include, of course, biological and geological processes, as well as chemical and physical processes. The interesting question is: “How does a real biological process, which goes from order to disorder, result in evolution which goes from disorder to order?” Perhaps the evolutionist can ultimately find an answer to this question, but he at least should not ignore it, as most evolutionists do.” A quote by Dr. Morris demonstrates not only a lack of understanding of science, but also uses rhetoric and misrepresentation rather than any kind of valid evidence for his claims. The misconceptions surrounding evolution are usually brought about by propagandists, typically arguing out of ignorance (Morris, 1973). Creationists and other deniers of evolution will often argue, for example, that as a human embryo uses energy and transforms from “atom to Adam” that it will create a being that is much more ordered. In a sense, this statement does in fact hold some truth, but only if considered on a localized level. On the other hand, as the embryo develops, the outside environment also receives energy in the form of heat, which causes the external surroundings to become more disordered. In order to attach an appropriate rebuttal to this misinformation, knowledge of some of the basics of thermodynamics is needed. Thermodynamics is a branch of physics which deals with different types of energy: heat, chemical, and mechanical (and the ways in which they are interchangeable). The first law of thermodynamics states that in an isolated system, energy of any form cannot be created nor can it be destroyed. The second law, the one under speculation, states that in a closed system the amount of entropy, more simply known as ‘disorder’, will increase infinitely (Breiterman, 2005). We can see this in our everyday lives as machines break down, mountains erode, and our bedrooms get messy even if we haven’t been in them. Another thing to keep in mind while reviewing these laws is that a ‘system’ can be either living (such as a seedling) or non-living (such as a snowflake), and a ‘closed system’ is one whose boundary disallows energy and/ or matter to pass through it. Many biological systems are highly complex and organized, and it's widely accepted that the present-day forms of species are a result of a long evolutionary history. To understand the misconception surrounding thermodynamics and its place in evolution, however, we must first address a separate common misunderstanding: that species themselves are becoming more complex. For example, it is a common assumption that humans are the most complex beings. It is certainly undeniable that humans are in some ways distinguished from other animals, however in the context of evolution, humans have essentially no special purpose. Humans are subject to the exact same evolutionary forces as other life. There is no compelling evidence that humans are the ‘intended’ outcome, only that the environment has been adapted. Nevertheless, numerous mechanical, synthetic, and chemical processes, all which require immense amounts of energy, are used to continuously maintain these species complexity (Prigogine 2006). If we assume evolution to be a series of mutations occurring in a closed system moving towards a greater level of organization and complexity, then it would hold true that evolution most definitely defies the second law of thermodynamics. It, however, does not for the following reasons: (1) evolution is not a random process, and (2) our Earth is not an isolated system. Chance certainly plays a large role in evolution, however the fundamental role of natural selection cannot be ignored.
Randomization, in the form of mutations, provides genetic variation. Evolution itself is not entirely a random process, but the mutations that have appeared throughout history are. Because of this, one would argue that with the summation of many mutations over time, evolution would inevitably create more randomization within the system resulting in an increase in disorder. In an isolated system, the overall entropy would undoubtedly increase following a series of mutations. Because of natural selection (the idea that an organism that is better suited to its environment will survive and produce more offspring than those organisms who are not), it can be said that chance mutations are not the only driving force behind evolution, thus evolution is not entirely a spontaneous process (Williams, …show more content…
1966). What most people tend to neglect nonetheless is that the laws of thermodynamics are applied exclusively to closed systems, which is not a characteristic of our planet (Breiterman, 2005).
An open system, like our Earth, is one that has no boundary, or whose boundary allows the passing of both energy and/or matter. The Earth receives solar energy in the form of visible light and infrared radiation. Without this energy, photosynthesis would not be carried out, nor would Earth be a habitable planet. The surface temperature would drop below the average temperature of 287 Kelvin creating a frozen Earth. There would be little to no atmospheric circulation; the only life would be found near deep hydrothermal vents. Since the Earth is an open system, it also needs to release energy. As the Earth takes in visible and infrared light from the sun, it also releases infrared light to prevent overheating (Breiterman, 2005). When deniers of evolution argue that the second law of thermodynamics strictly says “everything goes from order to disorder,” it is often not taken into account that, even if the Earth were to be a closed system, as one thing increases its entropic state another area of the system will decrease its entropy. (Morris, 1973).
In an article by physicist Daniel Styer entitled Entropy and Evolution, Styer estimates how much entropy might be decreased by the process of evolution. Styer approximates how much less probable an individual is than its ancestor, and eventually
comes to the quantitative conclusion that there’s around one trillion times more entropy available than in required for evolution to take place (Styer, 2008). This means that the planet’s entropy is reduced by essentially a negligible amount via evolutionary processes; evolution does not increase the amount of organization on Earth, even if it were to be a closed system. Other arguments against evolution and why it violates the second law of thermodynamics are: evolution has never been observed or proved, and there are no transitional fossils. Evolution has been observed both in the wild and in the laboratory. Richard Lenski of Michigan State University took a single bacterium of Escherichia Coli and used its descendants to culture 12 different populations. Over time, the bacteria gradually started evolving and building mutations for more than 44,000 generations (Holmes, 2008). Darwin’s finches is another example of evolution that had happened in the wild. These finches were found in the Galapagos Islands having different sizes and shapes of beaks that were caused by evolution. A transitional fossil is the fossilized remains of an organism that shows common traits to an ancestral group and its derived descendant group. However, evolution does not state any organism can only have one line of descendants or that it will go extinct when a descendant evolves (Isaac, 2003). A clear understanding of how evolution works reveals flaws in the argument, further proving that evolution does not violate the second law. In conclusion, the laws of thermodynamics and evolution both need to be understood. Without an understanding of what the second law of the thermodynamics and how it relates to everyday life, what a open and closed system is and its relation the earth, and how evolution works, a misunderstandings can arise causing others to learn false information. Although there are many arguments that disprove evolution, these arguments do not have any scientific research behind them. Experiments, scientific papers, fossil records, and basic scientific knowledge all prove that evolution does not violate the second law of thermodynamics.
On May the eighth of this year, the Conference of United States Religious Leaders and Ministers was held in Chicago, Illinois. The conference is an annual event coordinated by church leaders who each send a representative to take part in the discussions. Father Gregory McAllister of the Diocese of Arlington traveled to Chicago to attend the conference and share his knowledge. He spoke on behalf of the Catholic Church, while ministers and clergy from various religions from across the country also shared their views on the topics discussed.
[1] This problem with the theory of evolution was addressed by Stephen Jay Gould and other evolutionists. They postulated the punctuated equilibrium theory of evolution, which does not predict the numerous fossils predicted by the orthodox theory of evolution.
Natural selection is a random process is a misconception, because natural selection is not a random process. Natural selection is not a random process for two reasons. The first one is that the genetic variation that occurs in a population because of mutation is random, but selection acts on that variation in a very non-random way. Genetic variants that aid survival and reproduction are much more likely to become common than variants that don't. As the organisms that have genetic variants that aid survival and reproduction will definitely survive, reproduce, and will not die. While the organisms with no genetic variants that aid survival and reproduction will definitely not survive, reproduce, and will die. This means that the organisms with theses genetic variants will clearly outnumber the other organisms; this is the first reasons will natural selection is not a random process. The second one is that although the genetic variation on which natural selection act...
Darwin's theory of Evolution have been known by the world for many centuries. Even so, not all scientists supp...
Anyone with even a moderate background in science has heard of Charles Darwin and his theory of evolution. Since the publishing of his book On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection in 1859, Darwin’s ideas have been debated by everyone from scientists to theologians to ordinary lay-people. Today, though there is still severe opposition, evolution is regarded as fact by most of the scientific community and Darwin’s book remains one of the most influential ever written.
In 1859, a biologist named Charles Darwin postulated a scientific theory, which stated that all living organisms evolved through a process of natural selection. According to Stephen Hawking, Charles Darwin claimed that the offspring of a particular species gradually evolved themselves genetically to resist the changes in the environment (573). The theory contended that the organisms could adapt to the changes in the environment through the survival of the fittest. Though this theory is regarded as a breakthrough in the field of biological evolution, it is interesting to explore how this seemingly scientific theory has been suitably modified, and intellectually applied to both negative and positive aspects of life.
Among the great debate of religion lies the question in the theory of evolution. Evolution is not questionable, it is fact, but are we still evolving? The answer lies within the last few thousand years. Henry Harpending from the University of Utah says, "We aren't the same as people even 1,000 or 2,000 years ago." Due to the rapid evolution in technology, it is easy to see humans are evolving socially, but humans are mostly experiencing changes within their genetic makeup. Using limited data, Professor Harpending and seven other universities found over 3.9 million point mutations. The fact is, 7% of the human genes are rapidly evolving. On average, seventy new mutations appear per generation. The mutations are fueling the rapid evolution in
Evolutionary theory is developed from Darwin’s argument that “suggests that a process of natural selection leads to the survival of the fittest and the development of traits that enable a species to adept to its environment. “ Many have taken this a step further by saying that our genetic inheritance determines not only our physical traits but also certain personality traits and social behaviors. There is such a controversy over significant behaviors that unfold because many believe that we are already pre-programmed human species. It has also been argued that evolution is reflected in functioning and structure of the nervous system and that is has evolutionary factors that have a significant influence on everyday behavior. With what is being said means that if we follow the evolutionary theory, then it would be said that we are already pre-programmed from before birth to follow certain protocols in life. Whether it is from finding a mate or by getting a job. It also believed that this theory gives use cues from our own system to follow, providing us with certain aspects of life from our ancestors. By believing in this theory we can determine that the importance of heredity when influencing human behavior. Behavioral geneticists and evolutionary psychologists have both agreed that not only do genetic factors provide specific behaviors or traits but it also shows the limitations on the emergence of such traits or behaviors. What this means is that our genetics will determine how tall we will be to how ...
The clash between evolutionists and creationists seems to be far from its finale. Both sides come up with potent arguments in favor of their positions. Evolutionists stress the absence of factual evidence in favor of God’s existence, point to fossils as a proof of the evolutionary process, and name the Big Bang as the reason of the universe’s appearance and further development. Creationists, in their turn, stress that there are no intermediate links between species in found fossils, consider complexity and diversity of nature to be an indirect evidence of God’s existence, and refer to the second law of thermodynamics to argue against the Big Bang theory. However, none of the sides seem to see that both points of view can not only co-exist, but be successfully combined. Such a combination could explain everything at once.
In the uncertainty that the modern world is, there is one law that stays petrified in stone no matter what happens: “Things change with age.” No matter if it is in history, science, or even Pokémon, things change as time passes by and this process is called evolution. The theory formulated by Charles Darwin is the belief that all organisms have come from the earliest creatures because of external factors (“NSTA.”). School boards everywhere have accepted the theory of evolution as fact, making it essential to be in the curriculums of science classrooms. However, over the years, controversy has arisen as the fact that evolution is still only a theory with flaws and setbacks, efficiently making other theories (i.e. intelligent design) a viable alternative in the classroom.
What does it mean to be alive and what is the difference between the living and the dead? Ever wondered how the life originated on earth or our planet? It feels amazing when you knew that there is more galaxy around the world than salt in the sea and there is only one life on one planet earth. But how did it happen How did this miracle thing happened. It all happened around 1.3 billion years ago the first origin of life on earth. This is a slow process and it took thousands of years to complete. The evolutionist theory suggests that the life originated from simple atom like carbon, nitrogen. They react to under great pressure to form a single cell and evolve from there to become an organism.
Talking on both sides of the debate, each side feels as though the other has no scientific reasoning come up with their theory. In reading the article written by Shipman, the evolutionists believe that intelligent design has no concrete evidence on how the world was crea...
However, mutation is random in the evolution, and provides raw material for natural selection, genetic drift, and gene flow to work on.... ... middle of paper ... ... Evolution is an ongoing process and the evolution is made up of many different processes. It allows species to become what they are, how they act, and what they will become.
One of the greatest questions of all time is: "Where the heck did we come from?" One of the most popular answers to this question is creationism, the idea that everything was created by a higher being. Another idea is evolution, the idea that all living organisms descended from a less complex organism. Up and coming in the last century, evolution possesses a new way of thinking that is being greatly accepted by the scientific community. Despite this fact many people argue that evolution has no facts to support it and there are several reasons why evolution can't happen.
Another mechanism is a hereditable type of evolution is mutations. Mutations are alterations to a gene. Mutation can be harmful, beneficial or neutral. Mutations are the origin of the source of genetic diversity (9).Mutation that are harmful, hinders the chances of the organism chances of survival and are likely to die along with the mutations. Beneficial mutations increase the chances of the individual to survive in its environment, and they will be more likely to reproduce and pass on the gene to future generations (9).