FrostCloud Forums  

Go Back   FrostCloud Forums > Science/Technology > General Science and Nature

Greetings!

General Science and Nature General discussions on all aspects of science and nature.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1  
Old 04-04-2010, 11:26 PM
S.N.Parbat S.N.Parbat is offline
Adept
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 17
Entropy and evoluion

Hi,
Can EVOLUTION in the biological world arond us be considered a result of the tendency of the biological systems to increase entropy in accordance with the thermodynamic law of entropy??
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #2  
Old 04-05-2010, 06:34 AM
Mike Dubbeld Mike Dubbeld is offline
Veteran
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 5,649
Welllllllll. Very good. I have been looking for an answer to this for a long time. As in does life (embodiment of life) arise as a natural consequence of of the universe seeking its lowest entropy? In other words does embodied life arise for the same reason iron rusts? Is life sort of a complex form of rust? Are bodies what result from the universe seeking its lowest energy state much like a rock 'seeks' to fall down a mountain and does when the opportunity arises? If so, what would be the purpose of God in such a scheme? As in God would be useless.

My answer is yes but not for the reasons at.heists like to imagine. The entire universe is based on cause and effect. However, modern science has yet to even approach the extent of metaphysical causes outside of psychology and philosophy and there any such causes end with biological death and this is false. Although matter does tend toward entropy and the lowest energy state, to acquire this means it must also deal with metaphysical forces. For example water follows the path of least resistance downhill. The obstructions are causes for water to flow around them and the flowing around them is the effects. The material physical obstacles that divert its path are causes. The motion around the obstacles the effects. But that does not necessarily work with embodied life. Although bodies (like cells on Earth) require environments with very narrow parameters (causes), given these environments does not necessarily result in life as can be seen in such things as the Miller-Urey experiments where they tried to create amino acids and added electric sparks to simulate lightning to simulate the primordial enviornment of the Earth, no life ever arose even after 50 years of trying. Chicken soup. No chicken.

From my perspective, based on karma and reincarnation, you need more than simply the correct physical environment. The reason we are who we are today is the result of the sum total of all the causes of our past - including past lives. So if someone asked me if when they died they might become an octopus or an alien or something else bizarre I would have to say no simply because to be born as any such thing you would have to desire it. The desire acts as a metaphysical cause (ok if you like a metaphysical force) causing you as a soul to be born into the universe as such a thing. But how many people desire to become octopus's or such things? The desires you have at death are metaphysical forces/causes that affect where you are born along with the physical circumstances like a planet like Earth suitable for such a body to fulfill those desires/satisfy those forces/causes/be manifested as effects. Souls (incuding 1-celled creature souls) should be considered as life-energy. Desires in minds are composed of subtle matter that act on life-energy in no less a way than a rock affects the path of water flowing downhill. Desires do not die with the physical body but are stored as subtle matter.

If you don't like the idea of subtle matter you better get used to it because it can easily be argued that ALL the forces of physics as fields could be considered subtle matter. I am saying desires are some sort of metaphysical field (as in I and no one else has a name for it because no one knows enough about it to measure it and test it like the other forces so far). The fact that such a thing might exist should not suprise anyone seeing how 95 percent of the universe is of an unidentified nature being dark matter and dark energy.

The 'vital force' has a long history and was dismissed early in the 20'th century by science however it is today mostly back like a heart-attack just like the aether was similarly dismissed and is now back with different names (since it is now known 'empty' space is anything but empty.) For example. No one knows what healing is. Never has a doctor ever healed anyone. All doctors can do is set up conditions for healing to take place. What healing is is not known by science. Nor is matter, energy, any of the forces either. When you think about this and then think about how there may be other dimensions (according to Superstring theory 11) it may mean there are unknown forces influencing our 3 spatial and 1 time dimension that are unknown to science.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 04-05-2010, 10:24 AM
G O R T's Avatar
G O R T G O R T is offline
Adept
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by S.N.Parbat View Post
Hi,
Can EVOLUTION in the biological world arond us be considered a result of the tendency of the biological systems to increase entropy in accordance with the thermodynamic law of entropy??

The short answer is no. Thermodynamics is a separate field from the process of biological evolution.



Increase of entropy = less usable energy in a closed system over time.

Biological growth consumes energy, but the energy comes from the Sun, so the Earth is not a closed system.

Biological evolution is seen by some as an increase in information or complexity but this has nothing to do with the laws of thermodynamics and is not occuring in a closed system.

The third law of thermodynamics allows for temporary reductions of entropy, but the longterm trend is always an increase.



Make sense?
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 04-05-2010, 09:57 PM
S.N.Parbat S.N.Parbat is offline
Adept
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 17
thanks,, but i feel like being part of the universe, the life forms and the processes that make them alive, should obey all the rules that any other matter does. Right?.... in that case we can apply the thermodynamic laws to the biological systems as well. the fact that almost all places on earth are full of living systems indicates that there should be a kind of natural tendency in the substances to club together to make a lliving system, whose behaviour will depend on thetype of environment. Of course, some minimum conditions must be satisfied. But then in case of other processes (non-living systems) also we find the same scenario. There, a system has a natural tendency to do something ( generally, reach a configurationof minimum potential energy), but its ability to successfully attain the required configuration will require that some minimum conditions are satisfied.

The main problem is that in case of the living organisms, the internal equilibrium is very delicate and complicated. Just check out any process and the contraption behind it simply baffles the mind. And those contraptions are getting better and better with time, increasing their reliability (in some sense).

Now, i am not able to justify whether a universe that wants a higher overall entropy at the end of each process should allow that. I am also not sure of how to calculate the change in entropy at the end of an evolutionary process. The changes during evolution seem to increase the overall efficiency of the concerned biological system, rather than depleting it and that to without any SMART intervention. Is it in accordance with the second law which implies that the efficiency should also decrease with time???
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 04-06-2010, 03:08 AM
Mike Dubbeld Mike Dubbeld is offline
Veteran
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 5,649
Entropy continues to increase even 'across' biological environments. Although bodies (including and particularly elementary ones like cell bodies) are examples of decreasing entropy they form as a result of overall increasing entropy. The environment of increasing entropy (disorder) exceeds the amount of decreasing entropy that results in bodies. The universe tends toward entropy.

But all of that is simple straightforward stuff. The real important question is if life (bodies) are a result of entropy. For example. It is tough to even define what life is. If you say life is something that metabolizes its environment and reproduces and seems to strive to survive, a good case could be made that RUST is an example of life. It is a metabolic product of iron and oxygen. It reproduces and seems to survive in many environments. So how likely is it that bodies (cell bodies/what science commonly calls 'life') are not simply the product of entropy. ARE bodies simply the least resistant path/the result of toward the universe's relentless approach toward entropy. In other words do bodies arise much like ripples in sand dunes arise? Ripples in sand dunes are an example of less entropy. There is more order in a pattern of sand dunes. To get this order a lot of disorder had to happen however. Are cells like ripples in sand dunes?
When water flows down hill it follows the path of least resistance. Are cells the result of minimum resistance -- what you get as a result of minimum resistance? Cells are the resultant order (decrease in local entropy) on the way to non-local disorder/entropy? Cells are the result of the universe attempting to achieve entropy and arise for the same reason the order found in sand dunes arises?

I tried to make this work for years and never could do it. There have to be unexplained forces at work to get cells (bodies - or more generally life 'forms'). Can't have the electromagnetic/weak/strong forces and get cells. Got to be more to the story.

From my perspective Chaos and Complexity are the right path. If they can develop these it may result in being able to make predictions about nature/the universe and provide enough insight to ask the right questions to better nail down the nature of 'life-force'.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 04-06-2010, 03:34 PM
G O R T's Avatar
G O R T G O R T is offline
Adept
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by S.N.Parbat View Post
The changes during evolution seem to increase the overall efficiency of the concerned biological system, rather than depleting it and that to without any SMART intervention.
Biological evolution promotes reproductive fitness in an environment. It is a process of trial and error (life or death) that explores avenues of reproductive fitness in changing environments. The results of evolution can use more or less energy with more or less effiency. There is no specific direction to evolution in this regard. Cheetahs and Slugs are both currently the end results of evolution, Are they both more efficient than their ancestors?


Quote:
Originally Posted by S.N.Parbat View Post
Is it in accordance with the second law which implies that the efficiency should also decrease with time???
In a homogeneous system this would be true. In a perfect Thermos bottle the effiency of heat transfer is directly related to the greatest difference in temperature. As this difference diminishes with time so will the rate.

But few places in the universe conform to this. Here on Earth where vast amounts of energy from the Sun reverse entropy locally and drive chemical and biological processes, nearly any rate of efficiency will be able to exist right up to the removal of that energy source (when the Sun dies).


Mike does make some interesting points, but life is fleeting. If life cannot reverse entropy and stave off the heat death of the universe, its only purpose is to procreate until then within its limits. Shame that, but what ya gonna do?
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 04-06-2010, 07:54 PM
PoseidonsNet's Avatar
PoseidonsNet PoseidonsNet is offline
Supermarine
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Africa
Posts: 2,283
Quote:
Can EVOLUTION in the biological world arond us be considered a result of the tendency of the biological systems to increase entropy in accordance with the thermodynamic law of entropy??
No.

Evolution totally contradicts Entropy.
So does the Big Bang, and the Expanding universe.

The very being of anything at all contradicts entropy.
Everything should have always been a dull red glow if entropy was absolute.

Entropy is a qualitative phenomenon,
its not something that has any definitive value in any precise quantitative sense.

What is entropy for a biological system (death)
is just another state of matter from the physical point of view.


There is no quantitative precise manner to evaluate entropy.
It exists as a concept purely from the perspective of the mortal mind
considering its own transience.

The mortal mind then projects this dissonance on to all around it,
seeking death and destruction in others (physically and metaphorically)
schadenfreude esnues, rituals of humiliation, oppresive regimes, and cults of war:

An anthropromorphism of pathological existential gnosis.

Its a purely psychological condition, entropy.
The world of physics knows nothing of it.

Psychologically, entropy exists as
a senile neuroses of narcistic anti-social behaviour.

Kafkaesque in its mundanity, it seeks to gloom all around
it with its suffocating repression of the creative spirit.

Freud would have a field day with this.
Jung did have such.
;-j
__________________
The Principles of Flight (in full)
http://www.poseidons.net/flight/Principlesofflight.htm
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 04-07-2010, 01:58 AM
Bobbo Bobbo is offline
An old dog
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: USA
Posts: 2,881
What does the UPC bar code mean to the machine that reads it? Relatively, probably about as much as any genome means to us.

Could be that entropy is just what we don't understand about the enthalpy of the universe. I suspect the probability that we would recognize the energy used or released in a phase change from a state of being to a state of existence is next to nil.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 04-07-2010, 05:43 AM
Mike Dubbeld Mike Dubbeld is offline
Veteran
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 5,649
Make sure you are an airhead posting on FC cause FC will scew you if you are not. Make sure your post is less than 5 minutes long or you are timed out so FC only recognizes airhead with attention spans of 5 minutes. My guess is they are going to be looking for people with shorter and shorter attention spans. They only want you to look at their A-hole 5 second advertisments which requires you to be an idiot brain to buy what they are advertising. It is so sad to see not only the participants but the sponsers of them so short-sighted. Oh! I almost exceeded my airhead FC limit. Chances are this one won't make it. You are an idiot for viewing FC posts. And it is all about how since you are such an idiot that you will pay attention to FC Sponsors. LOL FC KMA.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 04-07-2010, 05:46 AM
Mike Dubbeld Mike Dubbeld is offline
Veteran
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 5,649
Life is not fleeting. Life is not a synonym for bodies. Embodied life is fleeting. Bodies suffer entropy. Bodies are part of the universe. But life is not even part of the universe.

When you believe you ARE a body, questions on the fate of the universe bother you. It is well known today that the most likely scenario for the fate of the universe is the so-called heat death also known as maximum entropy. Entropy is just another word for disorder.

This may sound pedantic to this post but for the benefit of readers I will provide an example of entropy (disorder). If you have 100 red marbles in a large jar and 100 blue marbles under them, you could say you have a highly orderly system. You have a non-entropic situation. If you then shook the marbles in the large jar the red and blue marbles would be all over the place. There is high disorder among the marbles. There is high entropy! Now, imagine how long it would take you to shake these marbles in the jar to get all the red marbles back on top again and all the blue ones back under them. How long do you think it would take to do this? It would take an extraordinary amount of time to do this. On the order of probably billions of years. I leave it to the reader as an exercise (use the internet).

The point of this is that ORDER – as in all the red marbles on the top and all the blue marbles underneath them is EXTRAORDINARILY hard to achieve. Meaning by default DISORDER (Entropy) is extremely easy to achieve. Even if you had all the red marbles on the top except 1, how long do you think it would take to shake the jar to get EVERY red marble on the top? Longer than your lifetime for sure. (This argument popularly leads to molecules in gas atoms and their kinetic energy.) The point is that it is easy to get disorder/entropy to arise and it is VERY difficult to get order to arise like in cells much less human bodies. It comes down to the probability of a single cell arising

OK, so what is the probability of a single cell arising of any sort by random probability?
Fred Hoyle calculated it to be 10^40,000. That is a number that contains 40,000 zeros. Since the known age of the universe is 13.7 billion years, (embodied cell) life could not have any chance of having arisen in such a short period of time. Consider that each cell is composed of billions of atoms comprising molecules that serve specific functions (think proteins for example), What is the chance that all these billions of cells could have lined up in this way randomly? And not only that you have to consider they have to incorporate the ability to reproduce! For all these things to line up exceeds the age of our universe by trillions of times. Put another way you would need TRILLIONS of universe’s like ours to get the opportunity for life in the form of a cell to arise!

Unlike other posters I will be happy to provide references upon request for the calculations/numbers used here.

Lets see now. FC and evaluation. FC and complaints. FC and ratings. FC and NG. FC and goodbye.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 04-07-2010, 05:51 AM
Mike Dubbeld Mike Dubbeld is offline
Veteran
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 5,649
I can easily be trashed. But ratings are eternal. Who runs FC? How does their sponsership determine who says what? Guess what? I question these things as in I can afford to/have the wherewhithall to do otherwise/say goodbye in a hurry/FC is really starting to piss me off.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 04-07-2010, 05:52 AM
Mike Dubbeld Mike Dubbeld is offline
Veteran
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 5,649
Lucky me, after numerous times trying to post the above it finally took.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 04-07-2010, 12:54 PM
G O R T's Avatar
G O R T G O R T is offline
Adept
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Dubbeld View Post
Life is not fleeting. Life is not a synonym for bodies.
This is me discussing the metaphysical aspect:

" Zzzzzz.........Zzzzzz...........Zzzzzzz......... "



Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Dubbeld View Post
This may sound pedantic to this post but for the benefit of readers I will provide an example of entropy (disorder). If you have 100 red marbles in a large jar and 100 blue marbles under them, you could say you have a highly orderly system.
Pedantic no, misguided yes. Arrangements of marbles? I prefer not to bring so called informational entropy into this. From nearly the beginning order/disorder was used in discussions of thermodynamics. The words were meant to illustrate molecular ordering when concerning energy flow systems. Only if your marbles represent energy states does their relative separation represent a more "ordered" flow of energy and thus lower thermodynamic entropy. Luckily the trend is now not to use the confusing terms order and disorder.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Dubbeld View Post
Fred Hoyle calculated it to be 10^40,000. That is a number that contains 40,000 zeros. Since the known age of the universe is 13.7 billion years, (embodied cell) life could not have any chance of having arisen in such a short period of time.
Fred Hoyle was an idiot for bringing statistical analysis based on random events to chemistry and biology which are in no way completely random (Hoyle's Fallacy).
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 04-07-2010, 01:39 PM
Negative Zero's Avatar
Negative Zero Negative Zero is offline
Adept
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 14
It's the sun, right? The sun radiates out low entropy energy that's captured by the plants and works its way up the food chain.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 04-08-2010, 03:53 AM
Mike Dubbeld Mike Dubbeld is offline
Veteran
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 5,649
"I can easily be trashed. But ratings are eternal."

The above is sheer garbage. I don't know what is going on but I posted no such thing let alone today.

All you did gort is tell me how little you know about entropy and once again call into question why I am wasting my time on this idiot-brain forum.

E D U C A T I O N people. Get one. Come back when you have a clue. Or more like it I will increase my distance from this idiot brain forum using time. I can't believe how it took me to realize I am talking to a band of juvenile delinquent idiots.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:15 PM.



Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright 2000-2008 Jelsoft Enterprises Limited
Hosted and Maintained by The IceStorm Network