Does entropy defy Darwinism?

No not really, he jus dumbed out the argument so dumbfucks like you can understand them. physics.gmu.edu/~roerter/EvolutionEntropy.htm a bit more elevated.

I would also say that evolution contradicts entropy, not the other way around. Of course they're both true, just that evolution seems to exist as a temporary exception to the usual rule. Neither idea should be scrapped.

I also wouldn't call it "Darwinism". The process Darwin articulated was evolution, he explained one way in which things evolve. Evolution exists as a possible exception to entropy.

local vs macro

It seems as though you don't have a complete understanding of either the 2nd law or natural selection.

...

retarded people like OP should wear the fedora meme, not the atheists

no you fucking retard

Every living thing is like an island of harmony in the sea of chaos that is the universe. You can destroy and decimate as much as you want, but the very nature of you being alive is a form of harmony.

Hopefully that gave someone the warm fuzzy feels.

I like to think humans are a bit less intelligent lately for no other reason than they have it easy these days. Everything they could ever want is just handed to them, especially with the recent rise of the internet. They don't really NEED to learn that much, you just figure out how to do taxes and pick up your food at the grocery store and you're good.

At least, that's what I tell myself. Because that would mean humans CAN be as smart as they were before, it's just less common and only happens to people who make the deliberate, repeated choice to take life seriously.

No, you neither understand the second law of thermodynamics nor Darwinism.

>If orderly systems always tend towards disordered systems
THEY FUCKING DO NOT. This is just false, read about thermodynamics before you talk such enormous idiocy.
READ HERE: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics

Your complete argument is based on a giant misunderstanding of thermodynamics, NOTHING about thermodynamics forbids evolution, the second law DOES NOT MEAN that a part of the earth can not evolve towards order.

>To successfully adapt to a changing environment, more positive mutations need to take place over negative mutations
[CITATION NEEDED]

Earth is not a closed thermodynamic system you retard.

>To successfully adapt to a changing environment, more positive mutations need to take place over negative mutations
Wrong lol. You are misunderstanding natural selection.

No, you clearly dont understand either

Dude, like, who actually even gives a fuck? Who thinks like this? You'd have to a moron or an autistic (literally) mathematician / physicist.

There's nothing to reconcile. Just think mechanically, look at how the system works, look at its nature, and it becomes clear. How did humans make the fucking thing you're typing on, and the shit it gets routed around by to get to this tibetan goat herding and firewood chopping discussion circle, and out to other viewers? Order from disorder. Machinery that makes other machinery. Just like the cells that made your nervous system and all the other aspects that make up your body. Just like any other manifestation of self replicating machinery.

Fucking thermodynamics. Fuck thermodynamics. Fuck you.

>2nd Law of Thermodynamics.
No Mommy! Cleaning up my room would defy the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.

This, and big complex systems actually increase the entropy around them

Darwinism is not science or mathematics, arguably neither is entropy. Saged and reported.

>Darwinism is not science
-_-

We are a spark of order in a sea of chaos.

>If orderly systems always tend towards disordered systems
Eh, but doesn't entropy state that systems tend towards a more ordered stated? That state being one where energy is in equilibrium and the universe at rest.

So are rocks you dumb faggot.

Nah.
Just look at how cell membranes form. It's completely entropy driven, yet there's definitely more order derived from it.

...

Life aids entropy, dumbass

To clarify, I meant more order in terms of how the phospholipids are arranged.
There's always a net negative, which is usually manifested in increased disorder in water.

The counterpoint to this is that the sun is increasing in entropy while life on earth decreases right?
I don't understand how pouring energy into a system allows it to become more complex.
OP is a faggot though, it's not an issue of thermodynamics.

When you take a shit, you lose entropy.

>If orderly systems always tend towards disordered systems, then how can single cell organisms ever effectively evolve into as many advanced organisms as we see today?
Because the second law of thermodynamics applies to an overall increase of entropy in ***CLOSED SYSTEMS***
It doesn't say entropy can't ever decrease anywhere. That's like thinking because a company needs to ultimately be profitable after expenses that this means it will never invest more money than it's currently making. Absolutely ridiculous, think a little more before posting next time, this thread topic was trash even if you were just pretending to be retarded.

>I don't understand how pouring energy into a system allows it to become more complex.
Because it creates a gradient. Complexity needs an energy gradient. Consider a pool of water. If the temperature is equal throughout, there will be no current in it. If you place a hot rock in the pool though, it heats the water around it and you get convection currents. The pool is now more complex.

earth is not a closed system

next

Does the central limit theorem defy entropy?

And you DON'T find it ironic that in your scramble to reconcile evolution with entropy you're poked more holes in both ideas than the initial contention with their alleged incompatibility?

The only things posters here attempted was reconciling your naive popsci view of entropy with reality.

>2017
>creatards still cite the 2nd law of thermodynamics as an argument against evolution
fuck, they still haven't picked up any books?

Several anons in the thread have explained in very simple words and short sentences why the OP is wrong. If you still refuse to accept it then that's your problem. If you bother to actually attempt to understand what's being said you'll realize that no one has poked any holes in the concept of entropy.

>i didn't read the thread
that's great, no need to make a post reflecting that though

If you want to argue about thermodynamics, you should learn some.
I would like to reffer you to gibbs fucking free energy you mongoloid.
Entropy of the overall system (universe) increases. Biological systems may decrease their system entropy, but their processes create alot of heat, decreasing enthalpy, and therefore increasing entropy of the surroundings.

And some of them wrote:

>Dude, like, who actually even gives a fuck? Who thinks like this? You'd have to a moron or an autistic (literally) mathematician / physicist.

>There's nothing to reconcile. Just think mechanically, look at how the system works, look at its nature, and it becomes clear. How did humans make the fucking thing you're typing on, and the shit it gets routed around by to get to this tibetan goat herding and firewood chopping discussion circle, and out to other viewers? Order from disorder. Machinery that makes other machinery. Just like the cells that made your nervous system and all the other aspects that make up your body. Just like any other manifestation of self replicating machinery.

>Fucking thermodynamics. Fuck thermodynamics. Fuck you.

And:

>Darwinism is not science or mathematics, arguably neither is entropy. Saged and reported.

skilled at cherrypicking the irrelevant posts, just like a creationist is skilled at cherrypicking bad "evidence"

So...entropy increases at all levels? By your thinking, systems that relate to Biological systems in ways that Biological systems relate to their surroundings upon which they have entropic effects would also have a directly proportional entropic effect on Biological systems. Are you subconsciously agreeing with OP?

Tell me which comments are relevant then. If anything, I agree with the "fuck thermodynamics" part.

when you read a book (lol) do you need someone to stand next to you and tell you what the main ideas are?

...

What do you mean increases at all levels?
Do you even know what entropy is?
The gist of it is, that unusable energy (or numb. of microstates) increases in the overall isolated system.
You can write second law as such :
ΔS(Universe) = ΔS(surroundings) + ΔS(system)

As a biologist I'm literally cringing at you

>The earth is an energy-conserved system
>There is no huge ball of gas constantly radiating energy at us

LITERALLY read a book.

Planet earth is not a closed system. You have energy from the sun and earths core being dumped into the environment which gives energy for molecules to order themselves into organisms. If there was no energy from either then earth could not support life cause entropy.

What does "considering the surroundings" mean?

What is the Objective criterion that separates one system from another? What is the Objective criterion that makes a system closed?

define an arbitrary control volume. if there is some flux across the cv boundary the system contained in that control volume is not closed.

As far as the 2nd law of thermodynamics is concerned, the system is isolated to the extent that neither matter nor work nor heat are exchanged.

Borders of the system usually mean walls of the beaker or some other medium able to block particle migration in or out of the system. That would be case with CLOSED system.
If the medium blocks energy exchange also, it is said to be ISOLATED.
That being said, entropy increases in the ISOLATED system until reaching equilibrium. So even if cell were an closed system it would exchange its generated heat with its surroundings, increasing the total entropy of our isolated system (in practice the universe).

It means you have to take into account the increase in entropy of the surroundings that result from the release of heat generated by cellular processes. The second law dictates that the total entropy of the universe (an isolated system), not the entropy of the system (your body), must increase.

How are you inducing any of this given that there is no consensus on what Matter and Energy even are? Mainstream explanations depending on "dark" and "anti" fudge factors so much so that their observable (?) counterparts could just as easily be Symbol-based constructs of your mind and you would be none the wiser.

There is no debate over what energy is, the definition is the potential to do work.
As for the matter, it usually means atoms, since thermodynamics were constructed in era when small particles were thought as the fundamental constituents of universe

That's completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand. OP argued that the theory of evolution is incompatible with the second law of thermodynamics, which is based on our current understanding of energy and matter and exceptions to it have never been observed. We showed that his argument was invalid. That's it.

And even if they were a consturct.
A fucking energy is construct as well as entropy, force, mass.
Scientists create a models of reality that they then send through rigorous testing, and if their model works, then it gets used in the real world.
Scientists in 19th century didn't even know what causes temperature or entropy on microscopic level, but they used macroscopic observation to create definition that was then used in calculations. Nowadays we define entropy as unusable work (q/T) but also as the number of microstates. We also know that Tenperature is caused by translational kinetic energy of the particles inside of our system.
Just beacose the definition of matter can be fussy, since we found evidence for existence of even smaller particles than atoms, doesn't mean we should stop calling atoms matter.
Quit your semantics and learn the fucking theory if you want to argue about it.

Underrated

It gave me an erection.

Is that weird?

And the all the Empirical data pertaining to subatomic phenomena has done nothing to change that? I don't mean to be sardonic but, besides admitting that "dark" and "anti" aspects of things are integral to the Mathematical map of Matter and thus the world itself, so much so as to easily qualify as archetypal or proverbial Others (spirit worlds, dreamtime, etc.), something which is Scientific anathema, you're also admitting that this is so for no reason other than self-sustaining dogma, the other big anathema in Science.

Just stop. He's not going to listen. Even with the plethora of answers in this thread, he's going to put his fingers in his ears and continue with his answers in Genesis tier of "bias" rather than actually listening.

By your admission, the idea of thermodynamics was created on the assumption that the smallest particles observable were fundamental. If you maintain that subsequent phenomena, such as subatomic ones, do nothing to invalidate thermodynamics then I can maintain that atomic phenomena and the idea of thermodynamics do nothing to invalidate preceding ideas, such as classical elements.

Life unavoidably creates entropy. Even though small localized bubbles can maintain homeostasis, the area around them becomes more entropic. Life is the universal equivalent of paying off you credit card debt with a high interest loan. You haven't gotten out of debt, you've just moved it and increased it. Same thing with life. Since even a single cell would end up making the universe more entropic than when it found it, thermodynamics mean that the universe will tend towrards cells existing.

But they simply don't.
It's like saying rocks on the fucking beach change the notion of planetary mechanics.
Or saying that electromagnetism invalidates gravity.
Why am i even arguing with you? This needs to stop now.
Go read a bloody book for once in your life.

>they simply don't - Science 2017

Speaking of books and fingers in ears, what's your take on Biosemiotics?

Not that guy but no.
You have a disease called Platonism.

Not to get into how fucked up your mind is but thermodynamics is a scale invariant observation.
Thermodynamics and its statistical mechanics brother does not fail depending on the scale of its objects because the theory takes place in a positive space: the point where heat death takes over is not the point where there is no energy, but when there is no difference in energy.
There is no negative entropy to counter entropy only a conservation of energy that is taken to be neither created nor destroyed.

The burden of evidence for claiming that the existence of subatomic particles invalidates the laws of thermodynamics is on you.

...

Classical elements are scale invariant too. Since God's creation is an expression of Him, the smallest scale operates by the same basic interplay of elements through which He manifests everything.

And scale invariance is a Platonic principle, by the way.

Entropy is just the tendency of an entire closed system to move towards disorder. Note the words “closed system”. If any part of the system is receiving energy from an external source that external source has to be considered part of the system when calculating total entropy. In the case of Earth and evolution, that source is the sun. The amount of entropy (if it were quantifiable) in our entire solar system increases several orders of magnitude more than any entropy dips we experience on Earth.

>How are you inducing any of this given that there is no consensus on what Matter and Energy even are?
Oh no, you better stop using that computer then, it was built using assumptions about reality that haven't been proven as 100% perfect, therefore it must be useless and any information you think you're reading on it is probably just random noise and not actual communications making it to your machine.

>any information you think you're reading on it is probably just random noise and not actual communications making it to your machine.

This thread certainly makes me think so.

Thinking about just entropy isn't enough, move to the next step and think in terms of the Gibbs free energy equation. Delta G is equal to Delta H - T Delta S.

From here if you sum up all the Delta H's and subtract from the sum of the Delta S's multiplied by the T. You can find out if the reaction is spontaneous or not.

One big problem tho, this applies to chemical reactions. I don't think the big bang or god used chemical reactions to create the universe.

In my opinion tho creation was not spontaneous, you could not tell using this context tho because defining the system is really hard.

I think the math we would need to actually use doesn't exist yet.

Hence the expression "I need to get my shit organized."

I'm not a biologist, I hope you don;t mind if I cringe along.

>Does entropy defy Darwinism?
NO

Evolution is a search algorithm that optimizes for fitness in a given environment and does not imply "increasing complexity" or decreasing entropy.

Since earth is not a closed system the seeming ordered structure of organisms does not break 2nd law of T.

>physics.gmu.edu/~roerter/EvolutionEntropy.htm

Good article
\thread

This is literally the most retarded idea I have ever had the displeasure of reading. You are confusing your messy linguistic definition of orderly and disorderly with those meanings in physics, which basically confirms you to be pic related.

This has to be bait.

>"dark" and "anti" fudge factors
There is nothing artificial or tentative about antimatter, it is well understood theoretically and has been observed all over the place.

if anything, your claim strengthens that user's argument.

please use your brain before posting. (assuming you have a brain.)

>brainlet detected
2nd Law only holds in a closed system. There is nothing preventing one part of a closed system becoming more ordered as long as other parts become more disordered

>Mainstream explanations depending on "dark" and "anti" fudge factors
When your doctor orders a PET scan, please decline because of fudgy ''anti''.

Anti-matter is created every day in hospitals all over the world, you dumb mong.