HOME | POLITICS | SPORTS | LIFE | SCI/TECH | OPEDS | HELPFUL TIPS

Useless-Knowledge.com Articles	A Funny Look At Creation, And Misunderstanding Thermodynamics By Frederick Smith Dec. 14, 2005 Humor can be found in anything in my opinion, even the evolution and ID topics. At the end of this article are some funny bits [the section start is in boldface] about this issue. I'm glad other writers are writing about these important issues as well. I just read Tracey's latest about thermodynamics – it violates evolution, or, so he claims. That's a myth, as I've said many times in many articles. To accept that evolution is a violation, we must either misunderstand evolution, misunderstand thermodynamics, or both. What is evolution besides reproduction? If someone is born with a genetic mutation that's harmful, we call that disease, not a violation of the laws of physics. Genetic changes are what evolution is all about, it happens all the time, so clearly, no laws are violated. Tracey said that the universe is made of energy, matter and information; information being useful only to intelligent beings? So, what about the information before humans came along, for all of those billions and billions of years? Come on... He's misusing the concept of information and throwing in his own personal, dogmatically-influenced, philosophy about the universe. For example: Living beings are subject to the same laws that govern the universe. There is a purpose to information and information systems. Information doesn’t exist in a vacuum nor does it exist for no apparent reason. Neither chemicals nor chemical reactions are information producing systems in and of themselves. Here he is contradicting himself. First he correctly states that as far as physical laws are concerned, matter that's formed into life isn't different from matter formed into rocks or stars or sailboats. Why then, does matter formed into life respond differently to the laws of thermodynamics? If chemicals in a living cell can have information, so can chemicals in a car gas tank. Is he suggesting that the definition of life itself includes a clause about information/thermodynamics? Anyway, violating my own rule about an appeal from authority or elitism, I will now appeal to authority and present the facts from the elites (experts) [being a liberal, I reserve the right to flip-flop in this manner ;) ]. One has to wonder why scientists haven't realized over the last 100 years that evolution fails so miserably based on a pesky set of laws of physics? Silly scientists! [sarcasm] First: It is often asserted by creationists that the evolution of life is impossible because this would require an increase in order, whereas the second law of thermodynamics states that "in any natural process the amount of disorder increases", or some similar claim. "Entropy" is frequently used as a synonym for "disorder". Of course, this represents a serious misunderstanding of what thermodynamics actually states . . . There just has to be some reason why "order cannot come from disorder", and the reason must be in thermodynamics. That's the science that talks about order and disorder, isn't it? In fact, it isn't. Look through any thermodynamics text. . . . But what of entropy and disorder? Where does that identification fit into the structure of thermodynamics? The answer is, nowhere. It is not an axiom or first principle, it is not derived from any other basic principles, and nowhere is it required or even used at all to do any of the science to which thermodynamics applies. It is simply irrelevant and out of place except as an interesting aside. The only reason that that identification has been made stems from the different field of study called "statistical mechanics". Statistical mechanics explains thermodynamics, which is a science based on observed phenomena of macroscopic entities, such as a cylinder full of gas, in terms of more basic physics of microscopic entities, such as the collection of molecules that comprises the gas. This was a great achievement of nineteenth-century physics, led by Ludwig Boltzmann, who wrote down the only equation that connects entropy with any concept that might be called "disorder". In fact, what is commonly called "disorder" in Boltzmann's entropy equation has a meaning quite different from what creationists--and some writers of pop science--mean by disorder. Read the full bit here: http://talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo/entropy.html Second: "Evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics." This shows more a misconception about thermodynamics than about evolution. The second law of thermodynamics says, "No process is possible in which the sole result is the transfer of energy from a cooler to a hotter body." [Atkins, 1984, The Second Law, pg. 25] Now you may be scratching your head wondering what this has to do with evolution. The confusion arises when the 2nd law is phrased in another equivalent way, "The entropy of a closed system cannot decrease." Entropy is an indication of unusable energy and often (but not always!) corresponds to intuitive notions of disorder or randomness. Creationists thus misinterpret the 2nd law to say that things invariably progress from order to disorder. However, they neglect the fact that life is not a closed system. The sun provides more than enough energy to drive things. If a mature tomato plant can have more usable energy than the seed it grew from, why should anyone expect that the next generation of tomatoes can't have more usable energy still? Creationists sometimes try to get around this by claiming that the information carried by living things lets them create order. However, not only is life irrelevant to the 2nd law, but order from disorder is common in nonliving systems, too. Snowflakes, sand dunes, tornadoes, stalactites, graded river beds, and lightning are just a few examples of order coming from disorder in nature; none require an intelligent program to achieve that order. [in other words, a snowflake has more “information” than just ice or water, and no intelligence is required for this “information” to exist – Fred] In any nontrivial system with lots of energy flowing through it, you are almost certain to find order arising somewhere in the system. If order from disorder is supposed to violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics, why is it ubiquitous in nature? The thermodynamics argument against evolution displays a misconception about evolution as well as about thermodynamics, since a clear understanding of how evolution works should reveal major flaws in the argument. Evolution says that organisms reproduce with only small changes between generations (after their own kind, so to speak). For example, animals might have appendages which are longer or shorter, thicker or flatter, lighter or darker than their parents. Occasionally, a change might be on the order of having four or six fingers instead of five. Once the differences appear, the theory of evolution calls for differential reproductive success. For example, maybe the animals with longer appendages survive to have more offspring than short-appendaged ones. All of these processes can be observed today. They obviously don't violate any physical laws. Full bit here: http://talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html#thermo Attacking Creation For Fun Attacking evolution, while interesting, is not nearly so fun as attacking something utterly phony, like Creation, so, here goes. These are copied from this great page  [you can find many more there – hours and hours of fun reading]. Here then are Things That Creationists Hate! Goosebumps (the bumps, not the books [although many creationists hate those "occult" books, too]) Goosebumps were obviously "created" to erect and "fluff up" the hair or fur on a hairy or furry mammal ancestor, thereby improving its insulation value against the cold. Since most of us nowadays have so little body hair as to render it useless for insulation purposes, goosebumps are another vestigial reaction whose tool (fur) is no longer with us. A creationary epiphany! : since God wouldn't create a useless bodily function, goosebumps were originally useful! Adam and Eve had FUR! (For folks who have stockpiled food and weaponry in anticipation of the Coming Race War, an epiphany is a sudden realization of a great truth.) Gonorrhea It is a strictly human disease. Did the Good Lord bestow the gift of gonorrhea on Adam, or was it Eve? Who carried it onto the Ark? Why would God instruct Noah to carry any disease organisms or parasites onto the Ark? One of Noah's family had to have been infected, but they were the only people worthy enough to be saved on the whole Earth. Which one had the clap? Why would He create anything so nasty anyway? -suggested by Noah Riggins Human Embryos ...especially very small ones, actually have tails and gill slits. So do all mammal, bird, reptile, amphibian, and fish embryos. One would almost think they are related somehow. Thank goodness for modern Creation Science, which has taught us how to ignore, deny, or find some rationalization (anything at all will do) to explain away this and all other evidence of evolution. (Yes, Ernst Haeckel fudged his diagrams of embryos to emphasize the similarities among the youngest ones. But he didn't make up the tails and gill slits. They're there. Look closely at some of your favorite fetus photos. Quit writing me about this until you've done your homework.) Their Own Coccyges ...when examined closely via X-rays or a prepared skeleton, look disturbingly like the vestigial remnants of tails . They certainly serve no purpose nowadays (or very little--the few muscular attachments they still have could easily be re-engineered onto a less vulnerable structure), and if you've ever broken yours, you've probably wondered why we were Created with such a useless source of potential agony. (Besides, coccyx sounds downright obscene.) Doggie Toes What is that thing hanging off the back of your dog's lower leg? It's his "dewclaw," and it's entirely useless. On some dogs it's so much in the way that it's surgically removed. It's not a result of selective breeding, either. Cats have 'em, wolves have 'em, tigers have 'em. What would it possibly be except a now-useless fifth toe, in the process of disappearing through evolution? Their Own Eyes ...defeat them doubly. First, creationists trot out that old saw about how "nothing as complex as an eye could evolve in stages, since a half-eye is no good at all." Darwin himself trounced that one roundly by merely observing that there are creatures alive today with eyes in all "stages of development," from a few light-sensitive cells, to a cup-shaped receptor with no proper lens, to eagle eyes far sharper than ours. Other creatures seem to get along fine with half-eyes and even 1/100 eyes. Then for the final insult, human (the pinnacle of creation) eyes are clearly an engineering mistake! The retinas are inside out. The nerves and blood vessels come out through the light-sensitive area of the retina, producing a blind spot, then spread over the front of the light-receptor cells, so that light has to get past the fibers into the receptors. Why aren't the nerves and capillaries behind the receptors, where they would be out of the way and there would be no need for a blind spot? Squid eyes are arranged just that way. Since ours aren't, one is reminded of the maxim that evolution has to work with the materials at hand, adapting systems already in place, with results that often seem jury-rigged or needlessly complicated. Would an Ultimate Engineer make such an obvious blunder, especially having got it right in creatures created earlier? Snake Hips and Whale Pelvises No, I haven't finally gone around the bend. Although there's not a trace left on the outside, boas, pythons, and blind snakes all have completely useless vestigial hipbones buried in their bodies. So do whales. Now why would an as-is Creation ex nihilo include creatures with functionless bones that really look like the evolutionary leftovers of lost limbs? Sandy Petersen adds the following: "Pythons and boas actually have tiny vestigial claws on either side of their cloacas, which are [associated with] their useless hips. So you can pick up any python (I suggest a small one, like my family's pet ball python), turn it over, and SEE the tiny, useless claws that would never ever be there if snakes had been designed 'from scratch.'" Blind Cave Fish ...and other cave critters that still have vestigial but absolutely useless eyes. Evolution can be that sloppy, but can a perfect Creator? -Donald Wilson This one isn't directly related to evolution and Creation, but it's funny anyway: Egyptians ...who continued building their civilization and constructing monuments, and didn't bother to take notice of the worldwide flood that was supposed to be drowning them all. (Creationists estimate that the flood took place about 4000-5000 ybp [years before present], which was the height of the Egyptian civilization.) -Adam Levenstein To which Keith Harwood adds: The prehistory of Egypt stretches from about 8000 BCE. The history, that is, what was written down at the time, stretches from ~3500 BCE through invasions by Hyksos, Hittites, Romans, through floods, famines, insurrections, twenty-odd ruling dynasties, massive building projects, and the mind-boggling minutiae of royal bureaucracy. During this period the whole world was engulfed in a flood which scoured the land clean. And in Egypt, nobody noticed. (They didn't notice when they lost a Pharaoh under the Red Sea, either, but that was later.) ------------ About the author Frederick Smith: I enjoy writing about the positive virtues of humanism - humanists are the good guys. I now have a blog that I will start to increasingly maintain and update. Here is the link: fredsuberview.blogspot.com/ This is my second foray into the UK writing discordia. This time around, I want to be a tad more raw - maybe a bit edgier (does that sound "art-see"?) Maybe I'll address even more issues that most Americans consider taboo... About my personal background and life: I was born, I got some education, worked, ate, and had some kids. It seems I like to write � something that was unknown to me until relatively recently...How's that for detail? ;) Hate mail is welcome unless you are from the Army Of God. Please! It's not that I mind seeing pictures of aborted fetuses in my inbox, but once you've seen one you've pretty much seen them all... Email: dahlek65@yahoo.com Tell a friend about this site! ------------ All articles are EXCLUSIVE to Useless-Knowledge.com. Please link to this article rather than copying and pasting it onto your site (which would be unauthorized and illegal).

Useless-Knowledge.com © Copyright 2002-2005. All rights reserved.