Part 1
====
DNAunion: The author starts off immediately with a false statement! "The
2nd law of thermodynamics applies only to closed systems." Consider the
following:
Paul Robson:
I agree. This is one error I have seen repeatedly. What they mean is the
particular corollary applies only to closed systems.
Two further comments. 1] this comment is in my experience ALWAYS
made in response to creationist claims about the corollary of "SLOT
applying to everything"
DNAUnion:
"Earth is hardly a closed system. To find a LARGE source of
negative entropy, one need only look upward on a clear day. The sun delivers
approximately 1 horse-power per square meter (sorry for the mixed units, I
don't recall the conversion factor to joules/sec) of free energy to the
biosphere." The author continues by mentioning radioactive decay, asteroid
impacts, etc.
Paul Robson:
Why should he (she ?) to show that the Earth is not a closed system ?
DNAUnion:
As usual, the "evolutionist" counter argument stopped at open-system
thermodynamics and never bothered to mention the other required half of the
solution. At no point in its 3.5 billion year history here on Earth did life
evolve solely because the Earth is an open system.
Paul Robson:
Well, DNAUnion, that might be because it is directly connected with the
statement that the SLOT is violated "because everything decays always",
This argument is found in much YEC literature. This isn't a valid criticism.
If you are told "Evolution violates the SLOT because of the tendency of
everything to decay" for example, you can merely answer "no it doesn't
because it is not a closed system".
Part 2
====
DNAUnion:
However, they neglect the fact that life is
not a closed system. The sun provides more than enough energy to drive
things.; Another vague appeal to open-system thermodynamics. You got
energy, you got evolution.
Paul Robson:
This is going to get dull, I feel. "Evolution violates the second law of
thermodynamics". It explains why it doesn't. It doesn't say that it is
the only (what "solely" means) mechanism used. The statement is
a rebuttal of the creationist claim.
Part 3
=====
As others have done, the author switches away from talking about
thermodynamics as it applies to biology to focussing on ONLY thermodynamics.
So what? What is wrong with this? Simple, but I will need to use an
analogy.
Paul Robson:
That's because the Creationist has made a statement about thermodynamics
and the "Evolutionist" is explaining why that statement is not true.
Part 4
====
Exactly the same. A rebuttal to a Creationist SLOT claim.
Part 5
=====
Ditto.
Part 6
====
Ditto
Conclusion
========
Don't see the problem. All these are the same
Creationist: "Evolution violates SLOT because everything decays"
Evolutionist:"No it doesn't because that only applies to closed systems"
It's a rebuttal ; not a complete history of evolution.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Nov 25 2000 - 02:26:26 EST