Forum: OPEN FORUM: American Journal of Physics

Posts: 57

I thought of another way of explaining why equation 4(b) in "Entropy and evolution" is absurd. Suppose you have a big box filled with ping pong balls. If you shake the box up, the balls will bounce around inside the box like the molecules in a gas. Does it make sense to use the equation: KE = 3/2 kT to determine the temperature of the box of ping pong balls?

The answer is no. The reason is that a box of ping pong balls does not have a temperature. A box of ping pong balls is not a thermodynamic system. The only thing that has a temperature is the plastic the ping pong balls are made of.

Signature:
David Roemer

6/6/2012 at 10:24:23 AM GMT

Posts: 57

Jim Bandstra,

The suggestion that I am not thinking intelligently because of anxiety over religion is very pertinent to this discussion. Inhibition is a defense mechanism for anxiety and people can be inhibited from thinking intelligently when it comes to religion. This quote is from a famous psychoanalyst:

"Let us consider for example, a person listening to a paper and having critical thoughts about it. A minor inhibition would consist in a timidity about expressing the criticism; a strong inhibition would prevent him from organizing his thoughts, with the result that they would occur to him only after the discussion was over, or the next morning. But the inhibition may go so far as not to permit the critical thoughts to come up at all, and in this case, assuming that he really feels critical, he will be inclined to accept blindly what has been said or even to admire it; and he will be quite unaware of having any inhibitions. In other words, if an inhibition goes so far as to check wished or impulses there can be no awareness of its existence. (The Neurotic Personality of Our Time, Karen Horney, M.D., New York: Norton, 1937, p. 55 )”

I am not an advocate of intelligent design. I do not think the Big Bang, the origin of life, or evolution is evidence of God’s existence. We know God exists because we have free will. Free will means we possess a center of action that makes us unified with respect to ourselves and different from other humans. Hence, we are finite beings and an infinite being exists. In the west, we call the infinite being God.

The Big Bang, the origin of life, and evolution, however, is evidence that God has communicated Himself to mankind because the Bible says God created the universe from nothing.

An example of irrational thinking is the theory that free will is an illusion. Many atheists believe this theory even though there is very little evidence supporting it. Atheists don’t even realize it is a theory. Atheists can’t even grasp the idea that humans are embodied spirits. The only concepts atheists grasp concerning the human mind is dualism and materialism.

This is why Randy Isaac is so misinformed about evolutionary biology. He gets his information from listening to atheists and advocates of intelligent design shouting at each other.

Signature:
David Roemer

6/6/2012 at 11:09:27 AM GMT

Posts: 79

Dave,

Accusations of anyone's qualifications or their background are neither accurate nor appropriate in this forum. Continued violations will lead to suspension. Please focus on the ideas.

Your analogy of ping pong balls leads you to the wrong conclusion. Yes, the box of balls has a total internal energy, it has a temperature and it has an entropy, all of which can, in principle, be measured or calculated. You have not given any reason why not. All subcomponents as well as the whole system are thermodynamic. There is nothing in that box that would exclude it from any thermodynamic considerations.

Randy

6/6/2012 at 11:20:05 AM GMT
D. Roemer Posts: 57	Report Permalink
I agree that you can calculate the average kinetic energy of the ping pong balls in a shaking box. But can you calculate the temperature of the box of ping pong balls using Boltzmann's constant? Signature: David Roemer

6/6/2012 at 11:46:41 AM GMT
R. Isaac Posts: 79	Report Permalink
Boltzmann's constant is the proportionality between energy and temperature. It is the proportionality factor between entropy and the density of states.

6/6/2012 at 12:20:47 PM GMT

Posts: 57

This is true only for a thermodynamic system. A box of ping pong balls, a living organism, and a Boeing 747 is not a thermodynamic system.

If you shake a box of ping pong balls really hard, the average kinetic energy of each ball will be less than 1 joule. If the equation KE = 3/2 kT is applicable, the temperature of the ping pong balls will be about 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 degrees. This makes no sense. Equation 5, which says that the change in entropy of the biosphere each second is 302 J/K, is just as absurd.

Signature:
David Roemer

6/7/2012 at 12:40:10 AM GMT

Posts: 79

Dave, perhaps it would help to consider the terms of the various thermodynamic variables. The key one that is relevant for this discussion is Gibb's Free Energy. G = U - TS + PV plus other specialty terms such as those related to magetism, stress and strain, etc. The internal energy U is composed of both kinetic energy (like that of ping pong balls) and the internal thermal energy of the atoms. No, you would not convert the kinetic energy of the ping pong balls into temperature in the way you described. Of course, kinetic energy of macroscopic movement can be converted into thermal energy but that's not how you treat these systems. The temperature T of the system relates to the thermal energy portion (the atoms) of the internal energy. So the Gibb's free energy can indeed be defined (though harder to calculate!) for any system, be it ping pong balls, 747's, or biological system. The second law of thermodynamics in its complete form simply says that the Gibb's free energy will be minimized. That's all. That's enough. It applies to EVERYTHING! So please do not repeat again the false assertion that these systems are not thermodynamic systems. I can understand your concern if you thought the macroscopic kinetic energy components had to be converted to the temperature T. But they don't.

6/7/2012 at 3:00:41 AM GMT

Posts: 57

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qKaF8vX6HXQ

We agree that it is wrong to convert the kinetic energy of a group of ping pong balls into temperature. When I say that a collection of ping pong balls is not a thermodynamic system, this is what I mean. What is the relevance of the idea that a group of ping pong balls is a thermodynamic system?

Daniel Styer states, "Suppose that, due to evolution, each individual organism is 1000 times ‘more improbable’ than the corresponding individual was 100 years ago." He then plugs this number into the equation S = k log (omega). If it is irrational and ignorant to convert the kinetic energy of ping pong balls into a temperature, why is it not irrational and ignorant to convert the probabilities associated with organisms into entropy?

Let us say the temperature of a fertilized egg in a human is 98.6 degrees. Is this the temperature of a mass of chemicals or is it the temperature of a structure more complex than a Boeing 747? Do you think that a Boeing 747 has a temperature? Do you think that a fertilized egg has a temperature?

Temperature is the most fundamental variable in thermodynamics. It is measured with a thermometer, and gives rise to the variables called heat and entropy. The Gibbs function is defined in terms of temperature, heat, and entropy. We should first come to an agreement about temperature before tackling the more difficult concepts.

You have not responded my post # 32, where I argue that the article says heat from the sun caused the entropy of the biosphere to decrease. Generally, heat causes entropy to increase. Isn't it nonsense to say heat decreases entropy?

The model of evolution in the 1950s was that it was like a tornado hitting a junk yard, lifting up the scrap metal, and creating a Boeing 747. Now, the model of evolution is that it is a computer generating an English sonnet in 3 billion years from the random selection of letters and words. Because of the impossibility of a computer doing this, natural selection explains only adaptation, not common descent. According to you, this is just the position of advocates of intelligent design. According to me, this is mainstream biology. Do you think we can reach an agreement about what is taught in biology textbooks, scholary works, and peer-reviewed articles?

I'v attached two peer-reviewed articles about the connection between evolution and entropy. I'v also pasted on the URL for my YouTube video titled "The Truth About Evolution and Religion."

Attached Files:

D&NE040405f.pdf (601.41 KB)

AML_3497.pdf (273.24 KB)

Signature:
David Roemer

6/8/2012 at 5:45:02 PM GMT

Posts: 79

All systems are thermodynamic systems and can be characterized by Gibbs Free energy and changes to it as governed by the second law of thermodynamics. Whether one knows how to accurately calculate the respective components of kinetic energy and temperature and entropy is another matter, and entirely irrelevant to the question of whether it is a thermodynamic system. Yes, you can calculate temperatures and entropies of systems. It's not easy and usually one deals with partial derivatives while hold all but one or two variables constant. Net: all biological systems follow the second law of thermodynamics.

Yes, I did respond to your concern that Styer claimed adding heat caused a decrease in entropy. I stated that he said just the opposite. Consider his sentence "The Sun emits heat and hence decreases in entropy, while outer space absorbs
heat and hence increases in entropy." He is absolutely correct. The sun lost heat and decreased in entropy while the heat from the sun was transferred to outer space which incrased in heat and also in entropy. So your fears are assuaged--he does not claim that an increase in energy will cause a decrease in entropy.

If you have any evidence or examples of mainstream biology papers or textbooks advocating that evolution is properly simulated by a tornado in a junk yard creating a 747 (note that they didn't exist in the 50's!) or of a computer composing a sonnet at random, please let me know. I would suggest that they are either anti-evolution propaganda or they are not evolution advocates in any way. From Darwin till the present, evolutionary theory is predicated on some form of gradualism--replication with variation and selection. WIthout that, it isn't evolution. That is not simulated by a tornado or a random set of elements. The methods and degree of gradualism have changed radically since Darwin but the core concept remains the same.

6/8/2012 at 8:19:14 PM GMT

Posts: 57

So, we agree that it is irrational to say heat from the sun decreased the entropy of the biosphere. Our disagreement is over whether or not Styer says this in the article. Is this correct?

This is the quote that likens evolution to a computer generating a sonnet:

By comparison, if we question how long it would take a high-speed computer to write randomly a specific Shakespearean sonnet, we are asking that all the letters of the words of the sonnet will come up simultaneously in the correct order. It is an impossible task, even if all the computers in the world today had been working from the time of the big bang to the present. Even to compose the phrase, "To be or not to be,” letter by letter, would take a typical computer millions of years.” (Marc W. Kirschner and John C. Gerhart, The Plausiblity of Life: Resolving Darwin's Dilemma, page 32)

Kirschner and Gerhart modified the "millions of years” to "a short time” by taking into consideration natural selection and facilitated variation. They did this by stopping the computer when it got "to” and generating the remainder of the phrase. They also randomly selected dictionary words instead of letters.

The significant thing is that they did not say how long it would take a computer to generate a sonnet using this more realistic algorithm. Kirschner and Gerhart don’t say because nobody cares. Nobody thinks natural selection explains the complexity of life. Every body knows that the primary structure of a protein does not even begin to describe the complexity of life. There are four levels of complexity in a protein. There is molecular machinery. There is genetic engineering, where cells read what is in the environment and constructs the right proteins. There is cell differentiation, which is the development of a single fertilized egg to a multicellular organism. There is instinctual behavior in animals.

The second quote is not about evolution, but about the need for DNA to assemble the amino acids in the blood stream. A sonnet has 600 letters, and the calculation here concerns a smaller than averaged size protein. I’m including this quote to show how the probability of getting a protein is calculated. Also, no where in this textbook used by 65% of biology majors in the US do Campbell and Reece deny that this calculation puts a limitation on natural selection.

Each of the four identical polypeptide chains that together make up transthyretin is composed of 127 amino acids…The primary structure is like the order of letters in a very long word. If left to chance, there would be 20 to the 127th power different ways of making a polypeptide chain 127 amino acids long. (Campbell and Reece, Biology, 7th edition, page 82)

The calculations done in this Nature article were not on proteins but on DNA. The article reports calculations on a protein with 300 amino acids. Hence the probability of getting the protein through random selection of amino acids is not 20 to the 300th power, but 4 to the 1200th power.

Title: Natural Selection and the Complexity of the Gene (Nature, Vol. 224, 1969, p. 342)

Subtitle: Conflict between the idea of natural selection and the idea of uniqueness of the gene does not seem to be near a solution yet.

First paragraph: Modern biology is faced with two ideas which seem to me to be quite incompatible with each other. One is the concept of evolution by natural selection of adaptive genes that are originally produced by random mutations. The other is the concept of the gene as part of a molecule of DNA, each gene being unique in the order of arrangement of its nucleotides. If life really depends on each gene being as unique as it appears to be, the it is too unique to come into being by chance mutations. There will be nothing for natural selection to act upon.

Let me conclude with another quote which sheds light on the Styer article. The author is not saying evolution violates the second law of thermdynamics. He is just referring to the fact that the probability calculations in statistical mechanics are similar to the probability calculations done by biologists:

Considered thermodynamically, the problem of neo-Darwinism is the production of order by random events. (Ludwig von Bertalanffy, "Chance or Law,” in Beyond Reductionism: New Perspectives in the Life Sciences, The Macmillan Company, 1969, page 76)

Signature:
David Roemer

Last edited on 6/8/2012 11:26:26 PM GMT

6/8/2012 at 1:59:27 AM GMT

Posts: 79

I'll answer the rest later, due to time constraints right now, but let me focus on the first issue. You wrote "So, we agree that it is irrational to say heat from the sun decreased the entropy of the biosphere. Our disagreement is over whether or not Styer says this in the article. Is this correct?"

I'm saying it is correct to say that when heat is added to a system, the entropy will generally increase and not decrease. Styer is correct in his statement. He says the sun loses heat as it radiates heat. Therefore the sun decreases in entropy. Then he says that the surrounding "outer space", meaning the solar system area excluding the sun, increases in entropy due to heating from the sun. Styer is therefore quite consistent with the concept that more energy increases entropy. My disagreement is with your claim that Styer made a mistake.

6/9/2012 at 4:03:11 AM GMT

Posts: 57

This is an excerpt from the article:

II. ENTROPY FLUX THROUGH THE EARTH
The Sun heats the Earth through electromagnetic radiation largely in the visible and near-infrared bands. The Earth radiates electromagnetic radiation largely in the far-infrared band into outer space, where it eventually joins the cosmic microwave background. The Earth itself remains almost constant in temperature, so the incoming radiant energy from the Sun must balance almost exactly the outgoing radiant energy into space. In short, the Sun heats the Earth and to a nearly equal extent the Earth heats outer space. Each of these "heatings” is accompanied by an entropy change. The change of entropy for a system at constant absolute temperature T, gaining heat Q quasistatically, is (Delta)S = Q/T.
………..
If each of these organisms were evolving at the rate assumed in Eq. 2, the change in entropy of the biosphere each second would be − 302 J/K.

Styer is saying that heat added to the biosphere causes the entropy of the biosphere to decrease 302 J/K every second. What other interpretation is possible?

The second mistake he is making is using the Boltzmann constant to transform an estimate of probabilities into something with the units of entropy. It is like saying a box of ping pong balls has a temperature of 1,0000...0000 K, or that a deck of playing cards has an entropy of 0.0000....00000 J/K

The third mistake is that he doesn’t understand the true connection between entropy and evolution. Biologists perform probability calculations in trying to understand evolution, just like physicists perform probability calculations in trying to understand the behavior of a system of non-interacting particles.

This excerpt sheds light on how such an absurd article could pass pier review:

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Two anonymous referees made valuable suggestions that improved this article significantly.

It might have been the peer-reviewers who made the mistakes in the article. They may have been over-zealous in the opposition to creationism and intelligent design.

Signature:
David Roemer

6/9/2012 at 11:22:14 AM GMT

Posts: 79

David,

I'm afraid you're wrong on all three counts.

1. No, Styer is NOT "saying that heat added to the biosphere causes the entropy of the biosphere to decrease 302 J/K every second." He is saying that a calculation of the configurational entropy of organisms alone would amount to 302 J/K and then he points out that this is offset by heat from the sun. He does NOT state that this decrease is caused by the influx of heat. He goes on to point out that "In other words, at a minimum the Earth is bathed in about one trillion times the amount of entropy flux required to support the rate of evolution assumed here." He is very clear that the heat from the sun increases the entropy of the earth many times more than the decrease from the increased order in evolution.

2. The use of Boltzmann's constant is accurate. You have not yet given any reason otherwise. Boltzmann's constant is the correct proportionality factor between the density of states (you erroneously reprhrase that as 'probabilities'--it's not quite the same thing) and entropy. Styer has not made a mistake on this point.

3. I''m afraid it's not Styer who doesn't understand the relationship between entropy and evolution. He nailed it. Your comment, however, is neither plausible nor an accurate statement of evolution or of what biologists do.

6/9/2012 at 11:33:21 AM GMT

Posts: 79

David,

I"ve looked into your quotes on random assembly of proteins more deeply. Not a single one of your quotes says what you interpret it to mean. Note particularly the phrase "If left to chance," Each one of these authors is pointing out the vast number of possibilities and how a random process like that simulated by a computer composing a sonnet with each note selected at random, could not possible solve the problem. Not a single one says that this is how evolution works and that this is a legitimate simulation of evolutionary process.

Like you did with Styer, you have misinterpreted all of these works and then accused them of saying things they haven't been saying. If it doesn't have reproduction with incremental variation, it's not evolution.

6/9/2012 at 12:39:31 PM GMT

Posts: 57

Randy,

I don’t understand the difference between my saying heat caused entropy to decrease by 302 J/K and your saying the entropy decrease of 302 J/K was "offset” by heat from the sun.
It is just as absurd to use the Boltzmann constant to calculate the entropy of a biological system, as it is to say the temperature of a fertilized egg is 98.6 degrees. The temperature of a fertilized egg can’t be measured. What can be measured is the temperature of a blob of chemicals.
Concerning my contention that natural selection only explains adaptation (not common descent), it was your idea that I submit quotes proving this. A better idea is to ask the experts and authorities on evolutionary biology. Science and religion are both based on faith in authorities. In religion we believe things because God is telling us. In science, we believe in things because we read them in peer-reviewed articles. The AJP should retract the article because it doesn’t deserve to be in the canon of scientific truth.

Signature:
David Roemer

6/9/2012 at 10:19:18 PM GMT

Posts: 79

1. Styer is pointing out that the second law of thermodynamics is not violated by the decrease in entropy in the evolutionary process because the total entropy is still increasing. He does not say that the energy from the sun causes the decrease in entropy in the biosphere. In this article Styer does not comment on what mechanisms caused the decrease in entropy in the biosphere.

2. It is not absurd at all to say that there is a temperature of a fertilized egg. It is perfectly accurate. It reflects the average atomic kinetic energy in the entire egg which is typically in near equilibrium with its surroundings. Boltzmann's constant is part of the definiton of entropy and is the correct way to calculate it from the density of states (different from the probabilit function).

3. My request for quotes was for you to show evidence that the majority of standard textbooks simulate evolution as computers composing sonnets by random selection of each note. Your selections showed your claim to be false. As for natural selection not explaining common descent, quotes don't suffice--and you didn't provide any--because you still need basic logic and data. I think by now every single concern of your about the Styer article has been proven to be false. AJP has no need to retract anything but I think you do.

6/10/2012 at 5:46:40 AM GMT

Posts: 57

1. Why doesn’t an unexplained decrease in the entropy of the biosphere violate the second law of thermodynamics? What is the point of doing a calculation proving that the second law is not violated when that calculation just proves that the second law is violated? I think most people reading the article will interpret it to mean that heat from the sun caused the entropy of the biosphere to decrease.

2. Temperature is a macroscopic variable measured with a thermometer. A fertilized egg is an extremely complex entity capable of producing a multicellular animal. It has too many tiny parts carefully arranged for its temperature to be measured. Temperature does not "reflect” average kinetic energies. The statistical mechanical connection between temperature and kinetic energy assumes there is a system with a temperature. You can’t use the fact that a fertilized egg has an average molecular kinetic energy to justify saying that it has a temperature.

3. The question is not the importance of the model of a computer generating a sonnet by randomly selecting letters or words. The question is whether or not natural selection explains anything more than the adaptation of species to the environment. It is my understanding that all biologists agree that not enough is known about the innovations natural selection acts upon to explain the complexity of life. I suggest that we resolve this disagreement between us by asking professors of biology.

Signature:
David Roemer

6/10/2012 at 11:41:35 AM GMT

Posts: 79

1. The second law of thermodynamics just says the Gibb's Free energy must decrease, not the entropy. The latter (which is what most people think is the second law) holds only for the systems where internal energy (and temperature) is constant. So when water freezes, the entropy of the water decreases but the total entropy of the water plus the environment increases. Same with evolution. THe biosphere itself has a decrease in entropy but the total entropy of the system (biosphere plus its environment) increases so the second law is preserved.

2. David, we're talking average kinetic energy of the atomic nuclei within each molecule, the vibrational energy. Yes, this is well-defined in any collection of molecules, whether it be a fertilized egg or a 747 or anything else.

3. That 'disagreement' has long been resolved by every biology professor I know. I could name the ones I have talked with in a long list but there's no need to pull them into public. There is one angle where there could be a discussion, namely, the extent of the evidence. There are some who claim there isn't enough evidence for common descent because too many details are missing. It is true that much information is missing--historical records are gone for much of our history. So those who make such a requirement could say that common descent is not adequately explained. But given the wealth of evidence that does exist, such demands seem inappropriate. Just talk with leaders of genetic sequencing programs like the human genome project!

6/10/2012 at 2:50:39 PM GMT

Posts: 57

1) I don’t see the relevance of the Gibbs free energy to this topic. That variable just takes into consideration a system with chemical reactions.The second law does not say that entropy must always increase. An example of entropy decreasing is when hydrogen molecules under the force of gravity come together to form a star. I know that it is frequently said that when the entropy of a system decreases there is a greater increase in the entropy of the environment. However, I don’t understand this at all. All I understand is the thermodynamics and statistical mechanics of an isolated gas. In a gas, the molecules will fill up the entire container because that is the most probable distribution. The density of the gas is uniform except for small fluctuations over small periods of time. To calculate those fluctuations and time intervals, physicists assign a label to each atom: No. 1, No. 2, etc. In other words, the model of a gas is a deck of playing cards. The model Krischner and Gerhart use for a protein is an English sonnet.

2) The kinetic energy or vibrational energy of molecules is not relevant either. Kinetic energy is a microscopic variable and temperature is a macroscopic variable.

3) It most certainly is necessary to bring biologists into this disagreement between you and me about whether the AJP should retract the article by Daniel Styer. The article is about evolutionary biology and creationism, not physics. The editor of the AJP, David Jackson, should have referred my comments to Styer for rebuttal. If Styer told me that a fertilized egg had a temperature, I could write to the college he works for and explain that he is not qualified to teach physics.

Instead of doing this, Jackson, with the approval of the American Association of Physics Teachers, told me to submit my own article. An anonymous reviewer said I was mistaken, just like you. The AJP and the AAPT are using this review to justify not publishing the retraction. The leaders at the American Institute of Physics and the American Association for the Advancement of Science are also not taking responsibility. The only organization taking responsibility for the article is the American Scientific Affiliation through you and all the members who are not supporting my efforts to get the AJP to retract the article. My correspondence with the AIP and AAAS as well as with the AJP and AAPT and an expert on thermodynamics at New York University is here:

http://newevangelist.me/2012/02/22/physics-department-of-new-york-university/

http://newevangelist.me/2012/02/02/american-journal-of-physics/

http://newevangelist.me/2012/02/23/american-association-of-physics-teachers/

http://newevangelist.me/2012/05/06/american-institute-of-physics/

Signature:
David Roemer

6/10/2012 at 4:39:02 PM GMT

Posts: 79

1. Then you don't understand thermodynamics or the second law at all. The second law is expressed in its full form through Gibbs free energy. Your example of a box of atoms in a gas form is only one simplified way of explaining things. Understood more fully, thermodynamics refers to all physical systems.

2. Then you don't understand temperature, perhaps because you're only thinking of a gas while I'm a solid-state physicist. Temperature is precisely connected to the vibrational energy of the atomic nuclei in any solid, liquid, or molecular submstance.

3. Biologists have already weighed in and the matter is settled.

Styer's article is correct and in claiming that it should be retracted you have shown a deep misunderstanding of thermodynamics.

6/13/2012 at 2:37:14 PM GMT
R. Isaac Posts: 79	Report Permalink
David, There's a helpful article written by Georgi Gladyshev in Entropy that addresses appropriate ways of thinking about entropy in evolution. You can find it at http://www.mdpi.org/entropy/papers/e1040055.pdf and I attach it for convenience Attached Files: GladyshevEntropy-01-00009.pdf (43.51 KB)

6/13/2012 at 5:33:15 PM GMT
D. Roemer Posts: 57	Report Permalink
Randy, I'm afraid the article was over my head. I sent an email to Professors Granville Sewell and Andy McIntosh with the Gladyshev article asking for help. Sewell and McIntosh wrote the articles I attached on June 5. Signature: David Roemer

6/13/2012 at 6:35:10 PM GMT

Posts: 79

David,

If that's over your head, you should not be asking a journal to retract a paper on the basis of thermodynamics. As you admitted in a pervious post, your understanding of thermodynamics is limited to a gas in a box. The theromdynamic concepts, however, do apply to liquids, gels, solids and ensembles of those objects and you may be interested in learning how it does.

I appreciate your references to the papers by Sewell and McIntosh but I find neither paper persuasive. Those papers, take us in a very different direction from your assertions. They are focused on a discussion of the mechanisms of entropy change, if I may state it in those terms. You took the approach that thermodynamic parameters are not valid for biological systems, an assertion not supported by anyone, as far as I know.

6/14/2012 at 7:22:50 PM GMT

Posts: 57

I think I understand the Gladyshev article well enough to realize that it supports the Styer article in only one respect. He states on page 57,

On the whole, one may assert that both internal factors (characteristics of the biosystem) and external factors (characteristics of the environment) determine the trend of biological evolution, whose progress is, of course, possible thanks to the inflow of solar energy and energy from other sources.

This is what Styer is implying: Heat flows into and out of of Earth is what caused the biosphere to become more complex. This is absurd for two reasons: 1) We don’t know what caused the biosphere to increase in complexity during evolution. 2) Natural selection only explains how species adapt to the environment, not how mammals evolved from bacteria in 3 billion years.

Creationism is irrational, but the idea that the sun caused evolution is downright stupid.

The article does not support the absurd equation in Styer for the entropy of the biosphere: S = 9.53 X 10 (-23) J/K (4c). What is absurd is not the estimate of the probabilities, but the use of the Boltzmann constant, instead of 1 J/K, to calculate the entropy. The Gladyshev article doesn’t say anything about the Gibbs function for an organism. It speaks only about subsystems within an organism. In an earlier article ("On the Thermodynamics of Biological Evolution”, J. theor. Biol. (1978) 75, 425-441), Gladyshev has the equation G = sum of G(i). A biological system contains chemical reactions and if you have enough subsystems you can meaningfully talk about the Gibbs function of those subsystems, I suppose. But nowhere in the article does Gladyshev use the Boltzmann constant to calculate the Gibbs function or the entropy of a subsystem or the organism as a whole.

Signature:
David Roemer

6/14/2012 at 2:14:44 AM GMT

Posts: 79