Does not the theory of evolution violate the law of entropy?

Question

The concept of time, mutation and natural selection working together to create higher forms of life seem to counter the law of entropy. Physical laws of our universe are proven facts. Evolution is a theory. The truth is that we have never witnessed a dog giving birth to a cat. That sounds ridiculous, but that is what evolution basically says.

What do you say?

Answer 1

Obviously you dont know how things work.



Check this out, a fish cannot give birth to a different species fish. What if a mutation occurs and the fish has a extra fin? Due to natural selection that fish is better suited to the environment, and mates more and the mutation becomes more often, vwooleh, we have a new species of fish assuming the other just pure breeds or it has migrated away.



We all started very basic, that basic thing mutates and mutates into say 10 basic things, those basic things become more complex and so those 10 basic things multiply into 100 more complex things each only breeding within its own mutation.

Answer 2

The entropy in the DNA is what enables evolution. If there was no change in the genetic material of beings over time (a) we wouldn't have evolution and (b) cancer would not exist and (c) everyone would be the same.



The fact that the genetic material tends to degenerate/mutate is what give rise to new (possibly, but rarely, superior!) genes.



To understand how evolution works, consider 1000000 monkeys hitting typewriter keys at random. The unbelievable load of junk that gets created this way is the product of entropy. HOWEVER, if one carefully sifts through this load of junk and chooses the best page of text (process of natural selection, mutated genes disappear, superior genes prevail) you may even get Shakespear.



EVOLUTION HAPPENS DAILY based on this principle. Every time you get an antibiotic, bacteria EVOLVE to develop resistance. Every time someone gets treatment for cancer, the cancer cells (that have a lot of entropy, in this case called genomic instability) are able to adapt and withstand it.



Just let it go. You don't even understand what science is. Go read Popper or Feyerabend (links below) and a decent text on biology/evolution (the selfish gene is quite good). In the meantime, you would be wise to trust people that know better.

Answer 3

Your best argument lies with NeuroProf. More succinctly stated - the real power of any biological systems lies in the ability to trade off Entropy for Enthalpy to achieve ever higher levels of organization. This trade off exist on both the organism and the species level.



I don't know about dogs into cats, but horses do give birth to mules. The birth of sterile offspring would seemingly violate all the rules of species propagation. The simple truth is, Evolution is not a cut and dry topic to be explained away with Axiomatic thinking.



Hope this helps.

Answer 4

Yes it does. Natural selection is true because we can observe it but that is not a vehicle for evolution to happen where one kind of animal can change to another kind. Mutation happens but is also a dead end for evolution where one kind of animal can change into another. It would take new information in the cells, mutated cells or otherwise, for there to be even a chance for the cells to grow into something other than what their DNA dictates and that has never been observed to happen. Enthropy happens in opens systems but all systems are really open to the energy from the sun. There is no method that can convert energy into a higher complexity. That method only exists in science-fiction. The Fantastic 4 or the Hulk are good for entertainment but not based on real science. Oh yeah, lets not forget Spiderman.

Answer 5

as MC Hawking so brilliantly pointed out, the increase of entropy stated in the Second Law of Thermodynamics applies in closed systems. The energy added into the system through outside sources (mostly the sun, but also geothermal energy) is used by living systems to maintain order. They require continual inputs of energy throughout their lifetimes in order to maintain that order. Once an organism dies, and is no longer able to maintain that order, it degrades and falls apart.



This ability to increase order in the system is not random either. It is guided through selection. Natural selection has selectively picked those traits which are most advantageous in allowing an organism to capture energy and use it both to maintain their own system and to package and pass on that ability to subsequent generations of that organism.



No, we have never witnessed a dog giving birth to a cat. If it did happen, it would be a major blow to the theory of descent from common origins, with organisms giving birth to other organisms which inherit their characters from their ancestors. Occasionally some modifications in those traits occur, but the modifications are of traits that occured in those ancestors. If a cat ever did pop out of dog, that would pretty much be evidence of the supernatural in effect, and would toss a major kink in the theory of evolution. It is certainly NOT 'what evolution basically says'.

Answer 6

Instead of insulting you, I'll try to answer the question: The law of entropy states that the total entropy of any closed system will increase. The system in which evolution occurs is not enclosed by anything other than the universe-As a first approximation, though, you could say its near being closed within the solar system (since we get a great deal of energy from the sun, which drives the energetic life processes for the most part). So, keep in mind, its the *total* entropy of the system that increases. Thus, when you throw cards on the floor, you are increasing the disorganization of the cards, thus increasing entropy. But, when you pick the cards up, they are becoming more organized-doesnt that break the law? No, because the relative decrease in entropy caused by organizing the cards is more than offset by the energy expended by you in waste heat. Life, evolution, etc, hugely increases entropy, because there is a very large expediture of energy to achieve organization-in fact, the system has to constantly have large amounts of energy injected all the time, in the form of sunlight, to drive the organization process. In fact, careful calculation of energy expended, in the form of heat, vs organizational processes in life, is a very strong support of entropy. Moving from the less organized form of bacteria, for example, to the more organized form of a jellyfish vastly increases the entropy of the overall system, even though on a very small local scale there is increased organization. If just the fact of being able to locally organize something broke the law of Entropy, then one would not be able to clean, to build, to do anything that increased organization on a local scale. Think of the amount of energy it takes to build a house-from the cutting of the tree to the final product- In an equation, entropy has increased *in the whole system* by more than 10X the local increase in organization locally, by building the house. As far as seeing a dog giving birth to a cat: The theory of evolution states that mutations are small and incremental-the changes wrought by positive mutations (the vast minority of mutations) would be very small and difficult to see. We have observed mutations in bacteria, where there are billions of dividing bacteria, and the generation time is as small as 30 minutes. There were no antibiotic-resistant bacteria before there was a driving, environmental force, forcing natural selection, over time, to bring forth these new bacteria. Our human observation has been over such a tiny fraction of the time life has existed, and over such a tiny portion of the domain of the world, that we dont expect to see things that work on such a scale. We know the mountains rose, but we have never observed anything but volcanic mountains formed. We know giant meteors hit the moon, millions of times, but we have never seen it. We know there were multiple ice ages, but have never recorded it.

Answer 7

Law of entropy/2nd Law of thermodynamics seem to counter possibility of evolution. Neither creation or evolution can be proven, distinction also has to be made between micro and macro evolution. Micro evolution is an observed fact and many scientists have postulated proof of macro evolution using the former argument. It makes sense to me that a complex and interdependent systems cannot have risen purely by mutation, natural selection and chance, no matter how much time is given. Both theories require "faith" for one to accept it to be true. Both theories lack scientific proof, but the obvious is so "obvious".

Answer 8

below no circumstances can the image voltaic device, the Earth, a inhabitants, a species, or an organism be defined (wisely) as a closed device. All of this stuff are always replacing warmth and effortless (between different styles of) means with their surroundings. regardless of in the journey that they could, in some form of way, be considered closed structures, entropy decreases will be considered in wallet of closed structures even as the final entropy of the closed device will advance. So, no, evolution does no longer violate any actual regulation. If it did, it does no longer ensue (which it obviously does).

Answer 9

On the contrary: the law of entropy is one of the basic assumptions for random changes which may cause mutations, some of which result in useful adaptations which may raise the renewal rate of a modified population above the random destruction rate caused by entropy.





There is no scientific proof of God. There is no scientific disprove of evolution. What a dilemma...

Answer 10

First I think your dog and example is NOT what the theory of evolution asserts. Secondly I think the concept of entropy SUPPORTS the theory of evolution, and vice versa. Through natural selection, the individual creatures with the best features, (say a giraffes with the longest necks) can eat more food, live longer, produce more offspring, and pass on their genes to their offspring, who are tall and mate with other tall giraffes, and pass on their offspring, etc. These are also the animals who EXPEND THE LEAST ENERGY in their day-to-day survival. These are the animals who have the traits that make it easier for them to survive and pass on their genes.

Answer 11

In the words of the immortal MC Hawking:



"Creationists always try to use the second law,

to disprove evolution, but their theory has a flaw.

The second law is quite precise about where it applies,

only in a closed system must the entropy count rise.

The earth's not a closed system, it's powered by the sun,

so [EDIT] the damn creationists, Doomsday get my gun!"

Answer 12

you argument is ridiculous. dog turning into cat ! why do you think that dog will want to evolve into cat??? for evolution says cells evolve according to needs of survival.



you do not know even the basic concept of evolution.



am i the only one who thinks that in american schools they do not teach science and evolution theory well? i once read bernard Shaw and he was criticising such stupid arguments against evolution. how many years have passed since then and still same question is raised almost daily on YA still with absurd arguments.



at least come up with more logic.

Answer 13

I don't believe in evolution, except within species.I don't believe one species evolved into another. Darwin's theory of evolution hasn't been proven, in fact most evidence proves otherwise. A lot of scientists don't believe in evolution. There is no more evidence to support Darwin's theory of evolution today than there was when Darwin came up with the theory. I don't see how anyone could believe in evolution because there isn't enough evidence to support it. Science itself refutes Darwinism.



• According to the theory of evolution, at some time in the distant past there was no life in the universe -- just elements and chemical compounds. Somehow, these chemicals combined and came to life.



• However, scientists don't really know how life came to be. Even Stanley Miller, whose experiments are cited in most biology text books, says that the origin of life is still unknown. The idea that dead material can come to life all by itself is not consistent with scientific observation.



• The leading mathematicians in the century met with some evolutionary biologists and confronted them with the fact that, according to mathematical statistics, the probabilities for a cell or a protein molecule coming into existence were nil. They even constructed a model on a large computer and tried to figure out the possibilities of such a cell ever happening. The result was zero possibility! - Wistar Institute



• Professor Edwin Conklin observed, "The probability of life originating from accident is comparable to the probability of the Unabridged Dictionary resulting from an explosion in a printing shop."



• Under normal circumstances, creatures give birth to the same kind of creatures. It is established scientific fact that like begets like. On rare instances, the DNA in an embryo is damaged, resulting in a mutant child that differs in some respect from its parent. Although a few mutations have been scientifically observed that are beneficial, most mutations produce inferior offspring. For the theory of evolution to be true, there must be a fantastic number of creative mutations that produce new kinds of offspring which are better suited for survival, and therefore are favored by natural selection.



• Darwinists claim that the reptile-to-mammal evolution is well documented. But for reptiles to evolve into mammals at least some of these transformations must have happened:

• Scales had to have mutated into hair.

• Breasts had to have evolved from nothing.

• Externally laid eggs had to evolve into soft-shelled eggs that were nourished by an umbilical cord and placenta in a womb.



• It has never been observed in any laboratory that mutations can cause one species to turn into another. Despite this, evolutionists believe that given enough time, some animals will eventually evolve into other creatures.



• Evolutionists claim that although we have not actually observed these things happening, that does not mean that they are impossible. They say it simply means they are extremely improbable. Evolutionists think the world has been around long enough for all these highly improbable things to happen.



• Sir Fred Hoyle, of Cambridge University stated that statistically the chances of one cell evolving was the same as a tornado passing through a junkyard and giving you a fully functional Boeing 747.

http://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/arguments.shtml



* Scientific evidence casts serious doubts on the theory of evolution, for example:



* The Fossil Record (Updated 3 July, 2005)

http://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/fossil.htm



* Living "Fossils"

http://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/living.htm



* The Cambrian Explosion

http://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/explosion.htm



* New T.Rex Discoveries (Updated 10 June, 2005)

http://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/t-rex.htm



* "Missing Links"

http://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/misslinks.htm



* The Big Bang

http://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/bigbang.htm



* Anthropic Principle

http://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/anthropic.htm



* Irreducible complexity

http://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/irreducible.htm



* Biological Evidence

http://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/biology.htm



* The Moon

http://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/moon.htm



* Earth's Fight Against Solar Attacks

http://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/earthfight.htm

Answer 14

Your conception is very overly simplistic. Plus you do understand evolution *at all*, if you really think what you wrote.



Entropy is about ALL matter becoming generally more disorganized over all time, evolution has a tiny part of all matter (some individual animals) becoming slightly more organized over time, bucking very slightly the far more enormous trend.

Answer 15

No it does not. You should learn a bit more about evolution and the MANY dead ends in it that happen before something successfully evolves.

Answer 16

Laws are NOT proven facts. Laws are things that we state are true without proof.



Theories HAVE PROOFS. Meaning a thoery is proven based upon laws and other proven theoires.



Perhaps you should learn what you are talking about.

Answer 17

NO ,LOOK AT THE CARBON MOLECULE,OTHER MOLECULES ARE SO ATTRACTED TO IT