Re: Entropy in crystalization: up or down?

Seanpit <seanpitnospam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
news:1192730666.256547.30170@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:

On Oct 18, 7:39 am, Mujin <umwin...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Bloopenblop...@xxxxxxxx wrote
innews:1192716757.594202.325880@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:





In "The Second Law of Thermodynamics, Evolution, and Probability,"
Frank Steiger writes:

"Failure to understand that in thermodynamics probabilities are not
fixed entities has led to a misinterpretation that is responsible
for the wide- spread and totally false belief that the second law
of thermodynamics does not permit order to spontaneously arise from
disorder. In fact, there are many examples in nature where order
does arise spontaneously from disorder: Snowflakes with their
six-sided crystalline symmetry are formed spontaneously from
randomly moving water vapor molecules. Salts with precise planes of
crystalline symmetry form spontaneously when water evaporates from
a solution. Seeds sprout into flowering plants and eggs develop
into chicks."

In "Thermodynamics vs. Evolutionism," Timothy Wallace responds:

"The "order" found in a snowflake or a crystal has nothing to do
with increased information, organization or complexity, or
available energy (i.e., reduced entropy). The formation of
molecules or atoms into geometric patterns such as snowflakes or
crystals reflects movement towards equilibrium-a lower energy
level, and a more stable arrangement of the molecules or atoms into
simple, uniform, repeating structures with minimal complexity, and
no function. These are not examples of matter forming itself into
more organized or more complex structures or systems (as postulated
in evolutionist theory), even though they may certainly reflect
"order" in the form of simple patterns.

Steiger fails to recognize the profound difference between these
examples of low-energy molecular crystals and the high-energy
growth process of living organisms (seeds sprouting into flowering
plants and eggs developing into chicks). His equating these two
very different phenomena reveals a serious misunderstanding of
thermodynamics (as well as molecular biology) on his part, and he
perpetuates this error in the balance of both his essays, as we
shall see.

[...]

Steiger's blurring of the distinction between these two phenomena
can logically be attributed only to either indefensible ignorance
or a willful misrepresentation of the facts."

I can't figure it out either way. The questions on my mind are:
Does crystallization represent a decrease in entropy or no? I think
it does and Wallace is incorrect, but not sure. Does it represent
an increase or decrease in *energy?* And does the 2nd law make any
statement about organization, complexity, organized complexity,
etc? Thanks for any help. Can someone recommend me a rescource on
thermodynamics that would give me the answer?

The confusion comes from a failure by creationists to differentiate
between two definitions of the word "entropy"

In thermodynamics, entropy refers to the amount of energy in a system
which has become unavailable to do work. Basically, some energy is
always lost to such inefficiencies as heat and noise and if you want
the system to continue to be able to do the same amount of work, you
have to keep putting new energy in. In the absence of an energy
source, entropy will either stay the same or increase until all the
energy in the system is unavailable for work. This is the form of
entropy the second law of thermodynamics refers to. See here for an
intro to the topic:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy

In information theory, entropy refers to the degree to which a
message has deviated from the original after having been
copied/transmitted. It is commonly considered to be a measure of how
much information a message has lost, but "information" refers solely
to the *intended* message. Depending on what kind of change has
occurred in the message, it may still contain the same *amount* of
information in the conventional sense, but still deviate
significantly from the intended message, thus having lost a lot of
information in the information theory sense. For example, "My
favourite insect is my pet red bug." -> "My favourite insect is my
pet bed bug." A single change in one letter changes the message
fairly significantly, but both sentences convey the same amount of
information about me. According to information theory, the second
version has entropy since it has deviated from the original message
(and is wrong!) but it's still a valid sentence of the same form and
containing the same amount of information as before. See here for an
introduction:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_entropy-

Exactly . . .

Though I fear we disagree on the significance of this...

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Entropy in crystalization: up or down?
    ... increased information, organization or complexity, or available energy ... (i.e., reduced entropy). ... phenomena reveals a serious misunderstanding of thermodynamics (as ... continue to be able to do the same amount of work, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: The randomfunction
    ... >> There is a significant difference between the amount of energy ... >> required for a single mind to move a material object and that ... entropy is measuring the state and degree of the energy (e.g. ...
    (comp.programming)
  • Re: Writing jargon
    ... come up with a quantitative way of measuring that kind of complexity. ... What is "the" amount of energy required to make it (or decompose it back ... in a compressed gas. ...
    (rec.arts.sf.composition)
  • Is evolution an example of decreasing entropy?
    ... I'm not clear on what, exactly, entropy is. ... terms of energy, i.e. the amount of energy in a closed system will ... amount of energy is conserved, but I imagine that some of the "useful" ... Then lets consider the development of an organism, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Tube Troubles
    ... ecological economics, on practical applications will not automatically ... increased complexity, higher costs, and diminishing returns to problem ... costs 100 times more than removing 30%. ... large energy subsidies. ...
    (rec.audio.tubes)