On 4/10/2013 1:38 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 10.04.2013 22:34 meekerdb said the following:
On 4/10/2013 1:18 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 10.04.2013 07:16 meekerdb said the following:
On 4/9/2013 12:19 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
I have seen that this could be traced to Schrödinger’s What is
Life?, reread his chapter on Order, Disorder and Entropy and
made my comments
Still tilting at that windmill?
"A) From thermodynamic tables, the mole entropy of silver at
standard conditions S(Ag, cr) = 42.55 J K-1 mol-1 is bigger than
that of aluminum S(Al, cr) = 28.30 J K-1 mol-1. Does it mean that
there is more disorder in silver as in aluminium?"
Yes, there is more disorder in the sense that raising the
temperature of a mole of Ag 1deg increases the number of
accessible conduction electron states available more than does
raising the temperature of a mole of Al does.
I agree that disorder is not necessarily a good metaphor for
entropy. But dispersal of energy isn't always intuitively equal
to entropy either. Consider dissolving ammonium nitrate in water.
The process is endothermic, so the temperature drops and energy
is absorbed, but the process goes spontaneously because the
entropy increases; the are a lot more microstates accessible in
the solution even at the lower temperature.
You'd better look at what biologist say. For example:
“and that the idea of their improving rather than harming organisms
is contrary to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which tells us
that matter and energy naturally tend toward greater randomness
rather than greater order and complexity.”
Do you like it?
You're referring me to an article on biological evolution by a guy
with a Masters of Art on a Creationist website??
Do YOU like it?
You will find a similar sentence also on an evolutionary website.
That wasn't the question. The question was do you like it, do you believe it, can you
support it with your own arguments?
Such a statement will be the same. Look for example at
Annila, A. & S.N. Salthe (2010) Physical foundations of evolutionary theory. Journal of
Non-equilibrium Thermodynamics 35: 301-321, http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/jnetdy.2010.019
Which is behind a paywall ($224), and says nothing like that in the abstract.
To say that mutations improving organisms is contrary to the 2nd law is wrong in so many
ways I hardly know where to start. First, the 2nd law is an approximate law that
expresses a statistical regularity. It doesn't forbid improbable events, even ones that
decrease entropy. Second, there is no teleological measure of "improving" in evolution;
there is only greater or lesser reproduction. And greater reproduction means more living
tissue which increases entropy of the whole Sun/Earth/biota system faster - and so is
consistent with the 2nd law. The 2nd laws says nothing about randomness vs order or
complexity (ever hear of Benard convection?).
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
To post to this group, send email to email@example.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.