Letter: Second Law doesn’t argue evolution

I’m responding to Mike Fuselier’s letter to the editor of Aug. 8. I see that he is an educator.

I only hope he doesn’t teach science because he certainly doesn’t understand the laws of thermodynamics. He states a half-baked version of the Second Law to defend his diatribe against evolution.

A more-complete statement of the Second Law is that the entropy (disorder) of a closed system increases. The key word here is closed. The entropy of the Earth can actually decrease if it is receiving energy from the outside, like from the sun.

The Earth is not a closed system. The universe is. The Second Law does not stand in the way of evolution. Fuselier also seems to confuse theory and fact.

A theory is an explanation, and evolution is the best explanation we have so far because it is testable, and it has withstood the test of time in spite of what Fuselier might want to believe. Testability is the hallmark of science. Before one starts invoking the laws of physics, I would suggest he understand them first.

Mark Barry

teacher

Baton Rouge

Comments

1) Comment by phil - 19/08/2012

One fact is the Sunday Advocate has an article that indicates that scientists cannot even agree on what the definition of life is. Exactly what is evolving - is it that "life" that nobody seems to be a able to exactly define?.

2) Comment by chem - 19/08/2012

potkcalb: that wasn't directed at you. That was for our nonbelieving commentators.

3) Comment by potkcalb - 18/08/2012

Of course you are correct chem.I was simply giving a description and defining characteristics of theory in general.

4) Comment by chem - 18/08/2012

An important FACT being left out is that there has been no evidence undermining the theory of evolution. Some scientists may disagree about details of how a particular change came about, but not that evolution is wrong.

5) Comment by potkcalb - 18/08/2012

No one who knows anything about evolution has suggested that humans came from apes.And you are right, it is an oxymoron to speak of a theory being proved. Theories are based on evidence and all theories are subject to revision, modification, and rejection or they would not be called theories. All we can say is that everything that is accepted (the key word is accepted) as scientific fact is based on theory.The two can never be separated.

6) Comment by phil - 18/08/2012

Honestly I am sorry I got into this specific discussion because after some thought I figure I do not really care if the earth or universe are closed or open systems and either way it does little to add to some of the basic questions about science and religion. My theory of evolution is that if man descended from the apes then I guess we are a little smarter than they are. And a theory is not proved.

7) Comment by Dawson - 18/08/2012

Josef Stalin said: "America is like a healthy body and its resistance is threefold: its patriotism, its morality, and its spiritual life. If we can undermine these three areas, America will collapse from within." All you have to do is take a hard look at the liberal agenda for the last 40 years to see that Stalin's plan is in full force and the enemy within is stronger than any other enemy.

8) Comment by monsignor - 18/08/2012

The earth is round; the universe is flat.

9) Comment by potkcalb - 18/08/2012

Yes Phil a theory is not a fact. The important thing to grasp, that seems to elude most religious fundamentalists is that everything that is accepted as scientific fact (note the word accepted) is based on theory. To repeat an example that I have already given, the Theory of Relativity is a theory but it is accepted as the scientific explanation of the universe at large. What is maddening to anyone with even the most basic knowledge of science is to read these statements that something is "only" a theory. A theory is not a belief, a surmise, a conjecture, or an opinion. It has a specific meaning in science.

10) Comment by potkcalb - 18/08/2012

The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that entropy (disorganization) in a closed system never decreases. A closed system is one in which nothing enters and nothing leaves. In such a system life could neither emerge nor survive. The earth is an open system that receives heat, light, and tons of matter from space each year.None of these things could happen if the earth was a closed system. Your statement has acknowledged that by admitting that matter (however "limited") is exchanged. If the earth was a closed system life could not develop and any life on earth would soon perish. That is basic physics. Even the possibility that life, or the precursor of life, originated in space cannot be ruled out because the chemical elements of which life and everything else is comprised are found throughout the universe as spectrographic analysis of light from space confirms.

11) Comment by phil - 18/08/2012

Actually a theory is not a fact by definition. Potkcalb, you seem to be placing words in my mouth again. Sorry about the sneer but I think it was not too bad considering the ones directed at me here and on other topics. The earth actually is not an open system. From the Internet, here is one explanation - "An open system includes the transfer and exchange of both matter and energy with the system's surroundings. All of the systems on Earth are classified as open systems. However, the Earth system as a whole is considered a closed system because there is a limit to how much matter is exchanged. " But then there is also this from the Internet - "The water cycle, also known as the hydrologic cycle or H2O cycle, describes the continuous movement of water on, above and below the surface of the earth. The hydrological cycle is a closed system because water is neither created nor destroyed on a large scale. Most of this water is stored in reservoirs such as the oceans, in glaciers and ice caps, underground, and in the atmosphere." However none of this answers the question of how the universe can be a closed system if it is continuously expanding into something.

12) Comment by potkcalb - 17/08/2012

Phil I'm pleased that you understand the relationship between theory and fact since so many criticize theory by saying that its just a theory not a fact. I'll overlook the sneer about my having been to the edge of the universe.The earth is an open system. That's why life thrives here.

13) Comment by phil - 17/08/2012

poltcalb - The reference I made to theory vs fact goes back to the use of those words in the letter by Mr. Berry. In other words, those were his words and not mine, and it is not a theory OR a fact that the universe is a closed system since it is expanding into something. Maybe you can tell me right here what that something is.since you probably have been to the edge of the universe and have seen it for yourself. Then there is always the question of what item exactly are we saying is closed or open when we talk about a closed system. Is our water supply on earth part of a closed or of an open system?

14) Comment by potkcalb - 17/08/2012

Incidentally Phil the relationship is not "theory vs fact" as you cited. It is not an hierarchy, one above and more certain than the other but a reciprocal relationship.It is a scientific fact that apples fall from trees. The theory of gravity explains why they fall.

15) Comment by bourbon-soda - 16/08/2012

Then Paul and Constantine must have had prodigious "cognitive reserve" as the scientists who study such things say, like Lincoln wanting a barrel of Grant's whiskey sent to all his generals.

16) Comment by phil - 16/08/2012

Ha Ha I love the replies to my comments. When people who have the opposite view mention me personally in a negative way, I feel like I am actually doing some good here.

17) Comment by DMJ - 16/08/2012

Speaking of the history of christianity....both St. Paul and Constantine, arguably the 2 most influential people in the history of christianity) converted after falling off their horses and hitting their heads. Hmm....

18) Comment by bourbon-soda - 16/08/2012

Old Testament was written centuries before there was an identifiable people known as Romans, so it was passed on by people who could write better most college graduates today. Moses, for example, was not a goatherd. Both Testaments were passed on by writers of King James and other versions, who were also better educated than most college graduates of today.

19) Comment by potkcalb - 16/08/2012

Phil is smarter than you guys give him credit for. He's posting these incomprehensible comments because he knows that it will get everyone to pay attention to him (I've just proved it with this post).

20) Comment by jedleland - 16/08/2012

flagged again i cant win

21) Comment by jedleland - 16/08/2012

im joking of course keep it up phil

22) Comment by jedleland - 16/08/2012

****Comment Removed for Violation of Terms of Use****

23) Comment by DMJ - 16/08/2012

Phil's learning the concept of evolution in the same way Benjamin Button ages.

24) Comment by phil - 16/08/2012

I suppose goat herders are not as smart as those one-celled creatures that passed on the word of evolution over millions of years?

25) Comment by DMJ - 16/08/2012

Goat herders didn't write. They were illiterate. Their stories were passed along orally for generations, until someone (usually someone with a sociopolitical agenda) wrote them down. Mostly, the only people who knew how to read and write were clergy... or Romans (St. Paul). This is so they could control the flow of information, which they did, successfully, until the Renaissance, hence the "Dark Ages."

26) Comment by DMJ - 16/08/2012

Nice to hear from a real educator. Great letter, Mark.

27) Comment by bourbon-soda - 16/08/2012

If the "goat herders [sic]" were uneducated, how did they write better than most 21st century college graduates who probably don't know the word "goatherd," not to mention the headline writer in particular, who got the gist of the letter exactly backwards?

28) Comment by bourbon-soda - 16/08/2012

There is no difference between the science of physics and the science of life. Where biology is in conflict with physics, biology loses.

29) Comment by bourbon-soda - 16/08/2012

The assertion that the universe is a closed system has no scientific basis. If the writer of the letter is indeed a teacher, I hope he is not teaching science or critical thinking.

30) Comment by Bighug - 16/08/2012

I wonder what phil's ideas about evolution are. Could it be that some god just waved his majic wand and there everything was? He has a point. There are probably several hundred of those explainations, one for every god imagined by man. The most popular one in the US is the one passed on by some uneducated goat-herders about 8,000 years ago. And phil may want to learn the difference between the science of physics (thermodynamics) and life (biology).

31) Comment by phil - 15/08/2012

AND?

32) Comment by potkcalb - 15/08/2012

You are correct MarkBarry. The Second Law of Thermodynamics does not preclude the emergence or development of life on earth because the earth is an open system that receives heat, light, water, and ton of matter from space each year.Another canard of the religious fundamentalists is the Anthropic Principle, that there had to be purposeful fine-tuning of the earth for it to be habitable for life. I don't think we will be hearing much more about that because now it is estimated that there are billions and billions of planets within the observable universe with environments habitable for life.

33) Comment by phil - 15/08/2012

I have already commented a lot on this subject so I am not going to start over again here. However the universe is expanding into something, so I am not sure if it can be proved that the universe is actually a closed system as the letter suggests. So much for theory vs fact, and sorry but I just figure the entire letter is meaningless.