Life doesn’t violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics!


This time from people trying to argue that because “life is energy”, it can’t be destroyed, so it must mean there’s an “afterlife” (“afterdeath” would be more accurate) or reincarnation.  Oh, please!

Anyway, someone made the comment:

life forms do not obey the second law of thermodynamics as lifeforms are organized. we, for example, have highly organized bits of matter known as organs. science is still struggling to understand this.

Life forms are not “closed systems”. There is no contradiction.  Science (by which I suppose he means individuals who use the scientific method) isn’t struggling to understand the existence of organized bits of matter called organs.

life forms produce energy by ordering molecules…. that is a violation of the second law of thermodynamics. if there is no contradiction explain the exception to the law.
and i didn’t say life forms were closed systems

at the molecular level, i.e. each individual reaction in the Krebs cycle, you are dealing with a closed system. entropy can be calculated… imo bertalanffy came up with the theory of open and closed systems to help explain this, or maybe he was just finding a way to sweep it under a rug which is all too common in the sciences…

Entropy increases in a closed system. A closed system is one which gains zero energy of any kind from anything outside itself. The Earth is not a closed system because it gains energy from the Sun. The only “closed systems” around are artificially created, and are not even perfectly closed- something still gets in from outside.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics is not violated by life in any way, because life exists on Earth (or wherever else) because it is gaining energy from the Sun (or other nuclear reactions).  There is no exception to explain because there is no violation.  You just don’t understand what you’re talking about- that’s all.

As long as entropy increases *in the Universe as a whole* there can be localized decreases in entropy and that is not a violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics- and the size of those “localized decreases” can be huge- it doesn’t matter as long as the Universe, taken as a whole, is experiencing an increase in entropy.

The amount of electrical and chemical energy (and that’s what that “life energy” consists of) contained in an individual life would not be discernible from background fluctuations if it all were released as heat. That doesn’t prove there is no “after life” of any kind, but it does show that trying to grasp at physics to prove there is can only be attempted by people who don’t understand science very well.

it is nearly impossible to create a “closed system” as you stated yourself. because we could not apply the laws of thermodynamics to organisms, we had to redefine what a system was. the scientific community is still at odds on this, and scientists being scientists disregard the tenants of logic (and even science) by believing (often mistakenly) that because something does not fit our current belief system it cannot be.

i hope you are not putting words in my mouth. i didn’t use the law to try to prove anything, i pointed to a controversy. one that the scientific community is still working on. proof of said controversy is present in our debate, unless you believe yourself so superior that there is no debate…

Another “Teach the Controversy” proponent, where there is no controversy?

The Second Law of Thermodynamics applies perfectly well to organisms.  The “scientific community” is NOTat odds on this“.  It’s not even a “thing”.

And, yes, I am very sorry, but in this particular case, I am so superior (in my knowledge of this subject, compared to his “knowledge” of this subject) that there is no debate.

Added: OMG!!!  Someone said:

Science at least backs their claims with evidence on what IS known to figure out what isn’t. Its more deductive reasoning over just making claims about what lies beyond.

And then the moron responded:

“yes, and then come up with new theories to explain why the experimental measurements don’t match the calculations..”

YES!  That’s what science does by definition, and how it approaches the truth!  If scientists didn’t do that, they wouldn’t be doing science, and they’d be as dumb as that guy!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: