User:LEBOLTZMANN2/sandbox

Mr. Fink, while evolution is beyond questioning, the particular article, 7.3 Violation of the second law of thermodynamics, is not.

In the illustration of this article, it is claimed: “The second law of thermodynamics applies only to isolated systems.” This is immediately contradicted in the article when it is expressed that the law applies to all, that would be isolated, closed and open systems: …”the second law of thermodynamics. Though the law applies to all systems”…

There is no basis for asserting the second law applies ‘’’only’’’ to isolated and not also to closed systems. “Creationists argue that evolution violates this physical law by requiring a decrease in entropy, or disorder, over time. This claim is based on ‘’’a manifestation of the law only applicable to isolated systems'''.”

Violation of the second law of thermodynamics


An

By claiming an isolated system effect only, the second law is relegated to being an idealization or a model. From Wikipedia, Isolated systems: “Because of the requirement of enclosure, and the near ubiquity of gravity, strictly and ideally isolated systems do not actually occur in experiments or in nature. They are thus hypothetical concepts only. Classical thermodynamics is usually presented as postulating the existence of isolated systems. It is also usually presented as the fruit of experience. Obviously, no experience has been reported of an ideally isolated system.”… “The concept of an isolated system can serve as a useful model approximating many real-world situations. It is an acceptable idealization used in constructing mathematical models of certain natural phenomena.”

The article creates a straw man by ignoring open systems since the law applies to all systems. Creationists could just as easily argue that evolution is an anomaly in open systems. The Mathematical Intelligencer quotation presents the paradox. “The fact is that natural forces routinely lead to decreases in entropy. Water freezes into ice” by energy removed from the open system “and fertilised” eggs turn into babies” by energy added to the open system. With both open systems in the same Sun-Earth-space system, natural forces routinely lead to quite different results.LEBOLTZMANN2 (talk) 23:04, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * That's all WP:OR. Find a reliable, published source that backs up your assertions or drop the issue. Rwenonah (talk) 17:30, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * We're doing this again, with this same editor? Dbrodbeck (talk) 17:40, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

"Wikipedia articles must not contain original research... (This policy of no original research does not apply to talk pages.)"

Merriam Webster Dictionary

contradiction noun con·tra·dic·tion \ˌkän-trə-ˈdik-shən\


 * the act of saying something that is opposite or very different in meaning to something else


 * a difference or disagreement between two things which means that both cannot be true

Editors with some scientific background should look critically at the section Violation of the second law of thermodynamics under the topic Objections to evolution. Isn’t there an incurable contradiction? That the second law of thermodynamics is universal in nature is correctly affirmed but then inexplicably, denied. In particular, it is stated that the second law applies to all, that would be isolated, closed and open, systems; therefore, it cannot logically apply to isolated systems only, as is claimed in order to justify some answer to the paradox. (The references are  Talk.origins, a Usenet newsgroup and “This article is adapted from my notes for Mr. Tompkins Gets Serious: The Essential George Gamow.”)  Even this section’s example of the Sun-Earth-space open system not violating, i.e. obeying, the second law contradicts the claim of isolated systems only. More problems are described at Talk: Objections to evolution: Revision history, Violation of the second law of thermodynamics,  11:41, 24 July 2015‎ LEBOLTZMANN2 (talk | contribs)‎. . . (→‎Violation of the second law of thermodynamics) Could use some help. I was not sure the dispute resolution noticeboard would be a good fit for this issue. The article under Objections to evolution, Violation of the second law of thermodynamics, is based on a statement limiting the law. Inexplicably, the law’s correct application is also stated in the article itself resulting in an obvious contradiction. “Another objection is that evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics.[165] Though the law applies to all systems...” “Applies to all systems” is correct and clearly contradicts “applies  only  to isolated systems.” The problem was pointed out in Talk but my posting was deleted. In fairness that might have been because of a snarky reply to a less than brilliant question. A request for comment in Requests for comment/Maths, science, and technology, "Is the second law of thermodynamics applicable only to isolated systems?" was posted to allow someone with a physical science background to resolve the matter. It is a matter of logic and thermodynamics 101. The appeal disappeared and never made it to the RfC list. Other problems with the article have been identified but there is no point in pursuing them if the contradiction is not acknowledged. Is there a way to get my RfC question up for consideration?