Does Entropy Drive Evolution & Life?

[RainmanTime]

Interesting article:

https://www.quantamagazine.org/20140122-a-new-physics-theory-of-life/

At the heart of England’s idea is the second law of thermodynamics, also known as the law of increasing entropy or the “arrow of time.” Hot things cool down, gas diffuses through air, eggs scramble but never spontaneously unscramble; in short, energy tends to disperse or spread out as time progresses. Entropy is a measure of this tendency, quantifying how dispersed the energy is among the particles in a system, and how diffuse those particles are throughout space. It increases as a simple matter of probability: There are more ways for energy to be spread out than for it to be concentrated. Thus, as particles in a system move around and interact, they will, through sheer chance, tend to adopt configurations in which the energy is spread out.

There is no doubt that entropy (2nd Law of Thermodynamics) is one of the most fundamental of the laws of science. And so, it is not difficult for me, at least, to see that it would be a driver for the appearance and evolution of life.RMT

 

[pinterest]

There is no doubt that entropy (2nd Law of Thermodynamics) is one of the most fundamental of the laws of science. And so, it is not difficult for me, at least, to see that it would be a driver for the appearance and evolution of life.

What you said would have applied in the 1950's truer than today.However this assumption that you are making here, for the most part referring as a motive force to drive evolution, probably for the most part can't be said today.This statement coincides with the press statement, From the Bush and Clinton years as published as front page news,(Pentagon scientist say that we're going into another ice age).If you pick up the book,(The Handbook Of Physics, by Odishaw and Condone published by McGraw Hill Publishers) and go into the section marked planetary mechanics physics, you will see an entire section of that book devoted to planetary or how planets can physically work, some of the time.

When you go into an ice age, the scenarios for how the entire planet itself functions, all change, because ice ages changes the nature and action of how a planet can operate.So this might mean subtily the laws of chemical balance, physiologies and internally established biological functions held internally, may all change.

So evolution, which goes along with ice ages, would also conversely change.This might mean, that waves of evolution might be established over living planets and animals, rather than a past entropically controlled reference to those plants and animals.

This might means that how animals are acting are even changing via their new demonstrated natures.An example might be, taking your brand new car to be parked at a high security facility and have a monkey sitting in a tree seeing you use a key pad with a certain combination touched by hand upon that key pad.It might be that when you come back that monkey by seeing you enter that key code to gain access to the garage to park your car, now has the ability to do the same.

Note' chimpanzees has the best memories now, for remembering numbers., but if by evolution this were passed by the process of evolution to monkeys, then they could pretty well get at everything.Pinter

 

[RainmanTime]

Pinterest,

What you said would have applied in the 1950's truer than today.However this assumption that you are making here, for the most part referring as a motive force to drive evolution, probably for the most part can't be said today.(snip)So evolution, which goes along with ice ages, would also conversely change.This might mean, that waves of evolution might be established over living planets and animals, rather than a past entropically controlled reference to those plants and animals.

The areas where your analysis is flawed is in the claims that the fact of entropy somehow changes over time. The universe is a giant, thermodynamic system far from equilibrium. Entropy is what drives it....both far in the past and right up to today. In fact, entropy will drive the universe right up to the point in time where the universe achieves thermodynamic equilibrium, if it ever does. So I think you might wish to review your undergrad thermodynamics material Pinterest.RMT

 

[Gpa]

I agree the Laws of physics "have" to be a force in evolution. They are here, life is here, they simply must coincide.

Where I still wonder is;

England states;

"We can show very simply from the formula that the more likely evolutionary outcomes are going to be the ones that absorbed and dissipated more energy from the environments external drives on the way to getting there,"

This is certainly stated by a physicist, not a biologist. A biologist might say, "...are going to be the ones...that best utilized the energy... from the environments external drives on the way to getting there, "

A rock absorbs and dissipates energy from it's surroundings. It is not alive nor evolving.

"This means clumps of atoms surrounded by a bath at some temperature, like the atmosphere or the ocean, should tend over time to arrange themselves to resonate better and better with the sources of mechanical, electromagnetic or chemical work in their environments,"

We know quite well that there are bond angles and resonate frequencies associated with everything and that these will "harmonize" with their surroundings...given enough time. From his statement, I suppose one could also conclude the ocean should become a single entity. It is entropy that "prevents" this, not encourages it. (maybe I'm seeing this in the wrong way, I don't know)

" A great way of dissipating more is to make more copies of yourself."

I don't see how that follows. Any additional copies must also dissipate "their" energy. It appears to be a net gain, not a loss.

"Thus, England argues that under certain conditions, matter will spontaneously self-organize. This tendency could account for the internal order of living things and of many inanimate structures as well. Snowflakes, sand dunes and turbulent vortices all have in common that they are strikingly patterned structures that emerge in many-particle systems driven by some dissipative process, he said. Condensation, wind and viscous drag are the relevant processes in these particular cases."

" Thus, England argues that under certain conditions, matter will spontaneously self-organize."

This is the weakest statement in the entire article. It goes on to compare the idea with "known and understood" phenomena. Spontaneity implies, without external force or stimuli. If this were at work, the world should be a far more difficult place to maneuver through. What with, everything trying to self-organize all the time. Macro or micro makes little difference. Entropy doesn't discriminate.

I know I'm being a little fast and loose with this but, I don't think entropy is going to be THE source for life on this planet. Like all the other laws, it is propitious. Or...

Why isn't the Volvox walking (or rolling) among us? After all, they have about 199.99 million years of entropic development on us.