Re: 2nd law clarifications

On 3/01/2025 11:52 pm, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:

On Fri, 3 Jan 2025 23:24:44 +1100
MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
>

On 3/01/2025 5:13 am, Ernest Major wrote:

On 02/01/2025 06:53, MarkE wrote:

Are these statements correct? Could they be better expressed?
>
>
Local entropy can decrease in an open system with an input of free
energy.
>
Free energy alone is not sufficient to maintain or further decrease
low local entropy: an energy capture and transformation mechanism is
also needed.
>
Extant life *maintains* low local entropy through its organisation and
processes.
>
Evolving life *decreases* low local entropy through the ratcheting
mechanism natural selection acting on random mutations in instances
where that evolution increases functional complexity and organisation.
>
There is no other known mechanism apart from natural selection that
does this. For example, neutral drift alone increases entropy.
>

>
It is difficult to operationalise the concept of irreducible complexity,
as that necessitates a principled definition of system, part and
function. But if you pass over that point, there are at least three
classes of paths (exaption, scaffolding, coevolution) whereby
irreducibly complex systems can evolve. I suspect that the last is the
most frequent, and that it can be driven by drift as well as by
selection. If you are equating an increase in functional complexity and
organisation with a decrease in entropy, then this would negate a claim
that neutral drift always increases entropy.
>

>
What I would say more confidently is, "For example, neutral drift alone
increases disorder."
>
More precisely, if a population fixes neutral and near-neutral mutations
over time through drift, with no selection acting, the net effect over

>
Over time selection always operates, there's rarely a free lunch.
>

time will be devolution, i.e. a loss of information and functional
complexity. The end state will be extinction.
>

I don't think you "get" evolution; if it's a neutral change then it
might survive, if it's detrimental then it won't [unless there's a
compensating benefit], if it's beneficial then (given lack of
meteorites, global warming, ice-ages changes to feedstock, changes to
predators, etc etc) then it'll survive.

 Wrong. Near-neutral (i.e. mildly detrimental changes) by definition have a very low selection co-efficient and therefore typically will not be removed by selection.
 

Does this necessarily mean entropy will increase? It would seem so.
>

Is this God anti-entropy? How come there's a lot of it about?

 The entropy of the universe as a closed system can only decrease. Therefore, where did the initial low entropy state of the universe come from?