Evolution Vs. The Second Law Of Thermodynamics There is an exception to the theory that the so-called psychological arrow of time, in at least one currently held understanding, and the thermodynamic arrow of time run in the same direction. While is in an abstract variation, it is still an important one. The psychological arrow of time runs against the thermodynamic arrow of time when man stops to contemplate evolution. Now, while the actual sitting there and thinking about it do follow the second law of thermodynamics, the abstract realizations and conclusions run in the opposite direction. First, like I said, the actual thinking about evolution stays in tune with the second law of thermodynamics: while we are thinking, our bodies are using chemicals and such to power our brains and heat is given off. This breakdown of chemicals from an ordered state to heat energy is described by the second law of thermodynamics, referred to from now on as L.T.D.2 We are taking an ordered thing, the chemicals are body needs, and breaking them down into a more disordered state. L.T.D.2 states that decay, chaos or entropy must increase as time elapses for a given system; in this case, evolution. Then, like I said, it is not the actual thinking or science of thinking that flows contrary to the thermodynamic arrow of time. What is different is the theory of evolution itself; the theory as it exists unto no one but to everyone, autonomous as a theory can be. We look at the science of evolution and the conclusions that we draw are in fact opposing the thermodynamic arrow of time. It can be agreed that most humans consider themselves to be the pinnacle of evolution. The fact that most science has listed the �primordial ooze� as the beginnings of life can be accepted in this instance. The fact is that, for whatever reason, certain atoms that were made in the explosions of stars decided to come together to form molecules. These molecules then went on to form macromolecules, or large molecules with a purpose: the purpose of reproduction. Say what you want about the definition of life, at least it includes the ability to sustain itself over more than one generation. Some of these macromolecules produced variations and those variations went further to become life. We went from amoebae, to sponges, to flatworms, to fish, to mammals, birds and, eventually, humans. I realize that I am glossing over almost a billion years of work, but I think you understand the basics. Many would agree that through the study of archeobiology biology and evolutionary biology, the line from amoebae to humans is clear and is in fact a progression. (Again, those fields of study, as thinking was happening, fall in line with the thermodynamic arrow of time.) But if we agree that the transformation from amoebae to humans was a progress, we come upon a problem. (I personally agree that it was in fact a progression, simply because of man�s ability to reason.) The problem is that that realization goes against the thermodynamic arrow of time. Now, before you ask, I am not saying that evolution itself goes against L.T.D.2, there is no way that that can be argued, simply because of all the energy that was expended during evolution (more than we can even imagine I�m sure) far outweighs evolution itself. Evolution has caused more chaos and entropy than a lot of things we can observe, simply because of the fact that there are more of us now causing more entropy for the universe. I�ll agree that some could be tricked into thinking that evolution goes against L.T.D.2, but not when compared to the vastness of our universe. We must go back to that realization, that evolution was a progress. If we can let laws of nature and physics exist unto themselves with no intrinsic value, then too must we allow evolution to exist in the same way. But that realization then does go against L.T.D.2 We are ordered beings that sprung from chaotic beings; well, more chaotic as far as evolution as we understand it is concerned. The fact that it has been accepted that we are a higher and more ordered form than what came before goes against L.T.D.2 Here is the point: you must realize that I�m not saying �that� we evolved goes against L.T.D.2, or even that we �think� we evolved goes against L.T.D.2 I�m saying that because we �can� think that we evolved goes against L.T.D.2 Simply that the idea is out there, that the idea exists for anyone to understand, that the idea can be granted the same autonomous status that other laws have (even that L.T.D.2 has), is enough to say that the idea goes against L.T.D.2 But the apparent fallibility that I am suggesting has no consequence for us and is really not even applicable to L.T.D.2 itself, since it is a law that governs the physical world and the one example I have is metaphysical at best. Furthermore, it may be that we are wrong about evolution. I know most people will think that is most likely not the case, but it could be that we have been thinking about evolution in a backwards way; that we are in fact moving further and further away from order as we as human evolve. It has been surmised that, one higher form of evolution, indeed a higher form of consciousness, would be moving past physical existence and into metaphysical existence. We would cease to need our bodies and could exist as pure thought. That, as many of us could agree would be a higher form of evolution, a move from a lower order, bound by the physical world, to an order that is bound by nothing. It is indeed an exciting possibility, one put forth by science fiction but based on a good deal of science. But look at it thusly, could not that move toward a higher plane of existence, of pure thought, be a move toward chaos? If we did have consciousness at a level like that, we could be no more defined than as energy. And energy is that end product of entropy that would indeed satisfy L.T.D.2 So while it may seem that I wanted to prove that the theory of evolution is a theory that contradicts L.T.D.2, what I have proposed in a stronger sense is that evolution as we understand it is indeed backwards. We are not moving away from chaos, but rather towards it. It would seem that while we look down on the family pet as a lower order of life form, Fido is in fact closer to order than we are. Many hold the belief that the universe is expanding in every direction and exists in its current state because of small variations that cause entropy. (This is all thanks to the Uncertainty Principle, which I won�t explain; just think of it as variations that must exist.) They also believe that this expanding universe began from a central point or at least something smaller. Whether you believe that the universe sprung from a singularity or that it is a boundless yet finite entity, you would have to say that if the universe is expanding it is expanding from something smaller. So take that as a parallel (one that obeys L.T.D.2) and apply it to evolution. We started out as the small, compact, and relatively ordered atoms/molecules that found their way to earth from dead stars. We so far have expanded from that, obviously, into the more complex human being. The amoebae represents the singularity or small, hot, ordered universe, and has evolved (expanded) into the human being, (thanks to variations), which represents the chaotic universe we have today. I will submit that this may all be a semantic argument. When we refer to ourselves as a �higher order of creature� and refer to simple creatures as �a lower order of creatures,� maybe that is our only transgression. Maybe the only change needed would be to, from now on, only use the word �complex� creature. After all, �complex� is something that is always harder to understand than something that is �simple.� We are not a �higher� order; we are a more �complex� order. Semantically, all we need to understand is that complex is closer to chaos when we refer to ourselves. While I do not believe that this is simply a semantic argument, I cannot begin to explain how we would go about changing the way we think or learn about evolution or even if we would need to change. I guess the only people that would be �wrong� would be those who prescribe a sense of right and wrong to order and chaos. Maybe all I�ve done is given children with messy rooms a semantic argument that can keep them from cleaning. Again, this is almost irrelevant. I�m sure that the human race could make its peace with being a chaotic or entropic being. It seems that our goals lay in further evolution and understanding. We all could agree that increasing our brain power, in fact moving closer toward a more powerful and metaphysical existence, is a small price to pay for reversing some previously held ideals about evolution.
Copyright © 2003 Matt Tracy |