The goal of this blog is to create a long list of facts that are important, not trivia, and that are known to be true yet are either disputed by large segments of the public or highly surprising or misunderstood by many.
Super fact 73 : The second law of thermodynamics, or the fact that entropy is always increasing in an isolated system does not contradict evolution. Life is not a closed system. The environment is providing energy, the sun is providing energy, geological forces are providing energy, etc.
Does physical laws such as the second law of thermodynamics disprove evolution? This is a trilobite fossil. Shutter Stock Photo ID: 1323000239 by Alizada Studios
A lot of people have never heard of the second law of thermodynamics, or entropy and are unaware of the claim that the second law of thermodynamics contradicts evolution. So how can debunking this claim be surprising, and a super fact? The reason is that this is a popular claim among creationists and according to this Gallup poll 40% of Americans believe in creationism. The fact that this popular but false claim is rooted in a very basic misunderstanding of the second law of thermodynamics and what entropy is makes it super fact.
In the past I’ve read many creationist books that make the claim that the second law of thermodynamics contradicts evolution. One of them was Scientific Creationism (1985) by Henry M. Morris (the father of modern creation science), where he stated that the second law of thermodynamics says that everything tends towards disorder, making evolutionary development (ordering) impossible. The Death of Evolution: Restoring Faith and Wonder in a World of Doubt by Jim Nelson Black, another book I read, and which I gave a one star review on Amazon, makes the same claim. I’ve also come across a lot of people making this claim.
The people who make the claim that the Second Law of Thermodynamics contradict evolution typically do not understand the second law of thermodynamics and do not know what entropy is. Despite that fact they see it as a powerful argument against evolution. I’ve even seen it used against highly respected physics professors who “believe in”, well accept the reality of evolution, by people who had no understanding of the second law of thermodynamics. At one point I even believed the claim myself. Then I studied physics, and well, oops, I was forced to admit that I had been bamboozled.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics
The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that the total entropy (disorder) of an isolated system always increases over time. This means that natural processes tend to move from order to disorder (within the isolated system). It should be noted that disorder is a popular but imperfect metaphor for entropy. Entropy is not the same thing as what people think of as disorder. In physics entropy refers to the logarithm of the number of microstates compatible with the system’s measurable macroscopic state. As molecules randomly arrange themselves into new macroscopic states, the number of possible microstates will increase.
It also means that heat will spontaneously flow from hotter to colder objects, but never the reverse. Another thing it means is that mechanical energy can be converted to thermal energy, but never the reverse. It turns out that those seemingly different statements are physically identical.
Second law of thermodynamics. S corresponds to entropy. Shutter Stock Vector ID: 2342031619 by Sasha701
It is very possible that the entropy of an organism is lower compared to a blob corresponding to all its molecules randomly distributed within a blob. However, that organism did not evolve in isolation inside a hermetically enclosed box without any energy from the outside. Life and evolution operate in an environment full of energy coming from the sun, the Earth, winds, oceans, geological forces, radiation, etc. Evolution does not take place in an isolated system.
It is also important to understand that within an isolated system, pockets of lower entropy can form if they are offset by increased entropy elsewhere within the system. That’s what the word “total” in total entropy means. Crystal formation is an example of creating local pockets of lower entropy (less “disorder”) within a system, but this is always accompanied by a greater increase in entropy in the surroundings. The Universe is an isolated system so the entropy within the Universe should always increase, but again the local pockets of lower entropy that evolution may create are accompanied by a greater increase of entropy elsewhere.
Atoms in a crystal. The crystal represents a pocket of lower entropy. As this pocket of lower entropy forms there is equal of greater increase in entropy in the surroundings. What is true for the crystal is true for the molecules in living beings. Neither the formation of crystals nor the evolution of life contradicts the second law of thermodynamics. Asset id: 689181712 by BK_graphic.
Below is a YouTube video explaining how the second law of thermodynamics does not contradict evolution.
Entropy – Arrow of time
An interesting aspect of the second law of thermodynamics is that it makes entropy serve as an arrow of time. In general, the fundamental laws of physics are time reversible. The equations work the same forwards and backward in time. The equations for gravity, electromagnetism, and the strong nuclear force work the same regardless of time’s direction. An example is if you filmed a planet orbiting a star and played it backward, it would still follow the laws of motion the same way.
Throw a bunch of billiard balls on the floor and film them bouncing and hitting each other and the walls. If you then run the film backwards and forwards it would be far from obvious which is forward and which is backwards, except for the fact that the balls will slow down due to friction. However, balls slowing down due to friction is mechanical energy turning into heat, which is an example of the second law of thermodynamics. The fundamental laws of physics are time reversible, but the second law of thermodynamics is a notable exception. Entropy always increases in an isolated system (like the Universe). By measuring entropy, you can distinguish the past from the future, giving time a direction
Super fact 63 : Evolution is both a fact and a scientific theory. It is a fact that life has changed over time. This is supported by overwhelming evidence, while the theory of evolution provides a comprehensive scientific explanation for these changes, using processes like natural selection.
This is very confusing to people who do not know what a scientific fact is or what a scientific theory is. First of all, a scientific fact (they exist) is not the same as the scientific theory associated with that fact. Secondly, theory in science does not mean a guess, or a hypothesis, as is often the case in common parlance. In science, a theory is far more than a guess — it is a well-tested, comprehensive explanation of natural phenomena, supported by an extensive body of evidence. I think a good example of this confusion is the following dialogue that I found on Facebook.
I follow “The Credible Hulk”, a Facebook page managed by a group of anonymous scientists dedicated to correcting misinformation around vaccines, global warming, evolution and GMOs. I did not save the post, but it went something like this: The Credible Hulk posted a meme that looked like this.
One of the commentors said : “Calling evolution a “fact” defeats your argument. The Theory of Evolution is by definition a theory not a fact. It’s the currently agreed upon hypothesis but not a fact.” He did not know that he did not know what he was talking about. Since the Credible Hulk page is administered by scientists and a lot of its followers are also scientists, or people with a science education, he got schooled. You can read more about this confusion in my post “There Are Scientific Facts”, or here.
The evidence for evolution is both vast and compelling. Evolution is not just a process of the distant past — it can be observed in real time. Bacteria developing antibiotic resistance, viruses adapting to immune systems, and insects evolving resistance to pesticides are clear, measurable examples of evolution in action. The extensive fossil record, transitional fossils, comparative anatomy, sub-optimality, evidence from biogeography, etc., provide a very large body of conclusive evidence for evolution. Modern genetics provides perhaps the strongest proof of evolution.
Far from being a matter of belief, evolution is a scientifically established reality that shapes life continuously. Its understanding is vital, not only for biology but also for medicine, ecology, and environmental science. It allows us to track disease outbreaks, design new treatments, and appreciate the delicate balance of ecosystems. Evolution is not speculation — it is the foundation of modern biology and a dynamic process still unfolding around us. Evolution is a fact.
According to the pew research center around a third of all Americans reject the idea of evolution. Since this is an important fact that is widely disputed amongst the public, and yet we know it is true, I consider it a super fact. I also would like to reiterate that none of my super facts are scientific theories, but some of them are scientific facts, which again, is not the same thing.
Evidence for Evolution
The evidence for evolution as a phenomenon (fact) is conclusive as we can directly observe it (see below). That is all I need for my statement above that evolution is a fact. However, most people want to know how strong the evidence is for large-scale evolutionary changes that have occurred over geologic time, and what evidence there is for evolution being as the origin of species. In other words, how strong is the evidence for the theory of evolution. It turns out the evidence for that is also very strong. That is not the same as my super fact, but it is related and a quite interesting discussion.
Fossil records preserved in rock layers reveal a chronological history of life on Earth, documenting gradual changes in species over millions of years. Transitional fossils, such as Archaeopteryx linking dinosaurs to birds, demonstrate how one group of organisms evolved into another. Comparative anatomy adds to the case, showing homologous structures across species that point to shared ancestry.
Biogeography shows patterns of species distribution explained by common descent and migration. Modern genetics provides perhaps the strongest proof. DNA — the universal code of life — shows striking similarities across organisms. Humans, for example, share a large percentage of their genome with chimpanzees, and remarkably, the same genetic code underlies all living things, from bacteria to mammals, confirming a common evolutionary origin.
Making a list of all the evidence with brief explanations is far beyond the scope of this blog post and reading a 1,000,000+ word essay about evidence is not everyone’s cup of tea. Therefore, I am just providing a very small sample with very brief explanations (this post is long enough as it is).
This website offers a more extensive overview including 29+ evidences for so called macroevolution. Macroevolution describes large-scale evolutionary changes that occur over geologic time. Scientist tend to avoid the word Macroevolution because it is so misunderstood. First of all, Macroevolution is just the combination of a large number of smaller scale changes. New species do not randomly pop up because of some amazing mutation.
Speciation is considered relative. It is often said that two animals belong to the same species if they can interbreed in nature and produce viable, fertile offspring. However, it is not that simple. An animal A may be able to successfully interbreed with an animal B, and that animal B may be able to successfully interbreed with an animal C, but animal A and C cannot interbreed. Animal A could be said to be a different species relative to animal C but animal B could be said to be the same species as both animal A & C.
A great geography related example of this is ring species. In a ring species, gene flow occurs between neighboring populations of a species, but at the ends of the ring the populations don’t interbreed. Macroevolution is the result of repeated microevolution, so you cannot claim that microevolution is possible but not macroevolution.
Illustration of ring species, an example of how speciation can be relative. All the circles next to each other can interbreed but at the end it no longer works. Andrew Z. Colvin, CC BY-SA 4.0 <https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0>, via Wikimedia Commons
Direct Observation
Evolution in viruses and bacteria has been observed and is well-documented, providing a direct window into evolutionary processes. Examples include the development of antibiotic-resistant bacteria, the annual evolution of influenza viruses and researchers can also directly observe rapid adaptation through experiments, such as the ongoing “arms race” between bacteria and viruses in lab settings. Direct observation supports my claim that “evolution is a fact”, because we’ve seen it. However, the evidence for so called macroevolution over longer periods of time is more indirect but still extremely strong.
Evidence from Biogeography
Biogeography provides evolutionary evidence by revealing patterns in the geographic distribution of species that can only be explained by common descent and evolutionary processes. For example, oceanic islands, which are islands that are formed from the sea bottom typically through volcanic activity, feature very narrow sets of native species (flora + fauna) that do not exist elsewhere.
One example is the Hawaiian Islands, which make up only 0.004 percent of the earth’s land and yet they contain nearly half of the world’s two thousand species of Drosophila. Darwin’s finches is another example. Another example is that oceanic islands do not have any native freshwater fish, or amphibians and rarely any native reptiles or mammals. These kinds of examples match the narrative that certain species (birds, insects, etc.) travelled to these islands and then evolved resulting in a unique set of species. BTW non-native freshwater fish, amphibians, and mammals do just fine, so it is not the environment. The book Why Evolution Is True by Jerry A. Coyne gives an extensive overview of biogeographic evidence for evolution.
Fossil Record
There are millions of found fossils representing 250,000 different species (there are likely trillions of not yet found fossils). The fossil record shows that early life was simple with complex life appearing later, with the youngest fossils being most similar to currently living species. It documents the orderly succession of life forms through geologic time. This is predicted by the theory of evolution. In addition, the various so called gaps in the fossil record keep being filled out. Opponents to evolution often criticize the dating methods used to date fossils. However, these criticisms do not hold water. You can read about that in my post We Know That the Earth is Billions of Years Old.
The fossil record is a lot more solid and much less problematic than the creationist books I have read claimed. Shutter Stock Photo ID: 1323000239 by Alizada Studios
Evidence of Evolution from DNA
DNA provides strong evidence for evolution. It is perhaps the strongest evidence for evolution. For example, related species share genes for fundamental traits, and the more similar the DNA sequences of two organisms, the more recently they shared a common ancestor. As time goes by DNA mutations accumulate acting like a “genetic clock,” allowing scientists to estimate how long ago different lineages split from each other. That’s how we know that Chimpanzees and Hominins / Humans share a common ancestor about 6-8 million years ago without having a fossil.
I can add that this was just a sample with a very brief summary for each case. Other types of evidence is the development of embryos. For example, whale and dolphin embryos have limbs that disappear, fetuses look like fish early on, human fetuses go through a hairy (primate) stage. There is evidence in the anatomy of our bodies, sub-optimality, curious anatomical imperfections due to our evolutionary history, so called atavisms, and vestiges. But that is enough for now.
Objections to Evolution
If you pay attention to this topic, you will come across a lot of flawed objections to evolution. When I was a teenager, I was a young earth creationist myself. Since I did not know a lot about the subject at the time I accepted many of these flawed objections and I even believed in a young earth. It doesn’t matter how many flawed objections you have to a theory (or a fact), if they are flawed, they don’t matter. I was very interested in science and went to science high school in northern Sweden. As I learned more about science, I came to realize that I had been bamboozled. You can read more about that in my post “Bamboozlement Misunderstandings, Big Surprises and My Journey”.
Since then, I have tried to argue with creationists about evolution, and I have come to realize that a lot of people are very emotionally invested in their opposition to evolution. For example, back in high school my wife was asked whether she believed in evolution and when she said yes, another girl threatened to beat her up in the bathroom. Once I was arguing online with a couple of strict fundamentalists who took a very aggressive and self-assured attitude to the topic despite not knowing much about the related science or evidence. It seemed to be impossible for them to understand normal scientific or logical arguments and yet they were totally sure, and they used mockery a lot. One of them found out that I “believed/accepted” that global warming is real and caused by us and started mocking me for that, a totally unrelated issue. Then the other one told me that if you believe in evolution, then you and your children will burn in hell forever. Well, if that is really what you believe, no wonder you can’t be rational about it. Anyway, at this point I pressed the block button. Talk about a hot discussion.
In my youth I read dozens of creationist books of various kinds, so I’ve have come across a lot of creationist objections. In the end I came to realize that none of them worked. I can add that the book “The Counter-Creationism Handbook” address over 400 of the most prevalent claims made by creationists. Below I am just very briefly addressing a few.
If humans descended from monkeys how come there are still monkeys?
This is perhaps one of the more simplistic objections, but it is still worth mentioning. Even if it would have been true that monkeys evolved from monkeys, there’s no reason monkeys would stop existing just because humans evolved from some monkeys. However, that is not what happened. Genetics provides overwhelming evidence that hominins (including humans) and chimpanzees share a common ancestor. We have not found a fossil for this ancestor, but human and chimpanzee DNA tells us that such an ancestor lived about 6 to 8 million years ago. The simplified cladogram for hominins below demonstrates this. I can add that there are around 6000 hominin fossils, and up to 31 hominin species.
Simple cladogram showing evolution of modern man from Hominid Ancestor Shutterstock Asset id: 2093535535 by CLOUD-WALKER
Evolution is not Falsifiable
A theory is scientific only if it can be proven false. It must be falsifiable. Opponents to evolution often claim that evolution is not falsifiable because it deals with unobservable, unrepeatable events. However, the theory of evolution is falsifiable. There are no Precambrian rabbits or Mesozoic human fossils, but if there were that would have proven the theory of evolution false. Note evolution would still have been directly observable (viruses and bacteria), so evolution is a fact that would still be true, but the theory of evolution would have been proven wrong.
Second law of Thermodynamics contradicts Evolution
The second law of thermodynamics states that entropy (typically denoted ‘S’ in physics), which could be said to represent disorder, always increases or stays the same in a closed system. Creationists believe evolution creates complexity and order, which would seem to be a decrease in entropy. One weakness of this argument is that entropy representing disorder only loosely relates to order and disorder as used in common language. More correctly, entropy is defined as; for a given set of macroscopic variables, the entropy measures the degree to which the probability of the system is spread out over different possible microstates. Much more importantly, the creationist argument fails because the second law of thermodynamics requires a closed system, and evolution does not operate in a closed system. For example, the sun is shining and providing earth with energy.
Second law of thermodynamics Shutter Stock Vector ID: 2342031619 by Sasha701
Evolution is Random and Improbable
Another creationist argument is that evolution is random, and randomness cannot create an elephant or an airplane. No matter how many times you randomly throw pieces of junk around you won’t get an airplane. The error in this argument is that evolution is not random. It is guided by natural selection (theory of evolution), and natural selection can be very powerful over time. For example, several computer simulations have been created to model the evolution of the eye, demonstrating that a complex camera-type eye can evolve gradually from a simple light-sensitive patch through a series of small, advantageous steps.
I can add that I have some personal experience with genetic algorithms myself. At work I created an algorithm that interpreted data from a camera for the purpose of sorting mail effectively. I started out with a chromosome that was very bad. Then my program applied random mutations and few other genetic features and allowed the best chromosomes to survive. Eventually a very complex but effective algorithm/chromosome resulted. I did not create this powerful algorithm; randomness combined with natural selection did. Randomly throw lots of junk around but also add some natural selection and you may very well get an airplane.
Microevolution is possible but not Macroevolution
Creationists like to say this because they must accept the reality of observable microevolution. It is a scientific fact. However, so called macroevolution is just repeated microevolution. There is no reason that macroevolution wouldn’t be possible. In addition, as you saw in the paragraphs before the ring species image above, the evidence for macroevolution is very strong. Again, microevolution and macroevolution are concepts that creationists like to use more than scientists.
Anyway, this became very long, almost 3,000 words.
At ABB Robotics in Auburn Hills, a suburb of Detroit, Michigan, where I used to work as an engineer, there was a steel door without a window that opened out into a hallway. Whomever designed this must have been clueless. When someone opened the door into the hallway, he would not know anything about what was on the other side of the door.
One day I saw a couple of guys standing and talking in the hallway in front of the door. Suddenly a fellow engineer opened the door, and it slammed into one of the guys, who screamed “hey watch it!”.
The thought that occurred to me was “no you watch it! Standing in front of that door is pretty clueless. How is the guy opening the door going to know that you are there?”. I did not say anything.
The fact of the matter was that the designer, the door opener, the guys hanging out in front of the door, all of them were oblivious. In my opinion the guy standing in front of the door and then when something happened instantly blaming the other guy was the most clueless.
Obliviousness is a state of being unaware or unmindful of something or being ignorant of its existence. Some synonyms are clueless, ignorant, and unmindful. The goal of this blog is to create a list of what I call super facts. Important facts that we know to be true and yet they are often surprising, shocking or disputed among non-experts.
However, I will write about other related things as well, and today I am musing about obliviousness and cluelessness, something that afflicts us all more or less. Without obliviousness and cluelessness this super-fact blog could not exist.
I got the idea for this post by reading a comment on another blog post where the author mentioned that “…a woman on her phone in the supermarket walked into my trolley this morning…”. The woman with the phone was oblivious to her surroundings because of her fixation on her phone, a very common situation. I think most of us are guilty of this on occasion, but it is very annoying when the person who was staring at the phone is blaming the other party.
The same is true for people who walk backwards in crowded places and then blame the people they bump into. There are different levels of obliviousness.
Stock Photo ID: 2340473623 by MDV Edwards
Obliviousness And Social Media
There are a lot of ways to be excessively oblivious. One of the most common and annoying examples on social media is in my opinion when people comment on articles they have not read.
I remember an experiment on Facebook where an organization posted an article with an intentionally misleading headline. The article was about something completely different, and the article even stated that the headline was misleading, and the article explained the experiment. If you read just a small part of the article you would know. The result was that most people commented on the headline, not the article. They did not read any of the article and fell into the trap.
This is a commonly used meme from Pinterest.
Obliviousness pops up in all kinds of circumstances. On Facebook I am the administrator or moderator in half a dozen beer groups. In these groups people discuss and review beers.
One of the want-to-be influencers are posting in lots of groups without ever engaging with or reading other posts, with the result that he has completely missed that one of the beer groups is very international and was started by Italians. He unsuccessfully keeps trying to engage other members several times a day by posting questions such as “Don’t you love this unusually warm evening?”, “What beer are you drinking while watching the game tonight?”.
Basically, he thinks this international beer group is his hometown, not Belgium, China, Brazil, Germany, Italy or Australia. As a result, no one knows what he is talking about. After one year with hardly any likes or comments he still has not figured this out because he never looks at anyone else’s posts.
Paulaner Octoberfest and my beer gnome, one of the photos I posted in various beer groups.
Oblivious Bilinguals
Another common example of extreme obliviousness happens when monolingual people judge bilingual people on their language abilities. I’ve written about that here.
People may speak and understand a second language perfectly and still have a strong accent in that language assuming they did not learn the second language in childhood. Unless you take speech therapy an accent is very difficult to lose in adulthood, something bilingual people know but many monolingual people do not know. You certainly cannot know everything, but when someone negatively judges people for having an accent their level of obliviousness is more extreme.
Past childhood it is much harder to accurately perceive and produce new sounds from another language Stock Photo ID: 1818291203 by pathdoc
Oblivious To Facts
Perhaps the most comical example of an extreme level of obliviousness is when people who know very little about a subject lecture the experts in the field and even mock the experts.
I recently read about such an example. A man was writing to a theoretical physicist, an expert on the second law of thermodynamics, telling him that the second law of thermodynamics contradicted evolution and that the physicist was an idiot for not knowing this. The man had fallen in the trap of believing a common but basic misunderstanding of the second law of thermodynamics.
Not understanding the second law of thermodynamics is one thing, assuming that your brief encounter with it makes you a superior expert on the topic compared to an expert with a PhD in physics is a much higher degree of obliviousness. I should say I see this type of situation quite often on social media.
Second law of thermodynamics Shutter Stock Vector ID: 2342031619 by Sasha701
We can’t know or understand everything, and we are all more or less unaware of other cultures, places, the feelings and thoughts of others, we all get distracted sometimes, and we know a very tiny infinitesimal portion of existing knowledge, we are all oblivious. However, we can make it much worse by not trying.
What are your favorite examples of obliviousness ?
The goal of this blog is to create a list of what I call super facts, but this is not a super-fact post. I sometimes create posts that are not super fact posts but related to this goal as well as other factual posts, and this is one of those. This post is about the Dunning–Kruger effect. The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which people with limited competence in a particular domain overestimate their abilities. Those who are incompetent in a given area tend to be ignorant of their incompetence. What is so interesting about this effect is how widespread it is and how extreme it can get.
Some extreme examples include people without much knowledge in a given field lecturing the experts in the field, people without experience or much knowledge in an area telling the professionals in the field how to do their job. It includes people insisting on absurd claims despite not understanding the topic. It includes people dismissing scientific consensus on a topic without having much knowledge about that topic. It includes managers lacking engineering experience refusing to listen to the engineers, etc.
We are all occasional victims of the Dunning–Kruger effect. The problem comes when the one with the lower ability is stubborn and unreasonable and does not attempt to understand what the better-informed person is saying. Sometimes the situation becomes absurd. Below I am listing a few interesting cases, starting with a time when I was the ignorant one.
Creationism Bamboozled Me
When I was a teenager, I read creationist books that claimed that evolution was a hoax, and that earth was likely 6,000 years old. This is still a very common belief here in the US. These books appeared to me to be very convincing, and I took it upon myself to spread the word and correct the misconceptions. I was good at science and math, but this was before I had studied biology and physics in depth. I was accepted into the “Natur / Natural Science” Highschool program (similar to taking all AP Science classes) and I later studied physics in college.
As a result of what I learned I came to realize that the creationism I had come to embrace was bunk. The young earth claims and the anti-evolution rhetoric was not tenable. I realized this not by reading counter creationist books; I was just learning about the science. Understanding some science made all the difference. I just never knew how much I was missing. It was a lot. To read more about this click here and here. One more thing I learned is that you should avoid science related books written by lawyers and theologians with agendas. It is not their field and they don’t know what they are misunderstanding.
The fossil record is a lot more solid and much less problematic than the creationist books I had read claimed. Shutter Stock Photo ID: 1323000239 by Alizada Studios
Entropy and Evolution
Related to this is the myth that entropy contradicts evolution. Entropy is the measure of a system’s thermal energy per unit temperature that is unavailable for doing useful work. It is also the measure of the number of possible microscopic arrangements or states of individual atoms and molecules of a system that comply with the macroscopic condition of the system. These two definitions are identical.
The formula is S = K * ln (W), where S is entropy, K is Boltzmann’s constant, and W is the number of microstates whose energy equals to the one of the system. Entropy is said to be the amount of disorder in a system, but in this context “disorder” may not correspond exactly to what people mean by disorder. Anyway, the issue is the second law of thermodynamics, which states that the entropy of an isolated system left to spontaneous evolution cannot decrease with time.
The creationists like to say that evolution decreases disorder in the biosphere and therefore contradicts the second law of thermodynamics.
Second law of thermodynamics Shutter Stock Vector ID: 2342031619 by Sasha701
If you take a college level class in thermodynamics you will realize within half an hour that this creationist / anti-evolution claim is false. The most important point being that evolution does not occur within an isolated system.
First of all, the earth, the biosphere, plants and animals receive energy from the outside, the sun for starters. Whether evolution decreases disorder in the biosphere or not, the claim fails instantly on the point that the system is not closed.
Despite decades and even centuries of conclusive debunking many people continue to make the false claim that the second law of thermodynamics and evolution are incompatible. There are people writing to prominent physicists and lecturing them and mocking them for “not knowing” that the second law of thermodynamics and evolution are incompatible. Typically, people who know almost nothing about the subject. They know too little to realize that their arguments are absurd.
The awkward algorithm
One day the engineering manager at my job at Siemens asked me and another guy to do research on how a certain process might improve our system. It was the CEO of the company (he was not an engineer) who was requesting this.
However, it was instantly obvious to me that this process was not compatible with what we were doing. Before, I had opened my mouth, the engineering manager told me “Thomas I know what you are going to say. This process is not applicable to what we are doing, but the CEO just learned about this process, and he is very excited about it. Just pretend to work on it for a few weeks and then write a report about why it did not work out. This is easier than explaining to the CEO why it wouldn’t work.”
Isotopes are real
On one occasion I was arguing on Facebook with an acquaintance regarding whether the current rapid Global Warming trend was natural or not. He said it was natural, and he insisted that he knew a lot about the science. I knew that he did not have a college level science degree, and it was obvious from what he said that he did not understand the science behind climate change.
One of the pieces of evidence I mentioned to him was that isotope studies showed that the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere originated from our burning of fossil fuels. That was when he said that the atoms of a certain element were all identical. There was no such thing as isotopes. He accused me of fabricating the existence of isotopes.
Three natural isotopes of carbon Stock Vector ID: 2063998442 by zizou7
I posted a research article of one isotope study (carbon-12/carbon-13/carbon-14) and an article from Wikipedia on isotopes. Wikipedia isn’t an academically acceptable source, but it featured a good introduction.
He focused on the fact that Wikipedia articles are not always entirely accurate and used it as a reason to dismiss everything I said about isotopes. I was surprised he had never heard of Carbon-14. Isotopes is well known high school science and there are thousands of articles about it on the internet. He just didn’t know anything about this basic fact. He started insulting and mocking me perhaps because he felt I was lecturing him, but how would I have handled this? He knew too little about the subject to realize how much he was missing.
The Current Global Warming is not natural
Nearly all climate scientists say the same thing, Global Warming / Climate Change is real, and it is us. Just because the climate has changed for natural reasons in the past does not mean that is the case now. The same people who told us about the natural variability of climate in the past are the ones telling us it is not natural now. We should listen.
It is not orbital cycles, not the sun, not volcanoes, not bacteria or other lifeforms, and not cosmic radiation, it is us, primarily because of emissions from fossil fuels. The paleoclimatologists and the climate scientists and atmospheric physicists are telling us that it is not natural because of the quite substantial and solid evidence. Yet a very substantial proportion of us insist that it is natural causes without knowing much about the evidence. Why? Because they know too little about the evidence to consider it. The Dunning-Kruger effect again. BTW I will make a more detailed post about this in the future.
Wind Power Myths
Wind power has been on the receiving end of false claims, nonsense, and strange rumors for a while. It is not the only energy source that is a victim of widespread falsehoods, but it is a considerable problem. One false claim is that wind power requires an additional power source to operate (such as a companion diesel engine).
Another false claim is that wind power generates less power than it consumes, and yet another false claim is that wind power causes cancer. These claims are absurd and no one with basic insights in engineering and science would know they are false, yet many people fall for them. The people who fall for these claims think they know more than others, not less. Dunning-Kruger again. I am discussing nonsense and rumors about wind power here.
Super Facts 