How does one explain the nature of living things if the second law of thermodynamics is correct?

Living things are ';energy engines'; they use energy to keep themselves organized into a living thing. When they die. that process stops and they rot. Consider yourself, some of the energy in the food you eat is lost as heat and poop. You give off carbon dioxide and water like any other internial combustion engine.





Ultimatly, the sun goes out, everything dies and rots.








No violation of Thermo there.





The 2nd Law argument is often used by Creationists to support their views. It doesn't. Fact is the laws of science CANNOT be used to prove or disprove the existance of God.How does one explain the nature of living things if the second law of thermodynamics is correct?
Obviously, living things do not violate the 2LoT. After all, the people who first described it were well aware of the existence of living things. Had they determined that living things did not increase global entropy, they would not have written it down in the first place.





The first thermodynamicists were also well aware of the self-organizing principles of hurricanes, snowflakes, crystals, ocean currents, and tornadoes.





If any of these things seem to you to violate 2LoT, then it is your understanding of 2LoT that is flawed, not the law itself.How does one explain the nature of living things if the second law of thermodynamics is correct?
Actually, living things are a perfect example of the second law.





We consume energy from foods to convert into energy for survival, but there is always some energy lost in this process, which immediately falls in line with the more classic interpretation of the second law; that you will essentially never get out quite as much as you put in.





But even the more modern interpretations serve brilliantly as human explanation. For example, we entropy biologically, known as aging. From basic friction (wear and tear, arthritis) to genetic decay, we are in a constant state of entropy, we consume more and more resources, producing more and more waste for less gain, both biologically and technologically.





Our energy is constantly in a state of loss, and when looked at from afar the entire phenomenon of life could easily be alluded to a very simple chemical reaction, one of the millions that are taking place throughout the universe.





Just as there are fusions within stars, slowly burning out at an increasingly accelerated rate, so too is there a strange, self-replicating chemical reaction that burns up more fuel than it produces in quantifiable energy output, and this phenomenon we refer to as life. And just like any other scientific process, we exist with an increasingly degenerating level of productivity.





Now while it is true that we are increasing in terms of population, don't be fooled into thinking that means we are not subject to entropy. It should not disguise the fact that we are still consuming more energy than we create, and that factor is only INCREASING the greater our population becomes, as we eat into our natural resources and balance out that loss very little. Don't mistake the raw numbers of life forms with entropy.





Having said that, we do seem to form a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment, all life-forms balance one another out, replenishing the ';lost'; energy. But when viewing it from that angle, it becomes necessary not to generalize all life forms under the same category. You see, each individual life form is still consuming more energy than they produce, it's just that another life form fills in the gaps, creating a perpetual cycle throughout nature.





This could be compared to a stellar nursery creating new stars to replace the ones that fizzle out in the universe, while there may be a replenishment out there, each individual process was still putting out less energy than it consumed, each individual reaction, process or biological life form still exists in a state of increasing entropy.





I hope you find this answer acceptable. :)








The Founder






This is a really excellent question that is the subject of huge amounts of science, either directly or indirectly.





If you exclude spiritual or religious explanations which, though possible, are not subject to proof or even plausibility, then you need to look to ';self-organizing principles';.





There's a lot of good research here.


For the elementary principles of how simple instructions of populations can for(m) higher levels of organization, check out, ';A new kind of Science'; by Stephan Wolfram. Free access, with a login at: http://www.wolframscience.com/nksonline/鈥?/a>





Also try the original writings of Gregory Bateson. Try ';Steps to an ecology of Mind'; and ';Mind and Nature';





Lastly, try an internet search on the term ';Emergence'; this is an emerging (sorry for the pun!) term for the phenomena of simple systems, simply creating greater complexity.





Here's a link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence





See the section living systems, but you should probably catch it all for some background.





Pretty extensive work going on and a field that is in it's infancy.





Hope this helps.
The 2nd law of thermodynamics applies only to closed systems. The Earth is not a closed system; we receive low entropy light from the sun and radiate high entropy heat into space. What's left behind is disentropy.





Actually, there are no truly closed systems; they're just hypothetical.
The two words in the second law that explains the nature of living things are: spontaneously and tend. For a better discusion try the following website:





www.secondlaw.com/two