Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Abiogenesis Violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics
heygabbagabba
Junior Member (Idle past 4986 days)
Posts: 8
Joined: 11-26-2008


Message 1 of 6 (489355)
11-26-2008 2:05 PM


According to the grand theory of evolution (molecules to man), the evolutionary process began with abiogenesis. Organic molecules spontaneously combined to form amino acids, which combined to form proteins, which spontaneously combined to form DNA, RNA, and cell membranes, etc.
Abiogenesis violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics because it requires heat to organize itself into localized chemical energy. Simple molecules have to combine into complex molecules which store more heat. Heat doesn’t naturally flow from cold places to hot places. Heat, unless acted on by a greater energy, will always try to spread itself out. If there is heat in warm water, and it is put into cold water it will spread out into the cold making a bunch of "warm" water.
The outside energy (sun) would never cause these molecules to combine in such a complex way to make even amino acids (much less protein or DNA). It may combine a few molecules, but they would quickly break down (according to 2nd law of thermodynamics) before anything more could happen. Evolution requires that molecules combine to a point complex enough to start the natural selection process/life with out ever breaking down. This goes far beyond improbable.
In addition, the popular closed system argument is IRRELEVANT, as the second law has never been proven wrong in an open system, either.
The outside energy may occasionally put a couple molecules together, but in order to get even to the point of simple proteins they would have to stay together, and continue to combine. There is energy holding those two molecules together, so according to the 2nd law it would be more likely (by far) to have those two molecules break apart rather then stay together and expand. Same with three four five and so on number of molecules together.
Also - the heat from the sun which evolutionists are so fond of crediting as the outside energy that allows the molecules to come together into amino acids, proteins, dna and so on does not do this. Last time I checked when I throw something out in the sun it breaks down faster then if I put it in a place with less heat (freezer). That's why we put meat in a freezer to keep it good and not out in the sun.
I am not suggesting that thermodynamics prevents the molecules from arranging in a perfect order (though that does indeed come into play if you want to discuss probability), but that the molecules could not combine enough times in ANY order (due to the energy required to keep them together). Combining molecules together takes energy, so it is requiring that energy somehow put itself into place holding the molecules together. That is what goes against the 2nd law, not the order in which the molecules are combining.
Edited by heygabbagabba, : No reason given.
Edited by heygabbagabba, : No reason given.
Edited by heygabbagabba, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by AdminNosy, posted 11-26-2008 2:42 PM heygabbagabba has not replied

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 2 of 6 (489361)
11-26-2008 2:42 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by heygabbagabba
11-26-2008 2:05 PM


New Title? More Focus?
Welcome to EvC heygabbagabba! There are lots of opportunities for fun and learning here.
We are rather fussy about OPs(opening posts) since we like to keep each topic focused. The admins will help you focus your topic a bit before we let it go to the hungry hoards. .
You have the 2nd law as the focus of your topic title however, you never state what the 2nd law is in your OP. That is one thing you should do. Just edit it in and then reply to me and an admin will take another look.
You should then show how that law supports each of your statements in each paragraph.
One problem is that the 2nd law only limits the behavior of free engery in a closed system (and actually not even that). So as soon as you allow for outside energy you are removing any limits that the 2nd law might cause.
There may be good reasons why each issue you raise are actually issues but since you remove the second law as a possibility in your first sentence you'll have to come back to supplying a reason separately OR show how the 2nd law actually supports your claims. Again, you'll have to start by stating what the second law is.
In your last paragraph you bring intelligent design into it and say that overcomes any laws of thermodynamics. However, you never clarify what allows the designer involved to by pass the laws. Maybe you should leave the last paragraph out and concentrate on the first 3?
You also need to be sure you have your facts clear. Combining molescules does NOT always require energy. You'd be dead if it did. Explain why the particular processes you are talking about require it.
Then change the title to match what you are actually talking about please. Thanks for the input.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by heygabbagabba, posted 11-26-2008 2:05 PM heygabbagabba has not replied

  
heygabbagabba
Junior Member (Idle past 4986 days)
Posts: 8
Joined: 11-26-2008


Message 3 of 6 (489384)
11-26-2008 5:24 PM


I think I spruced it up a little bit.
Tell me what you think.

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by AdminNosy, posted 11-26-2008 7:44 PM heygabbagabba has not replied

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 4 of 6 (489408)
11-26-2008 7:44 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by heygabbagabba
11-26-2008 5:24 PM


Spruced up
Yes, you've clarified it some.
However, you still haven't stated (at least not clearly) just what the second law is. You have stated that heat doesn't flow from cold to hot places. But you have not yet made it clear why this is a problem for abiogenesis. You have simply said that it is. Simply saying something without giving reasons doesn't make for a very good discussion.
You will be asked to actually support what you say so before I release this topic it would be a good idea for you to show that you can.
The outside energy (sun) would never cause these molecules to combine in such a complex way to make even amino acids (much less protein or DNA).
You make this statement for example. This is contradicted by facts as far as I know. You'll have to answer that problem.
In addition, the popular closed system argument is IRRELEVANT, as the second law has never been proven wrong in an open system, either.
You'll have to explain this too. No one in response to you will suggest that the 2nd law is wrong. But with free energy the second law is not, by itself, a restriction on anything. That is the issue you have to answer.
...so according to the 2nd law it would be more likely (by far) to have those two molecules break apart rather then stay together and expand.
I asked you to show just exactly how the 2nd law says things like the above. You simply made the claim again. In the science threads you have to actually support what you say not simply assert them. Thermodynamics may very well be involved as an issue for abiogenesis (in fact I am darned sure it is) but you haven't shown how it is. I am very sure that it isn't an issue that is simply a result of the 2nd law. If it is you'll have to show how.
Thanks for the clarification. You second go is better than the first.
Edited by AdminNosy, : spelling again

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by heygabbagabba, posted 11-26-2008 5:24 PM heygabbagabba has not replied

  
heygabbagabba
Junior Member (Idle past 4986 days)
Posts: 8
Joined: 11-26-2008


Message 5 of 6 (489423)
11-26-2008 11:51 PM


In actuality, I would not mind if people questioned these theories; I am just looking for an audience off which to bounce these ideas. I am looking for evidence to both refute my claims and back them up.
I'll try to keep sprucing it up, though.

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by AdminNosy, posted 11-27-2008 2:56 AM heygabbagabba has not replied

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 6 of 6 (489441)
11-27-2008 2:56 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by heygabbagabba
11-26-2008 11:51 PM


Refuting
The refutation of the claim that the 2nd law is any kind of a problem has been done a jillion times. It's already been discussed on EvC a lot.
This thread might do:
Thermodynamics, Abiogenesis and Evolution
What you've demonstrated here is that you are too lazy to actually learn something about the topic you want to discuss. I'm not going to let others waste their time with you on this topic.
You can post to the thread above but you should read it first. It's old and you should ignore everthing written by Brad McFall though.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by heygabbagabba, posted 11-26-2008 11:51 PM heygabbagabba has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024