Evolution vs. Thermodynamics

Before you dismiss the article at trueorigin.org, why don't you read the whole article first. The usual evolutionist dismissal of thermodynamics vs evolution is that the second law applies only to a closed system, and life as we know it exists and evolved in an open system. The evolutionist rationale behind this is that a constant supply of energy can reduce entropy. However, I'll just quote the site:
"But simply adding energy to a system doesn’t automatically cause reduced entropy (i.e., increased organized complexity, or build-up rather than break-down). Raw solar energy alone does not decrease entropyin fact, it increases entropy, speeding up the natural processes that cause break-down, disorder, and disorganization on earth (consider, for example, your car’s paint job, a wooden fence, or a decomposing animal carcass, both with and then without the addition of solar radiation)."
and
"The apparent increase in organized complexity (i.e., decrease in entropy) found in biological systems requires two additional factors besides an open system and an available energy supply. These are:1. a program (information) to direct the growth in organized complexity
2. a mechanism for storing and converting the incoming energy."
Now, before organisms arose (before abiogenesis), there wouldn't have been such a program of mechanism in place.This is contrary to your claim that they admit that a reduction of entropy can occur in an open system. So instead of knocking the sites off that they are contradicting themselves, please take a look at what they are actually writing.Now, you might take talk.origins example: "In fact, there are many examples in nature where order does arise spontaneously from disorder: Snowflakes with their six-sided crystalline symmetry are formed spontaneously from randomly moving water vapor molecules. Salts with precise planes of crystalline symmetry form spontaneously when water evaporates from a solution. Seeds sprout into flowering plants and eggs develop into chicks."
However, these examples don't have reduced entropy. Their formation is simply a movement towards a lower energy level (thus more stable).And also, before you knock off the site's articles, why don't you give a proper reason for refusing it? Explain and refute their argument that even in an open system entropy does not decrease.

​

[This message has been edited by blitz77, 07-24-2002]

No, that is not true. Ever heard of this law in chemistry? The entropy of a perfect crystal at absolute zero has zero entropy. If you increase its temperature by adding energy, its entropy increases.Your example with rust is very poor. Rust is much more thermodynamically stable than pure iron. It is a spontaneous reaction, resulting in higher stability and it is exothermic. Just like degrading protein is exothermic and results in more stable products. To show that rust is thermodynamically favorable, have you ever heard of heat packs for skiiers? It consists of a packet divided in two with powdered iron on one side, and oxygen on the other. When the seal between is broken, heat is produced, warming your hands, body and feet as warm as toast for around 6 hours (if you want to find this example, just take a university chemistry textbook by Zamdahl). And anyway, it is a very poor example on your part because it occurs in a reducing atmosphere. That is why the Urey-Miller experiment had to occur in an anoxic environment.

I'll give you another article, which explains it quite clearly. (In my opinion). Read the whole article (the start deals with the big bang, later on it talks about evolution).Create a Website | Tripod Web Hosting

I agree that entropy does not mean disorder. Entropy is actually measured by the number of ways the particles can be arranged while having the same properties. However, we are talking about abiogenesis.
Now, the formation of proteins is against the energy gradient. Just the accumulation of peptides in one spot is against the diffusion gradient. The input of energy supposedly in early earth is lightning. However, wouldn't it be much more likely that lightning would decompose any products that occur? Also, this supposedly happens in an anoxic environment. This would mean that there would be no ozone layer. But this ozone layer also protects organisms from cosmic rays and UV. You can't have it both ways. Just the sufficient accumulation of peptides in one area is quite improbable. It also requires energy for the peptides (which, after forming in the atmosphere, enter the water) to link up to each other. And what is the probability that they are all left-handed? Macromolecules also form from both L and D forms. And then there's the heterotrophic vs autotrophic debate. Most models I've seen have them start out as heterotrophs, assimilating organic molecules nearby until they become autotrophic. If they start out as heterotrophs, you would need an even greater concentration of organic molecules. And this isn't even including the time required for them to evolve into autotrophic organisms (which means that those molecules would be assimilating nearby organic molecules for quite a time).[This message has been edited by blitz77, 07-30-2002]

quote:

---

Why not geothermal energy?

---

While hydrothermal energy could be a possible source, they harm other vital components of life. Stanley Miller himself points out that polymers are too unstable to exist in a hot prebiotic environment. He also points out that RNA bases are quickly destroyed in water at 100C. It destroys many complex amino acids (eg serine and threonine). Heating also racemizes amino acids, preventing exclusive left-handed amino acids.

quote:

---

1) Modern life forms are vulnerable to UV and cosmic rays. This doesn't mean that early life was so vulnerable. But even if it was...

​

2) The models I have seen usually involve thick clouds rich in volcanic material. Ozone does not have to be the only shield.

---

Clouds are not that great at stopping UV. With no ozone organisms are destroyed in 0.3 seconds, and for organic molecules it would be comparable.Also, the evidence for a reducing environment is not as strong as it seems. Most evolutionists give the example of magnetite. However, the iron formations also contain oxidized oxygen which requires an oxidizing atmosphere, making it quite debatable. Then there's sulfur deposits. If earth had a reducing atmosphere, you'd expect sulfide precipitates in archaen rocks. However, none have been found. Then there's also evidence for oxidized weathering crusts below banded iron formations. Archaen oxygen is also indicated once again.

quote:

---

The ocean surf concentrates this stuff, or at least it concentrates stuff, today.

---

But how concentrated can a surf concentrate the peptides? Enough for the formation of proteins, along with enough for the self-replicating molecules to reproduce? And also, I thought you were talking about the hydrothermal model. Where would it concentrate, as it requires energy to link up the peptides?

quote:

---

How much energy? Last model I looked at had the oceans at a couple of hundred degrees.

---

As I said before, hot water destroys complex amino acids and destroys RNA.

quote:

---

Am I wrong in thinking that left and right molecules are not perfect mirror images? If so, they must function at least slightly differently.

---

Yes, but the simple fact is that most of the organic macromolecules that would form would contain both L and D forms.
And by the way, they are optical isomers, and they are mirror images. Surely abiogenesis would have some use for D forms as well if it occurred.

quote:

---

Good thing we have a billion or so years for all of this to happen.

---

So you have these self-replicating heterotrophs eating up organic molecules nearby for the length of time until one becomes autotrophic? And abiogenesis supposedly occurred soon after when surface water became available.But really, maybe this thread should go into the origin of life section.[This message has been edited by blitz77, 07-31-2002]

quote:

---

We are talking about a planetary system. Components from many sources will mix and match.

​

Besides, there are living thingies very near hydrothermal vents today.

---

But the organisms you are talking about have cell membranes and means of protecting themselves. Without these forms of protection, how would they survive? And do any of those living thingies not have cell membranes?

quote:

---

Well, for one we are not talking about rainclouds but clouds rich in volcanic material.

---

So you would have to say there were permanent volcanic clouds hanging in the sky to protect earth? What about winds, etc moving them around?

quote:

---

The nature article cited does not assume a reducing atmosphere. It seems the consensus is that the reducing atmosphere assumption is wrong.

---

So in such an atmosphere, there wouldn't be much if at all any free hydrogen in the air, or ammonia, as in an oxidizing atmosphere they would be quickly oxidized. So what is the alternative model you have for producing organic molecules?

quote:

---

I would argue so, tentatively. They concentrate on shore in little pools. But this is only one of the options.

---

So would you say that it could concentrate enough for proteins to form? After all, an average sized protein contains 500 amino acids. Give me a concentration (molarity) of peptides in water that you suggest would have proteins forming.

quote:

---

I am talking about hydrothermal energy, perhaps not the hydrothermal model per se. The energy I am thinking of permiates the planet. Initially the whole planet was very hot. The energy I am thinking of is the energy released as it cooled. Initially, it was much too hot for anything to form, but the temperature slowly dropped to more or less modern degrees. There is a lot of energy in that period of cooling. Of course there are hydrothermal vents and lightning and whatnot as well, all contributing in some way or messing things up in other ways.

---

As the planet cooled, wouldn't energy have mostly radiated out into outer space? Tell me how the energy produced by cooling can be used.

quote:

---

ummm.... Chiral molecules lack reflection symmetry.

---

I believe you have interpreted the article wrongly. The diagram given there is an enantiomer (non-superimposable mirror images). They are mirror images, but they cannot be superimposed on each other without the reflection. Like your left hand and your right hand are non-superimposable mirror images. The article is talking about how they can determine which are left-handed and which are right-handed peptides using their optical properties. That is why L and D isomers are called optical isomers. If you looked around more carefully, such as this article from the same site, they distinguished L and D forms by seeing how well they bond to a left-handed cryptophane.[This message has been edited by blitz77, 08-01-2002]

quote:

---

I think we are talking about different time frames and about different organisms.

​

For the first, the time frame I have in mind, I think, is much earlier initially than what you seem to be thinking about. This point is much more important latter in the post.

​

For the second, the first organism to inhabit the vents probably had cell membranes. I see the vents as spewing important components, not as efficient manufacturers. I'd be lying if I said I had all the details.

---

Ok, fair enough, but which model do you prefer? The cell membranes originating and replicating by the addition of more lipids until it splits into two, or cell membranes + self-replicating molecule inside?
But anyway, correct me if I'm wrong, wouldn't the lipid membrane prefer to stay in 1 globule instead of splitting into two, as splitting into two exposes a bigger surface area to the water, which is disfavored by thermodynamics. If you say cell membranes + self replicating molecules, it makes it a lot more complicated to produce the first organism.

quote:

---

Given the time frame I have in mind, I think it is fair to assume a pretty dust-heavy atmosphere. Nonetheless, I am not taking a hard line on the volcanic clouds, just pointing out that the mechanisms blocking UV today are not the only possible mechanisms.

---

I'll agree with you that it could be possible.

quote:

---

I'll check again, but I believe the scenario was covered in the article I cited.

---

I'll check it out.

quote:

---

Starting with 500 amino acids is jumping the gun. If I am not mistaken, a sequence of 30 or so acids has been shown to replicate. Besides, we are talking about a BILLION years or so. Chemicals have lots of time.

---

But the 30 or so sequence that replicates cannot really mutate. If there is only a small mutation, the mechanism would be lost. In a larger molecule, mutations could be tolerated more.

quote:

---

Of course it would radiate into outer space---- VIA the oceans and the atmosphere.... the energy is used to drive chemical reations.

---

But wouldn't this still be heat energy?

quote:

---

Ok. Fair enough, but my left and right hands are non-superimposable because there are slight differences between the two. I don't get it. I don't see how you can have it both ways.

---

I don't think you understand why they put the "non-superimposable mirror image" thing there. It is because if you put one hand on top of the other, they do not overlap exactly. The L and D molecules just differ in the arrangement, clockwise or counter-clockwise. They are mirror images, so when they say non-superimposable it means that the two molecules are not identical arrangement.

quote:

---

Without a complete model it is impossible to say which to back, and no model is complete enough to fit the bill.

​

That said, I suspect that you something of both going on initially--perhaps for millions of hundreds of million years. Lipids just form, as has been pointed out, so no sense repeating it. What I imagine is that self-replicating molecules developed on their own and eventually colonized the bubbles of lipids.

---

This does not explain how in the end the self-replicating molecule would produce the bubbles of lipids for a membrane.

quote:

---

The bubbles will become unstable once they react a certain size, so splitting is inevitable disfavored or not.

---

I'm not sure how big they need to be to become unstable... so around a few cell sizes they would become unstable?

quote:

---

Life, or what was to be life, took a very long time to emerge. This is only a problem with a very short time-frame.

---

But there is a very short time frame... the earliest bacteria in the evolutionist model appeared immediately after surface water became available.

quote:

---

Yes. Why is that a problem?

---

Give me some chemical reactions in which the addition of heat produces lower entropy molecules (without using a mechanism for decreasing entropy, as before abiogenesis there wouldn't be a mechanism). Why does ATP have to be used to form the required molecules instead of using just heat? I know that reversing an equation such as A -> B + C + X Joules could produce a more complicated molecule with the addition of energy, but without a mechanism for delivering the joules in a useful way it just wont work.[This message has been edited by blitz77, 08-02-2002]

quote:

---

Sorry, but this is mostly smoke screen.

​

1) What other common energy source is there but heat?

​

2) You seem to be denying that organic molecules cannot form spontaneously, and this has been shown to happen in the lab.

---

Definitely not spontaneously because it consumes more energy than it produces. You had sparks in the Urey-Miller experiment, and that wasn't heat. Anyway, the reducing atmosphere is debatable. And the concentration of the required constitutents is not spontaneous.[This message has been edited by blitz77, 08-02-2002]

Actually, let me change my tack. Heat, for it to do anything useful, requires a temperature gradient. A really big temperature gradient. (Take a look at power stations). If everything is the same temperature, it can't do anything useful. And also, heat prefers to stay as heat (it is very stable), while sparks do not. They prefer to get converted into heat. You cannot have heat converting into bond energy-The two great trends in the universe is for higher entropy and lower energy. 2nd law of thermodynamics-you need the gradient, as I said, for it to do anything. Even with the gradient, heat stays as heat. Heat does not get converted, only entropy increases because of the decrease in the gradient. You cannot have both heat converting into bond energy, as well as a decrease in entropy-only way bond energy can be produced using heat is if entropy increases.Let me put it this way-Making a complex molecule is a decrease in entropy. The absorption of heat makes a temperature gradient with the surroundings (yet another decrease in entropy). Thus it doesn't work (you can't have them both decreasing in entropy).
I'm not sure whether this makes sense, tell me if I'm wrong please.[This message has been edited by blitz77, 08-02-2002]

quote:

---

oh geez..... we have a power supply....

---

Refer to my previous one-you must have just finished writing this one and not noticed my next one.

quote:

---

Actually, let me change my tack. Heat, for it to do anything useful, requires a temperature gradient. A really big temperature gradient. (Take a look at power stations). If everything is the same temperature, it can't do anything useful. And also, heat prefers to stay as heat (it is very stable), while sparks do not. They prefer to get converted into heat. You cannot have heat converting into bond energy-The two great trends in the universe is for higher entropy and lower energy. 2nd law of thermodynamics-you need the gradient, as I said, for it to do anything. Even with the gradient, heat stays as heat. Heat does not get converted, only entropy increases because of the decrease in the gradient. You cannot have both heat converting into bond energy, as well as a decrease in entropy-only way bond energy can be produced using heat is if entropy increases.

​

Let me put it this way-Making a complex molecule is a decrease in entropy. The absorption of heat makes a temperature gradient with the surroundings (yet another decrease in entropy). Thus it doesn't work (you can't have them both decreasing in entropy).
I'm not sure whether this makes sense, tell me if I'm wrong please.

---

You could talk about how radiation of heat into outer space of course generates the gradient. But in the water, the gradient would be quite small on the molecular size-the ones next to each other would have nearly the same heat energy. So, when molecules absorb the heat from the surroundings to produce a complex molecule, it would have to create a much larger gradient (thus violating the law of thermodynamics), simply because producing the complex molecule requires a lot of heat energy.Sorry for the terrible previous post (message 38).[This message has been edited by blitz77, 08-02-2002]

quote:

---

You cannot have heat converting into bond energy

---

-Without an at least equal increase in entropy somewhere else (usually, if not always the conversion of some other form of energy into heat), as with the absorption of heat in producing the bond energy, it would produce a temperature gradient elsewhere (= decrease in entropy). Thus you need something else to supply the increase in entropy at least equal or greater to the decrease in entropy (2nd law of thermodynamics).Oh well, gotta go sleep. Think on it, and tell me if its nonsense.[This message has been edited by blitz77, 08-02-2002]

quote:

---

Blitz77:The two great trends in the universe is for higher entropy and lower energy.

---

Whoops, yeah, I said the wrong thing. Higher entropy and higher FREE energy is what I am saying.

quote:

---

Randy: OK you are wrong. If this were true polymerization reactions would not be spontaneous and many of them are highly spontaneous. Complex molecules can form spontaneously under the appropriate conditions of temperature and pressure. Polymerization reactions release heat to compensate for the decrease in entropy of the monomers. It is the free energy change and not the entropy change that determines the direction of a reaction and the free energy changes depends on temperature and pressure. You are trying to argue that the second law of thermodynamics prevents unknown reactions that may have occurred at unknown conditions of temperature and pressure. This invalidates all your thermodynamic arguments leaving you with arguments from incredulity.

---

Not really. Forming peptides does not release as much heat as is required to produce them. Without a reducing atmosphere, you can't form peptides without having a net loss of entropy. Same thing as for producing proteins from peptides; more energy is required to produce proteins than is released by the polymerization process. I am saying that converting heat into bond energy reduces the amount of free energy. Any reaction that reduces Gibbs-free energy is not spontaneous, and requires a increase of entropy somewhere else. What I am saying is that converting the heat into bond energy is thermodynamically unfavorable, as heat has a higher entropy than bond energy. Thus, if you convert heat energy into bond energy, you need something else to supply the increase in entropy to compensate for the loss of entropy from converting heat into bond energy. So you need something else as well as heat, as heat only supplies the energy, it doesn't supply the required increase in entropy.Let me demonstrate this with the Gibbs-Helmholtz equation: -
dG = dH - TdS (d = delta symbol, and at constant T and P).Since we are converting heat into bond energy, dH is positive.
dS is also negative, as the order of the system is increasing. Now, if dH is positive and dS is negative, then dG must also be positive. Now, according to the general chemistry textbook next to me, if dG is positive, reaction is nonspontaneous. If dG is zero, the system is at equilibrium. If dG is negative, the reaction is spontaneous.
Since the reaction is non-spontaneous (the absorption of heat into bond energy to form a lower entropy molecule), it won't happen without an increase of entropy somewhere else (a -dH + TdS somewhere else that is > than the dH - TdS).[This message has been edited by blitz77, 08-02-2002]

quote:

---

Since you don’t know the temperatures and pressures or even the reactions that may have occurred during abiogenesis, if it indeed occurred naturally, you can not say that those reactions violate the second law. You are still arguing from incredulity and your arguments do not have the force of the second law behind them as much as you might wish otherwise.

---

From this image you can see that for it to become spontaneous, the water would have to be 400C at 0.5kbar and 500C at 5kbar. The higher the pressure the higher the temperature required for it to become spontaneous. And even at 100C complex amino acids such as threonine and serine break down. So you are suggesting that the proteins formed at around or over 400C?

No-I admit that it that polymerization of the amino acids can occur spontaneously at high temperatures (>500C at 5kbars)-but glycine is the most stable of the amino acids (as it is the simplest). You can't have it both ways-a high temperature + stable amino acids / proteins. That's why John didn't specify that it occurred in the hydrothermal vents-there are other problems there. And how would the amino acids form in the first place without a reducing atmosphere? Without a reducing atmosphere, it is against the law of thermodynamics that amino acids can form spontaneously-only in a reducing atmosphere it can, as only in a reducing atmosphere can the reactions necessary to produce the amino acids be spontaneous (given a spark of energy to get over the activation energy requirement).[This message has been edited by blitz77, 08-05-2002]