Evolution vs. Thermodynamics

John agrees with me however that we did not have an reducing atmosphere. To quote him-

quote:

---

Sure is, if not altogether abandonned. I posted something to this effect already.

---

quote:

---

http://www.chem.duke.edu/...uis_dhem/Exobiology/PBearth.html

---

You got that link wrong-it should be http://www.chem.duke.edu/...ise_chem/Exobiology/PBearth.html Interestingly, in the self-test question 8 it says that a hydrothermal origin of life is unlikely because of a.Organic molecules are unstable at high temperatures
&
b.The proposed temperature gradient would be too small to produce a significant amount of organic compoundsThis was what I was talking to you about before, John. The heat by itself can't do anything in lowering the molecular entropy-only the temperature gradient.[This message has been edited by blitz77, 08-06-2002]

It is because the heat gradient is insufficient that it violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics-because entropy always increases. The supposed counter-increase in entropy is supposed to come from the decrease of the energy gradient, which is quite insufficient for the job.
Unless you are suppposing that the resultant molecules have a higher entropy?[This message has been edited by blitz77, 08-06-2002]

quote:

---

http://members.aol.com/steamdoc/writings/thermo.html

​

What about "Energy Conversion Mechanisms"?
A few of those invoking the 2nd law to oppose evolution have recognized the isolated system problem, and responded by saying that for work and structure to be produced in a system, it is not enough to have energy flow, one must also have an "energy conversion mechanism." This statement is actually correct, but it does not help the anti-evolution cause. The biochemistry of life is full of such mechanisms (a more standard name is "dissipative structures"). Photosynthesis is one example, as are other pieces of the biochemistry of the cell. With these structures in place (in other words, once life exists), there is then no obstacle from the standpoint of thermodynamics to the evolution of more and different life.
One might, of course, ask about the origin of these dissipative structures. This is a legitimate question, though not really one of "evolution" (which normally refers to the development of life from other life) but instead one of "abiogenesis." Whether or not the biochemistry of life could arise "naturally" is one where the evidence is not so clear, and legitimate arguments can be made here. However, at this level the arguments are primarily about plausibility of chemical mechanisms rather than thermodynamics (and those who use them should not say their position is based on thermodynamics), so they are outside the scope of this essay.

---

Since we are discussing abiogenesis, this site says that this argument may be used, thus you will still have to argue how the chemical mechanism works. It says that evolution doesn't have this problem, but abiogenesis does. As your other site says, disorder does not equal to entropy, which is true, it gives the example of crystals. However, the entropy of a crystal increases as it warms up. Therefore you have to think up of a mechanism to convert this form of energy into negative entropy.[This message has been edited by blitz77, 08-08-2002]

As the entropy is higher when it is warmer, that is why you have to come up with a mechanism to convert negative heat entropy into negative bond entropy.

Yes-with extremities of temperature. However, water boils at 100C, which can only be raised with the addition of solutes or higher pressure. However, higher pressure produces the opposite effect, making it even harder. So with no other "mechanism" but extremities of conditions, it invalidates many other possible starting conditions--limiting it to hydrothermal origin of life--along with all the problems it entails. If you want the negative entropy source to be the sun, you have to find a mechanism to convert light quanta energy, for heat gradient, something to convert that heat gradient energy, etc.