Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evolution vs. Thermodynamics
Randy
Member (Idle past 6247 days)
Posts: 420
From: Cincinnati OH USA
Joined: 07-19-2002


Message 61 of 103 (14912)
08-06-2002 3:16 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by Percy
08-06-2002 11:24 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Percipient:
If I'm following the discussion properly, the Creationist position in this thread has shifted from "2LOT doesn't permit abiogenesis" to "2LOT permits abiogenesis, but the heat gradient on the ancient earth was insufficient for abiogenesis." Do I have this right?
--Percy

Well it started out with 2LOT prevents evolution and when that creationist argument fell flat it moved to peptide synthesis in abiogenesis being against 2LOT and now to heat gradients and reducing atmospheres. That last does seem to be that the heat gradient was insufficient as you say but I don't know if you have this right or not since it is a bit hard for me to make sense of some of Blitz's thermodynamics. How about you?
Randy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Percy, posted 08-06-2002 11:24 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by Percy, posted 08-06-2002 4:25 PM Randy has not replied
 Message 67 by Bart007, posted 08-07-2002 12:14 AM Randy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22393
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 62 of 103 (14915)
08-06-2002 4:25 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by Randy
08-06-2002 3:16 PM


Randy writes:

That last does seem to be that the heat gradient was insufficient as you say but I don't know if you have this right or not since it is a bit hard for me to make sense of some of Blitz's thermodynamics. How about you?
That's pretty much why I was asking - after reading through the thread I found I wasn't sure which position or positions were still in play.
Abiogenesis and evolution postulate nothing more than normal chemical reactions, so of course they do not violate 2LOT. And given that we don't know whether life originated in outer space, in the atmosphere, in the water or beneath the sea, definitive statements that conditions were insufficient, such as heat gradients or reducing atmospheres, seem insupportable.
Once the "evolution violates natural laws" position is given up, the only recourse is to attempt to demonstrate how conditions on the ancient earth were incompatible with abiogenesis and evolution. This seems a hopeless exercise given how little we know about our ancient environment.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Randy, posted 08-06-2002 3:16 PM Randy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by blitz77, posted 08-06-2002 7:08 PM Percy has replied

  
blitz77
Inactive Member


Message 63 of 103 (14921)
08-06-2002 7:08 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by Percy
08-06-2002 4:25 PM


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]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Percy, posted 08-06-2002 4:25 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by Randy, posted 08-06-2002 8:56 PM blitz77 has not replied
 Message 66 by Percy, posted 08-06-2002 10:05 PM blitz77 has not replied

  
Randy
Member (Idle past 6247 days)
Posts: 420
From: Cincinnati OH USA
Joined: 07-19-2002


Message 64 of 103 (14925)
08-06-2002 8:56 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by blitz77
08-06-2002 7:08 PM


quote:
Originally posted by blitz77:
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]

This makes so little sense that I find it difficult to frame a logical reply but I will try. First, entropy only "always increases" in isolated systems and the systems in question were clearly open. While it is true that energy gradients can lead to self organizing behavior this is not what I am saying here. I say that I am supposing the reaction conditions might have been such that the free energy changes favored the necessary reactions what ever they may have been and I said that before more than once. It really is the answer but I don't suppose you will ever accept it so I am probably wasting my time. Unless you know what the required reactions were and the specific conditions under which they must have occurred, things that you will probably never know, you are only arguing from incredulity and cannot logically invoke the second law of thermodynamics to say they were impossible. I don't see any point in repeating this further. It should be clear and obvious to anyone with even a basic understanding of thermodynamics.
Randy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by blitz77, posted 08-06-2002 7:08 PM blitz77 has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22393
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 66 of 103 (14928)
08-06-2002 10:05 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by blitz77
08-06-2002 7:08 PM


blitz77 writes:

The supposed counter-increase in entropy is supposed to come from the decrease of the energy gradient, which is quite insufficient for the job.
Remember that you don't know:
  • The conditions on the early earth, including the energy gradients.
  • The pertinent chemical reactions.
It is therefore not possible to know if the energy available was sufficient. But we're here, so obviously it was, if not on earth then somewhere else.
Only when you know the conditions on the early earth and the chain of chemical reactions resulting in life can you plug the numbers in and see if it all comes out. What you're doing right now is like arguing that someone doesn't have enough gas in the tank of their car when you don't even know how far they have to go.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by blitz77, posted 08-06-2002 7:08 PM blitz77 has not replied

  
Bart007
Inactive Member


Message 67 of 103 (14931)
08-07-2002 12:14 AM
Reply to: Message 61 by Randy
08-06-2002 3:16 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Randy:
quote:
Originally posted by Percipient:
If I'm following the discussion properly, the Creationist position in this thread has shifted from "2LOT doesn't permit abiogenesis" to "2LOT permits abiogenesis, but the heat gradient on the ancient earth was insufficient for abiogenesis." Do I have this right?

[Added missing close quote UBB codes. --Admin]
Hello all and greetings. Perhaps we can learn a few things from each other.
Well lets move this discussion back to '2LOT does not permit abiogenesis, and we will add to that Evolution also.
I have read many of the post and it is sad that our education system has failed its' students in teaching science, including the 2LOT. It is taught as it was taught over 100 years ago when it uses were for designing more efficient and powerful steam engines. Let's start by addressing some of the mis-notions about the 2LOT.
The following statements are true.
1. When something moves, entropy increases.
2. All real processes increase entropy. Therefore, all real processes are irreversible.
3. The 2LOT applies equally well to open systems.
4. Crystallization is brought about by nuclear forces taking charge when the crystallizing molecules movement decreases enough (i.e. Heat Loss). In all steps of this process, entropy increases.
5. The 2LOT is true solely due to the fact that the natural flow of molecules is toward an equilibrium of disorder. The flow is from low probability states to higher probability states. The difference in the probabilities of the lower and higher probability states is the reason for irreversibility in the real world. All other ways of stating the 2LOT are simply special cases of this truth.
I'm not sure how many words (or characters) I can write in a post in this forum, so I'll stop here and continue on another post, another day.
[This message has been edited by Admin, 08-07-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Randy, posted 08-06-2002 3:16 PM Randy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by Randy, posted 08-07-2002 7:43 AM Bart007 has not replied
 Message 69 by Bart007, posted 08-07-2002 8:10 AM Bart007 has not replied

  
Randy
Member (Idle past 6247 days)
Posts: 420
From: Cincinnati OH USA
Joined: 07-19-2002


Message 68 of 103 (14950)
08-07-2002 7:43 AM
Reply to: Message 67 by Bart007
08-07-2002 12:14 AM


quote:
Hello all and greetings. Perhaps we can learn a few things from each other.
Well lets move this discussion back to '2LOT does not permit abiogenesis, and we will add to that Evolution also.
I have read many of the post and it is sad that our education system has failed its' students in teaching science, including the 2LOT. It is taught as it was taught over 100 years ago when it uses were for designing more efficient and powerful steam engines. Let's start by addressing some of the mis-notions about the 2LOT.
Hmm. I certainly learned thermo starting with the Carnot cycle and I expect most of the others who have taken classes on thermo did as well. I think the mis-notions presented here come from posters with little or no formal training in thermodynamics. The subject is more subtle and complex than many people realize.
quote:
The following statements are true.
1. When something moves, entropy increases.
2. All real processes increase entropy. Therefore, all real processes are irreversible.
3. The 2LOT applies equally well to open systems.
OK so far but since you seem to be claiming such a superior science education why don’t you explain to us just how to apply the second law in open systems and how that prevents evolution? I assume from your intro that you think 2LOT somehow prevents evolution but that was not completely clear. Just what do you think?
quote:
4. Crystallization is brought about by nuclear forces taking charge when the crystallizing molecules movement decreases enough (i.e. Heat Loss). In all steps of this process, entropy increases.
Crystallization has virtually nothing to do with either the stong nuclear force or the weak nuclear force. Maybe the education system teaching science has failed you.
quote:
5. The 2LOT is true solely due to the fact that the natural flow of molecules is toward an equilibrium of disorder. The flow is from low probability states to higher probability states. The difference in the probabilities of the lower and higher probability states is the reason for irreversibility in the real world. All other ways of stating the 2LOT are simply special cases of this truth.
And are you saying that this flow to higher probability states (actually movement of the system toward states with more microstates in the energy range E +/- dE) somehow prevents evolution? If so you should be able to point to the specific step required for evolution that is prevented. I should also point out that equating entropy and the second law purely with order and disorder as you are apparently doing here is not nearly so straightforward as you may think. However, I don’t see the point of going into the meaning of the fundamental postulates of statistical mechanics and a long discussion of the nature of entropy unless you can point to a step required for evolution that is prevented by the second law. That is if it is indeed your position that 2LoT prevents evolution. You really didn't make it very clear.
Randy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Bart007, posted 08-07-2002 12:14 AM Bart007 has not replied

  
Bart007
Inactive Member


Message 69 of 103 (14951)
08-07-2002 8:10 AM
Reply to: Message 67 by Bart007
08-07-2002 12:14 AM


Creationists agree that there is more than sufficient energy available
for living processes to occur. Those ardent anti-creationists who write the anti-creation literature up a straw man and have played a clever word game by carelessly focusing on 'crystals', 'closed systems', 'open systems', the earth, the sun, etc. to refute an argument never made by creationists and to lead people think that creation scientists are not capable scientists. From reading posts written on these type forums, it appears that their misinformation campaign has been very successful.
I don't care how much the sun shines on it, I would not invest money or time in any patent that violates the second law, nor would I want an electrical system installed in my home which violates the 2nd law.
Yes, even in an open system, the 2LOT can be violated, bit I'm sure you know that already.
In its differential form, the second law states that the quantity of entropy generated locally cannot be negative irrespective of wether the system is isolated or not, and irrespective of wether the process under consideration is irreversible or not. Harvard Scientist Dr. John Ross wrote in a letter published in the 'Chemistry and Engineering News' (July 27, 1980). Stated:
"There are no known violations to the second law of thermodynamics. Ordinarily the second law is stated for isolated systems, but the second law applies equally well to open systems. ... there is somehow associated with the field of far-from equilibrium phenomena the notion that the second law of thermodynamics fails for such systems. It is important that this error does not perpetuate itself."
If something moves, entropy increases! All real processes increase
entropy. All real processes are therefore irreversible.
Physicists have known since the early twentieth century that the reason why the 2nd Law is true is 'probability'. The 2LOT is true solely due to the fact that the natural flow of molecules is toward an equilibrium of disorder. The flow is from low probability states to higher probability states. The difference in the probabilities of the lower and higher probability states is the reason for irreversibility in the real world. All other ways of stating the 2LOT are simply special cases of this truth.
Physicist Richard P. Feynman explained entropy as the flow from order to disorder, from states of lower probability to states of higher probability. He gives the example of filming two gases, a gas of white particles and a gas of black particles, in a container separated by a boundary. He calls this state highly ordered as all the black particles in the container are all on one side and all the white particles are on the other side. When the boundary is removed, the particles will mix together, order decreases and disorder increases. This is considered an irreversible process. But Feynman has an objection, if you play the film backwards, the particles separate and all the white particles go to one side of the container and the black particles go to the other side of the container, and not only that, but careful observation shows that no physical laws are broken, all the particles are moving at just the right speed and are forming just the right collisions at just the right angle for this to happen. Thus the process is reversible and, Feynman adds, so are all the fundamental laws of physics. So what is it that makes the natural mixing of the two gases irreversible? Feynman's answer is `probability'. The number of states (particle distribution) of disorder far outnumber the number of states of order, so much so that it becomes unrealistic to expect reversibility. The gases are moving from states of very low probability to states of very high probability. From order to disorder.
That ardent atheist and anti-creationist evolutionist Isaac Asimov, once described the 2nd Law this way:
"Another way of stating the second law then is: 'The universe is constantly getting more disorderly.' Viewed that way we can see the second law all about us. We have to work hard to straighten out a room, but left to itself, it becomes a mess again, very quickly and very easily. Even if we never enter it, it becomes dusty and musty. How difficult it is to maintain houses, and machinery, and our own bodies in perfect working order; how easy to let them deteriorate. In fact, all we have to do is nothing, and everything deteriorates, collapses, breaks down, wears out - all by itself - and that is what the second law is all about."
The problem evolutionists have is that they know the second law is a fact and they KNOW evolution is a fact, therefore the two must be compatible. This forces them to believe that order and specified complexity arises out of chaos, that nonsense generates sense, that information has arisen spontaneously within systems.
To satisfy the second law, more is required than simply having an open system and a flow-through of energy. The flow through of energy is a necessary condition for reversing entropy in a system, but not a sufficient one. Sunshine may flow into Asimov's room, and the heat may be turned on at night, but neither will reverse the increasing entropy in that room. In fact, the sun's energy speeds up the increase of entropy of the paint on the exterior of my home and inside Asimov's room.
What is needed is an engine, a converting mechanism, some sort of coupling mechanism that will convert the negative entropy associated with energy flow into negative entropy associated with configurational entropy and the corresponding information. This is the problem the second law presents to evolution. Until such an engine is found, evolution is in violation of the second law.
The 2nd law is a central question for those who hold to spontaneous generation:
Nobel Laureate, Biologists Christian De Duve, in his 1995 book `Vital Dust', states that any and all scenarios for spontaneous generation must be certain that each step of the process flows from lower probability to higher probability so as not to violate the 2nd law.
According to the eminent information theoretician & evolutionist Yockey:
"An uninvited guest (Schroedinger, 1955; du Nouy,1947; Prigogine, and Nicolis 1971; Gatlin, 1972; Prigogine, Nicolis & Babyloyantz, 1972; Volkenstein, 1973) at any discussion of the origin of life and evolution from the materialistic reductionist point of view, is the role of thermodynamic entropy and the 'heat death' of the universe which it predicts. The universe should in every way go from states which are less probable to those which are more probable. Therefore, hot bodies cool; energy is conserved but becomes less available to do work. According to this uninvited guest, the spontaneous generation of life is highly improbable ( Prigogine, Nicolis, and Babyloyantz, 1972). The uninvited guest will not go away nor will the biological evidence to the contrary notwithstanding."
Evolutionist and anti-creationist John Patterson wrote an article in an evolutionists publication attacking creation scientists meant for public consumption. His article was supposed to debunk the Creationists claims that evolution violates the 2nd law. After writing much nonsense similar to what has been posted in this forum, Patterson inadvertantly put forward the Creationists true 2nd law argument when he wrote:
"It is one thing for an internally organized, open system to foster uphill processes by tapping downhill processes, but how did the required internal organization come about in the first place? Indeed the so-called dissipative structures that produce uphill processes are highly organized (low entropy) molecular ensembles, especially when compared to the dispersed arrays from which they assembled. Hence, the question of how they could originate by natural processes remains a challenging one."
This is the problem creationists have with the 2nd law. And as you can see, the problem concerns evolutionists as well.
I think Asimov's example is most appropriate. Rooms are made to perform a function, and a large collection of dust is not the function most people have in mind. For most people, that room will have to be swept clean, the blankets or table cloths washed, the furniture dusted and/or repaired, the walls painted. Thus work must be done for the room to be restored to its' original function. An engine must be provided to perform that work (in our case human beings) and the engine will expend energy in doing the work and must itself consume energy to also function.
For life processes, disorder is a loss of function, very broadly speaking. The loss of function may be due to loss of order, or of specified complexity, or of information, or energy.
I'm getting older, my body does not function as well as it use to do. When I play ball, my mind knows instinctively what to do, but my body no longer responds like it use to do. I'm a lot slower now. My body is undergoing decay, even as I live.
I believe the universe was the work of a Creator, and that it is temporal. He made it very good, but it was not perfect, though it fits in His perfect will. The universe has been decaying ever since it's creation was completed. I believe life was created and that it too has undergone decay since creation as mutations have created defects that are inheritable and are accumulative with other mutational defects. If we are not killed by some event or disease, then our natural death will be caused by mutations.
The ultimate disorder is separation from G-d. Did you know that Holy Scripture teaches that Jesus came so that we may have eternal life. That He prepares a place for us to be received into eternal fellowship with an abundance of life, peace and joy. But most interesting is that which undergoes corruption can not pass on to the place G-d has prepared for us where all is incorruptible and we are promised that nothing there will undergo decay. G-d dwells there and there will be no sun, stars, or other heat source, but G-ds radiance will be there to sustain all things. There will be no entropy. Thus the ultimate order is being in G-d's presence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Bart007, posted 08-07-2002 12:14 AM Bart007 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by gene90, posted 08-07-2002 10:57 AM Bart007 has replied
 Message 71 by Randy, posted 08-07-2002 11:21 AM Bart007 has replied

  
gene90
Member (Idle past 3823 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 70 of 103 (14960)
08-07-2002 10:57 AM
Reply to: Message 69 by Bart007
08-07-2002 8:10 AM


[QUOTE][B]What is needed is an engine, a converting mechanism, some sort of coupling mechanism that will convert the negative entropy associated with energy flow into negative entropy[/QUOTE]
[/B]
A replicating molecule does the trick. It runs off heat and decreases entropy.
[QUOTE][B]Until such an engine is found[/QUOTE]
[/B]
You talk about it as if it were hard to find such a device, yet the air conditioner you've been running so much recently is an example.
By the way, you can't preach to an offended audience. You might want to tone your more offensive posts down a bit.
[This message has been edited by gene90, 08-07-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Bart007, posted 08-07-2002 8:10 AM Bart007 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by Bart007, posted 08-07-2002 7:27 PM gene90 has replied

  
Randy
Member (Idle past 6247 days)
Posts: 420
From: Cincinnati OH USA
Joined: 07-19-2002


Message 71 of 103 (14963)
08-07-2002 11:21 AM
Reply to: Message 69 by Bart007
08-07-2002 8:10 AM


Bart007,
All I can say is deja vu all over again! I have refuted the same list of creationist claims and out of context quotes so many times before that I have no interest in doing it again. Just provide a specific answer to the question
"Exactly what step required for evolution is prevented by the second law of thermodynamics?"
I don't mean vague generalizations about entropy and order or the supposed requirement for "energy converting mechanisms". If you cannot provide a specific answer to this question your argument falls flat.
BTW, If you copied the stuff in either of your posts from one or more creationist websites you should probably acknowledge them.
Randy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Bart007, posted 08-07-2002 8:10 AM Bart007 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by gene90, posted 08-07-2002 11:30 AM Randy has not replied
 Message 74 by Bart007, posted 08-07-2002 8:41 PM Randy has replied

  
gene90
Member (Idle past 3823 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 72 of 103 (14967)
08-07-2002 11:30 AM
Reply to: Message 71 by Randy
08-07-2002 11:21 AM


[QUOTE][B]BTW, If you copied the stuff in either of your posts from one or more creationist websites you should probably acknowledge them.[/QUOTE]
[/B]
I'm fairly sure he authored that post himself. I'm convinced he is using secondary Creationist sources he failed to acknowledge, but I found no evidence of copy-and-paste.
By the way, my favorite example of order-from-disorder: charge seperation in thunderstorms. As a byproduct of afternoon solar heating, electrical charges are moved to a highly improbable, very unstable, high-energy configuration, the ultimate result being lightning--something these Creationist arguments would indicate does not exist.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Randy, posted 08-07-2002 11:21 AM Randy has not replied

  
Bart007
Inactive Member


Message 73 of 103 (14986)
08-07-2002 7:27 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by gene90
08-07-2002 10:57 AM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by gene90:
[B][QUOTE][B]What is needed is an engine, a converting mechanism, some sort of coupling mechanism that will convert the negative entropy associated with energy flow into negative entropy[/QUOTE]
[/B]
gene90 "A replicating molecule does the trick. It runs off heat and decreases entropy."
I never heard of any molecule that can accomplish what you claim. Can you provide more details of this replicating molecule that runs off heat and decreases entropy. If we can make enough of these replicating molecules, can we reverse the entropy of the entire universe?!? ; )
[QUOTE][B]Until such an engine is found[/QUOTE]
Gene90: "You talk about it as if it were hard to find such a device, yet the air conditioner you've been running so much recently is an example."
Yes it is. And we know of this engine. Anyone seeing an 'Air Conditioner' will immediately recognize its' intelligent design and assign its existence to an intelligent creator. Indeed, we know it was fashioned by human intelligence.
Of course there exist natural engines too. Soil can be shifted in running water thereby seperating lighter particles from heavier particles and smaller from bigger particles. The engine in this case is gravity.
Natural engines working within the realm of natural law tells us that
natural cause produces sand dunes, crystals, and Mt. St. Helens.
The engine for the Creationists view is the Creator (Intelligent
Designer) who prearranged the molecules into meaningful states that perform the functions (i.e. the living cell) and He designed many different kinds of living cells for the many different kinds of living creatures known to have exist.
The engine for the materialistic evolutionists must be mechanisms derived strictly from natural laws (though please note that the origin of natural laws may themselves result from design by the Creator). Such have never been established by evolutionists, and until such mechanisms are found, abiogenesis and macro-evolution will continue to appear to be in violation of the 2nd Law.
Gene90: "By the way, you can't preach to an offended audience. You might want to tone your more offensive posts down a bit."
Gene90, I thank you for this good advice and I shall try to live up to it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by gene90, posted 08-07-2002 10:57 AM gene90 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by gene90, posted 08-07-2002 9:27 PM Bart007 has not replied

  
Bart007
Inactive Member


Message 74 of 103 (14990)
08-07-2002 8:41 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by Randy
08-07-2002 11:21 AM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by Randy:
[B]Bart007,
Randy "All I can say is deja vu all over again! I have refuted the same list of creationist claims and out of context quotes so many times before that I have no interest in doing it again. Just provide a specific answer to the question"
Now this paragraph is most telling. I must now pose a question to Gene90.
You wrote that I can't preach to an offended audience. I agreed that your advice was good and I thanked you for it. Now here is Randy writing a very offensive paragraph, using a broad generalization to smear me. He smears my character without providing any justification at all, and further, he indicates his disgust with my quotes by declaring he has previously refuted the "same list of ... out of context quotes") but won't substantiate his claim.
Now Gene90, why is it Okay with you that your fellow evolutionists can be so offensive?
You even wrote a reply to this post by Randy, post # 72, and I saw no advice from you to him not to be offensive to the audience to which he preaches. I guess I'm just a creationist and that alone makes me worthy of such disrespect. The word that may fit here is 'bigotry', but I will hold judgement on that pending future posts.
BTW Gene90, what exactly is it that I wrote that you found so offensive?
Randy "Exactly what step required for evolution is prevented by the second law of thermodynamics?"
The first step is abiogenesis.
The 2nd step is the origin of the many types of proteins.
Randy "I don't mean vague generalizations about entropy and order or the supposed requirement for "energy converting mechanisms". If you cannot provide a specific answer to this question your argument falls flat."
I gave you two specific steps. I wait for your response.
Randy "BTW, If you copied the stuff in either of your posts from one or more creationist websites you should probably acknowledge them."
I did not. I have read the sources I have quoted. You better get use to them. I will use science over and over again to demonstrate the failure of Evolution as a viable scientific theory. Scientists will be called to the witness stand and their passionate BELIEF that Evolution is a fact will be discarded as irrelevent, and their testimony to the real scientific data from their fields of expertise will be used to pass judgement on the Theory of Evolution.
I advise that you avoid the pitfalls of ridicule, insults, declarations, and substanceless or unsubstantiated comments (and I have come across many by evolutionists who have posted in this thread including the one I'm responding).
I also will be going away soon. A two week vacation with my family to the Adirondack Mountains. I'm looking forward to it. Because of it, there will be gap in my postings.
I still agree with Gene90, let's keep this discussion clean and friendly.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Randy, posted 08-07-2002 11:21 AM Randy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by gene90, posted 08-07-2002 9:04 PM Bart007 has replied
 Message 79 by Randy, posted 08-08-2002 12:55 AM Bart007 has not replied
 Message 90 by Brad McFall, posted 10-09-2002 12:04 PM Bart007 has not replied

  
gene90
Member (Idle past 3823 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 75 of 103 (14995)
08-07-2002 9:04 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by Bart007
08-07-2002 8:41 PM


[QUOTE][B]Now Gene90, why is it Okay with you that your fellow evolutionists can be so offensive?[/QUOTE]
[/B]
I would encourage Randy to behave but as his comments are not directed at me (as an evolutionist) what he types is generally not my concern.
[This message has been edited by gene90, 08-07-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by Bart007, posted 08-07-2002 8:41 PM Bart007 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by Bart007, posted 08-08-2002 12:53 AM gene90 has not replied

  
gene90
Member (Idle past 3823 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 76 of 103 (14999)
08-07-2002 9:27 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by Bart007
08-07-2002 7:27 PM


[QUOTE][B]Can you provide more details of this replicating molecule that runs off heat and decreases entropy.[/QUOTE]
[/B]
Which would you like? The property of self-replication is common enough to have its own chemical term, autocatalysis.
How about these, to start?
Source:
Lies, Damned Lies, Statistics, and Probability of Abiogenesis Calculations
Examples:
A synthetic peptide ligase - PubMed
Autocatalytic networks: the transition from molecular self-replication to molecular ecosystems - PubMed
Most chemical reactions do run off heat, especially synthesis reactions like the one we are talking about. Some reactions are so efficient at running off heat that they are marketed as "cold packs" for athletic injuries. I see no reason to believe that these are that efficient but, yes, this sort of reaction is generally run off heat, or more specifically, the kinetic energy of collisions on the molecular level.
[QUOTE][B]If we can make enough of these replicating molecules, can we reverse the entropy of the entire universe?!? ; )[/QUOTE]
[/B]
Most of the energy fed into the system dissipates and is no longer useful, in accordance with 2LOT. Universal entropy increases and so does the complexity of the molecule, and you have to pay for it in energy.
[This message has been edited by gene90, 08-07-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by Bart007, posted 08-07-2002 7:27 PM Bart007 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