Evolution vs. Thermodynamics

okay, well my chemistry is a bit shaky. But might I suggest that the engine you're looking for which can accomplish macroevolution is called "DNA polymerase"it doesn't solve the problem of abiogenesis, but I see no reason why DNA polymerases cannot be an engine which causes macroevolution.

quote:

---

Originally posted by gene90:
[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]

---

Okay, good enough answer.

So Bart you think I am insulting and maybe bigoted. Maybe you shouldn’t have started talking about how the education system failed in teaching science including the 2LoT. I am getting tired of creationists implying that scientists, including myself, don’t really understand thermodynamics and I replied in kind. I have studied the subject off and on for about 40 years, I have done thermodynamic work professionally and now teach thermodynamics of surfaces and colloids. There are many evolutionists with even more detailed training and experience in thermodynamics and statistical mechanic who agree with me. Some of them even post on internet boards. Of course there are also quite a few creationists, some with considerable understanding of thermodynamics who also understand that the second law does not prevent evolution(See below). Since you insist I will answer the major points you have obtained from creationist books and/or sites. In my experience these debates lead to long posts very fast and can chew up a lot of time.

quote:

---

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.

---

This might be relevant if evolution actually violated the second law but since it doesn’t this is meaningless. It is a subset of the creationist who are carrying out the misinformation campaign. Maybe you don't think accusing science of a misinformation campaign was insulting but I might disagree. If you are going to dish it out you should be ready to take it.

quote:

---

Yes, even in an open system, the 2LOT can be violated, bit I'm sure you know that already.

---

What??

quote:

---

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."

---

So do you have this issue of C&E News? I was taking it then but can’t find issues that far back. Maybe I’ll get it at the library. The point is that while the differential of the entropy produced in parts of the system considered to be in or near local equilibrium is positive the entropy flow term can be negative. There are many examples of this.

quote:

---

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.

---

Equating entropy with probability and disorder is not as straightforward as you think. If you are going to do Boltzmann-Gibbs statistics, which is where the idea comes from, the system in question must follow the fundamental postulates of statistical mechanics. That is it the ensemble average must equal the time average in the limit that the ensemble size approaches infinity and also the system must be ergodic. You must also specify that the disorder is represented in a 6 dimensional phase space consisting of the position and momentum of each particle in the system. Further, this is not relavant because entropy, however defined can decrease in open systems.

quote:

---

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.

---

I have Feynman’s lectures on physics and he uses this example, which is also found in one form or another in virtually all undergrad thermo texts and statistical mechanics texts usually to illustrate how to calculate the entropy of mixing. Have you actually read the lecture or just someone else's take on it? Clausius understood that the second implied an arrow of time about 150 years ago. Is this supposed to be news to us?

quote:

---

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."

---

This is a popular way to try to explain entropy and the second law but it is fundamentally wrong to equate human concepts of order and disorder with entropy. For more on the subject see Frank Lambert’s explanation
Just a moment...

quote:

---

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.

---

The problem that creationists have is that an open system is enough to generate order from disorder and there are many examples and the room example is bogus.

quote:

---

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.

---

This is something some creationists have invented that is no part of the laws of thermodynamics. Why do you think Dembski is trying to invent a fourth law of thermodynamics? It is because he knows that the first three laws (or four if you count the 0th law) do not prevent evolution.

quote:

---

The 2nd law is a central question for those who hold to spontaneous generation:

---

Strawman alert!! I don't want to get into an endless debate on term but I think that equating abiogenesis with spontanous generation is a strawman. Maybe this should be another thread.

quote:

---

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."

---

Prigogene and Yockey! You should read Yockey’s paper "Origin of life on earth and Shannon's theory of communication, Computers and Chemistry 24(2000) 105-123. IIRC he is quite definite in his opinion that the second law does not prevent evolution or abiogenesis and that information and entropy should not be equated. I'll look it up again tomorrow. As for Prigogene here is a quote from Modern Thermodynamics from Heat Engines to Dissipative Structures, by Dilip Kondepudi and Ilya Prigogine (which I highly recommend, it is available online in paperback.)
Many detailed studies of such structural instabilities and molecular evolution have been conducted[34-37]. These models are beyond the scope of this text but we will note an interesting thermodynamic feature summarized in Fig. 19.13. Each new structural instability generally increases the dissipation or entropy production in the system because it increases the number of reactions. This is in contrast to the near-equilibrium situations discussed in chapter 17 in which the entropy production tends to a minimum. Structural instability may progressively drive far-from-equilibrium systems to higher states of entropy production and higher states of order. Needless to say, biochemical evolution and the origin of life is a very complex process which we are only beginning to understand. But now we see instability, fluctuation and evolution to organized states as a general nonequilibrium process whose most spectacular manifestation is the evolution of life.

quote:

---

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."

---

Are you sure this quote is in context? Perhaps he gave an answer in the following paragraph. Quoting rhetorical questions out of context as if they had no answer is a favorite creationist tactic. Wallace does it more than once on his TrueOrigin thermo page, in fact he does this on every quote I have checked to the original paper (3 out of 3) and I wouldn’t be surprised if he did it here since this quote is on his page. Do you have the book? I don’t but I can try to get it. If anyone wants to read what Patterson actually has to say on the subject here is a link.Thermodynamics, Creationism, and Evolution - Summer 1997Watch out. He really is insulting.

quote:

---

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.

---

As I said above Asimov’s example is bogus.

quote:

---

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.

---

Please! Your are reminding me of Jeptha. I don’t want to go through all that again. (about 40-50 pages of debate with myself and many others on OCW and ARN)

quote:

---

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.

---

And you claim to have read the posts on this thread! Gene and I just spent quite a bit of time explaining this to Blitz77. I don’t want to repeat it. Look back.

quote:

---

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.

---

Sorry but I have seen all those quotes and very similar wording used to introduce them in debates with at several other creationists on several different boards over the years so I think the assumption was natural. IIRC the infamous Jeptha used all of them as well as many more. As to BELIEF how do you explain creationist who disagree with your BELIEF that the second law prevents evolution.

quote:

---

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).

---

Well you set yourself up for this when you presumed to teach us thermo and then repeated creationist claims and quotes that I have seen and either refuted or seen refuted several times before. I suspect that is true of some others here.Since you may have missed my earlier posts I will point out again that not all creationists accept the claim that the second law prevents evolution. Creationist Physicist Doug Craigen has written an interesting page on entropy and disorder
Entropy, Disorder and EvolutionAnd one on entropy and evolution
The page you were looking for doesn't exist (404)and creationist Allan Harvey, a Ph.D. chemical engineer has written a page on
The Second Law of Thermodynamics in the Context of the Christian Faith by creationist Allan H. Harveyhttp://members.aol.com/steamdoc/writings/thermo.htmlNeither of these creationists thinks that the second law prevents evolution and Craigen explain why entropy does not correspond to human conceptions of order and disorder.Have a nice vacation.Randy

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]

Blitz,
Please note this sentence from the quote you give.

quote:

---

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.

---

It is certainly legitimate to argue about the plausibility of proposed mechanisms of abiogenesis but I agree with Harvey when he says that those who use such arguments should not say their position is based on thermodynamics. I think the reasons for this have been given in sufficient detail in previous posts.Randy

This isn't where people are headed with the discussion, so forgive me if I ruin anyones day. From what I understand about the 2LOT, is that the same principle can be applied to things we experience directly everyday.Let's say I have a deck of cards, and I begin shuffling one card at a time. What happens? Occasionally, I may move cards towards the ultimate goal of orderliness (seperated by suits, ace to king, jokers at one end, and plug for Hoyle at the other) -- but *on average* I won't be going anywhere near that. It will tend towards disorder.Is that not a conclusion of the 2LOT? If not, is there another law that this relates to?David[This message has been edited by halcyonwaters, 08-11-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by halcyonwaters:
This isn't where people are headed with the discussion, so forgive me if I ruin anyones day.

​

From what I understand about the 2LOT, is that the same principle can be applied to things we experience directly everyday.

​

Let's say I have a deck of cards, and I begin shuffling one card at a time. What happens? Occasionally, I may move cards towards the ultimate goal of orderliness (seperated by suits, ace to king, jokers at one end, and plug for Hoyle at the other) -- but *on average* I won't be going anywhere near that. It will tend towards disorder.

​

Is that not a conclusion of the 2LOT? If not, is there another law that this relates to?

​

David

​

[This message has been edited by halcyonwaters, 08-11-2002]

---

I don’t think your understanding is quite right. Examples such as shuffled cards or marbles getting mixed up are often used to illustrate entropy and the second law especially in popular writing. However, these analogies are only analogies and it is not correct to take them completely literally. Compare mixing marbles to mixing gases for example. If I have a partioned box with equal sized partitions and with one mole of ideal gas A on one side and and one mole of ideal gas B on the other at room temperature and remove the partition mixing will occur until after a long enough time there will be A and B equally distributed throughout the box and the entropy of mixing can be calculated(deltaSmix = 2Rln2 in this case). However, if I have a partioned box full of red marbles on the one side and blue on the other and remove the partition they will not mix. If leave the box undisturbed a million years there will still be red marbles on one side and blue on the other. A similar fact is true with cards. If you leave the cards alone and don’t put in energy by shuffling them they will never get disorderedYou can find discussion of why human concepts of order and disorder do not really relate to entropy and the second law by Frank L. Lambert : Shuffled Cards, Messy Desks, and Disorderly Dorm Rooms - Examples of Entropy Increase? Nonsense! Just a moment...and by creationist physicist Doug Craigen: Entropy, Disorder and Evolution:Entropy, Disorder and EvolutionRandy

<>

​

Allright, I think I'm following.

​

1. entropy is defined as useable energy
2. total entropy always increases in an open system

​

The cards have no useable energy, only I do. When I shuffle the cards, the energy I use to do so is no longer useable. The order of the cards is irrelevant -- as they still have no useable energy to lose.

​

Is this correct? If so, I can see why it wouldn't apply to the areas of Evolution as I thought it did. If it's not 2LOT, then what natural law is it that says that randomly shuffling cards will move towards disorder?

​

Just a matter of probability?

​

David

quote:

---

Allright, I think I'm following.

​

1. entropy is defined as useable energy
2. total entropy always increases in an open system

---

Not quite.1. Increasing entropy results in a reduction of the energy available to do work. In classical thermodynamics it is the interal of dQ/T where T is temperature and Q is heat.
2. Total entropy always increases in an isolated system.

quote:

---

The cards have no useable energy, only I do. When I shuffle the cards, the energy I use to do so is no longer useable. The order of the cards is irrelevant -- as they still have no useable energy to lose.

​

Is this correct? If so, I can see why it wouldn't apply to the areas of Evolution as I thought it did. If it's not 2LOT, then what natural law is it that says that randomly shuffling cards will move towards disorder?

---

I think the point is that no useable energy resides in the order of the cards. The order only means something because we assign meaning to particular suits and numbers that are painted on the cards. Cooling a deck of cards will lower its entropy and heating it will raise its entropy but neither will change its the card "order" and the energy released by burning a deck of cards will not depend on card order. As to shuffling cards leading to randomness I guess it depends on who shuffles them. I know a magician who can do several perfect shuffles in a row. IIRC there are even a few magicians who can do enough perfect shuffles to get the deck back in its original order.Randy

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.

quote:

---

Originally posted by blitz77:
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.

---

Not exactly. It is why reactions that release sufficient heat can be spontaneous even though they may lead to products with lower entropy than the reactants. Delta H is negative when heat is released and long as delta H is greater than TdeltaS the reaction is spontaneous even if deltaS is also negative. The only "mechanism" you need is for the reaction to have negative free energy under the conditions where it occurs. I think we have been over this before in some detail.
Randy

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.

quote:

---

Originally posted by blitz77:
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.

---

All of this has been answered before by myself and others. I suggest you look back at post #66 by Percy or any of several I and others have made on this subject. You can question the plausibility of any of the several current scenarios put forth as possible paths to abiogenesis but to claim that you can show that abiogenesis must have violated the second law is simply wrong for reasons that have been explained several times to you now. You don't know what the required reactions may have been or what sequence they may have occurred in let alone the reaction conditions where they may have occurred. Without this knowledge you can't prove that abiogenesis violated the second law. If I were really going to explain abiogenesis I might need to come up something similar to the mechanisms you describe (though your wording is a little confusing) but they really do go beyond thermodynamics. I am not trying to prove that abiogenesis occurred or how it occurred. I am only saying that you can't prove that it didn't occur naturally by using the second law. If you want to discuss how abiogenesis might have occurred, this board has a separate forum on the origin of life.
Randy

I have not been able to figure out who said "the first step is abiogenesis" but I have tried to read the lib about biology not to the point in the process of uncovering what Pasteur's student said about and using the word "proximate" which might lie within this phrase quoted no matter who said it here, but I have sought to find a way to read the protoplasm as something other than a diaelectric.I have failed to do this and all there seems to be is quantum mechanics as the material basis of biology say by following Pauling's idea of what constitues a chemcial bond. But there are some "out there" ideas of the implication of quantum mecahnics one of which shows how non-thermal undulations can affect more than steady motions even possibly how enzymes work and yet if this SICENCE of an a biogeneic nature is brought up to sensory biologists they take( I mean it was took) as me the guy not the subject is "schizophrenic" or simply to reduce the thuoght "double mindedCarnal" etc.So it is easy to rely on history when trying to situate ones thought on biogeneisis vs molecules to man but when attempting to even DISCUSS the actual science that is current it seems that something other than anthropomoriszing is acutally going on.What I was trying to say is that it seems possible to derive much of biology from matter but not in Cricks sense of syntheziing a virus and a bacteria from the same thought in (out) protocol but that molecules to man is possible IN SO FAR as the change is possible BUT NOT IN THE SENSE OF visualizing the Wolfram fold into any opening that specifies both his substition system & his notion of shells and horns (2-d vs 3-d). I can explain this a little more if one likes.Can someone please tell me if BART started this idea of abiogeneisis here or someone else. I never really find this clear kind of distiction of a creationist and evolutionist that I am trying to read around to the place to post here. A little help anyone?

The essence of entropy from a thermodynamic standpoint is simply that the tendency of the universe is to seek the minimal energy level. This is why all forms of free energy will diffuse and why chemical bonds will only spontaneously form when they will can establish that minimal bond energy. The problem that the slot causes for evolution is that at the temperatures and pressures that are necessary for the precursors of dna and rna to survive the amino acids will not SPONTANEOUSLY form. This why abiogenisis is a problem where the origin of life is concerned. To my knowledge no expiriment has yet been perfomed that will give spontaneous development of the necesary amino acids unless enormous expirimenter interference is involved. Every abiogenis scenario postulated from the prebiotic soup to clays to hydrothermal vent and far from equilibrium thermodynamic fail either due 1: reaction is not spontaneous at the suggested temp and pressure so experimentor interference is needed. 2: the environment would destroy the amino acids at a rate that would not leave sufficient concentrations or acids to combine. 3) No mechanism is shown to account for the complex specified information that is inherent in the genetic code.