I liked your response holmes. However I am running short on time. I have wrote about thermodynamics before. The thing about this topic is that a program has to be in place first (like the DNA) for temporal order to increase. The only time that this does not occur is in examples of substances following inherent physical properties-like crystals. The ordered structured produced is very redundant, and aperiodic structures generally constitute information. Here is what I have wrote about thermodynamics before (though this is not
all of what I have wrote on the topic before):
Thermodynamics is, in my opinion, a very big problem for naturalisitic origin of life scenerios to overcome. Simply stated, entropy in all systems is increasing. Entropy is the measure of energy no longer available for work. You could also restate it in terms of disorder. Disorder is increasing in the universe. Isaac Asimov said, "Another way of stating the second law then is: 'The universe is constantly getting more diorderly.' Viewed that way we can see the second law all about us. We have to work hard to straighten 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 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." More quotes on thermodynamics include: "No matter how carefully we examine the energetics of living systems we find no evidence of defeat of thermodynamic principles. [Harold Blum, Time’s Arrow and Evolution (1962), p. 119.] If your theory is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics, I can give you no hope; there is nothing for [your theory] but to collapse in the deepest humiliation. [Arthur S. Eddington, The Nature of the Physical World (1930), p. 74.] The second law of thermodynamics not only is a principle of wide reaching scope and application, but also is one which has never failed to satisfy the severest test of experiment. The numerous quantitative relations derived from this law have been subjected to more and more accurate experimental investigations without the detection of the slightest inaccuracy. [G.N. Lewis and M. Randall, Thermodynamics (1961), p. 87.] There is thus no justification for the view, often glibly repeated, that the Second Law of Thermodynamics is only statistically true, in the sense that microscopic violations repeatedly occur, but never violations of any serious magnitude. On the contrary, no evidence has ever been presented that the Second Law breaks down under any circumstances. [A.B. Pippard, Elements of Chemical Thermodynamics for Advanced Students of Physics (1966), p. 100.] Thermodynamics has to deal with heat distribution, but this need not only apply to engines and such things like that. You can extend these basic principles to Earth, the Sun, and the entire universe if you please. We can even apply thermodynamics to origin of life scenerios. The first thing that needs to be stated is that in any system, no matter isolated, open, etc., entropy is constantly increasing. Dr. John Ross, a Harvard scientist, states, "...there are no known violatins of 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 suh systems. It is important to make sure that this error does not perpetrate itself." There does exist the possibility of a temporal increase in order in an open system, as long as there is a greater increase in entropy elsewhere. This is considered enough by some evolutionists. They give the example of such things as snowflakes, embryonic development, etc.. However, these cannot constitute as the types of analogies that is relevant to the origin of life. Timothy Wallace says in regard to this, "The order found in a snowflake or a crystal has nothing to do with increased information, organization or complexity, or available energy (i.e., reduced entropy). The formation of molecules or atoms into geometric patterns such as snowflakes or crystals reflects movement towards equilibriuma lower energy level, and a more stable arrangement of the molecules or atoms into simple, uniform, repeating structures with minimal complexity, and no function. These are not examples of matter forming itself into more organized or more complex structures or systems (as postulated in evolutionist theory), even though they may certainly reflect order in the form of simple patterns. Steiger fails to recognize the profound difference between these examples of low-energy molecular crystals and the high-energy growth process of living organisms (seeds sprouting into flowering plants and eggs developing into chicks). His equating these two very different phenomena reveals a serious misunderstanding of thermodynamics (as well as molecular biology) on his part, and he perpetuates this error in the balance of both his essays, as we shall see. On the other hand, Jeffrey Wicken (an evolutionist) has no problem recognizing the difference, having described it this way: ‘Organized’ systems are to be carefully distinguished from ‘ordered’ systems. Neither kind of system is ‘random,’ but whereas ordered systems are generated according to simple algorithms and therefore lack complexity, organized systems must be assembled element by element according to an external ‘wiring diagram’ with a high information content ... Organization, then, is functional complexity and carries information. It is non- random by design or by selection, rather than by the a priori necessity of crystallographic ‘order.’ [Jeffrey S. Wicken, The Generation of Complexity in Evolution: A Thermodynamic and Information-Theoretical Discussion, Journal of Theoretical Biology, Vol. 77 (April 1979), p. 349] Nobel Prize winner Ilya Prigogine also has no problem defining the difference: The point is that in a non-isolated [open] system there exists a possibility for formation of ordered, low-entropy structures at sufficiently low temperatures. This ordering principle is responsible for the appearance of ordered structures such as crystals as well as for the phenomena of phase transitions. Unfortunately this principle cannot explain the formation of biological structures. [I. Prigogine, G. Nicolis and A. Babloyants, Physics Today 25(11):23 (1972)] Thaxton, Bradley, and Olsen make the same clear distinction: As ice forms, energy (80 calories/gm) is liberated to the surroundings... The entropy change is negative because the thermal configuration entropy (or disorder) of water is greater than that of ice, which is a highly ordered crystal... It has often been argued by analogy to water crystallizing to ice that simple monomers may polymerize into complex molecules such as protein and DNA. The analogy is clearly inappropriate, however... The atomic bonding forces draw water molecules into an orderly crystalline array when the thermal agitation (or entropy driving force) is made sufficiently small by lowering the temperature. Organic monomers such as amino acids resist combining at all at any temperature, however, much less in some orderly arrangement. [C.B. Thaxton, W.L. Bradley, and R.L. Olsen, The Mystery of Life’s Origin: Reassessing Current Theories, Philosophical Library, New York, 1984, pp. 119-120.]" Now, are animals still developing an example of order increase that violates the 'creationist' version of thermodynamics? Not at all. The growth and development of a plant or animal has nothing to do with its origin. The growing animal already has an energy conversion mechanism in place, which we will talk about later. I am not saying that this mechanism violates the laws of thermodynamics, but rather creates a temporal increase in order associated with a greater increase in entropy. In regard to an energy conversion mechanism (necessary for aperiodic information intensive macromolecules-not periodic order of crystals) Timothy Wallace states: "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: a program (information) to direct the growth in organized complexity a mechanism for storing and converting the incoming energy. Each living organism’s DNA contains all the code (the program or information) needed to direct the process of building (or organizing) the organism up from seed or cell to a fully functional, mature specimen, complete with all the necessary instructions for maintaining and repairing each of its complex, organized, and integrated component systems. This process continues throughout the life of the organism, essentially building- up and maintaining the organism’s physical structure faster than natural processes (as governed by the second law) can break it down. Living systems also have the second essential componenttheir own built-in mechanisms for effectively converting and storing the incoming energy. Plants use photosynthesis to convert the sun’s energy into usable, storable forms (e.g., proteins), while animals use metabolism to further convert and use the stored, usable, energy from the organisms which compose their diets. So we see that living things seem to violate the second law because they have built-in programs (information) and energy conversion mechanisms that allow them to build up and maintain their physical structures in spite of the second law’s effects (which ultimately do prevail, as each organism eventually deteriorates and dies). While this explains how living organisms may grow and thrive, thanks in part to the earth’s open-system biosphere, it does not offer any solution to the question of how life could spontaneously begin this process in the absence of the program directions and energy conversion mechanisms described abovenor how a simple living organism might produce the additional new program directions and alternative energy conversion mechanisms required in order for biological evolution to occur, producing the vast spectrum of biological variety and complexity observed by man. In short, the open system argument fails to adequately justify evolutionist speculation in the face of the second law. Most highly respected evolutionist scientists (some of whom have been quoted above with careand within context) acknowledge this fact, many even acknowledging the problem it causes the theory to which they subscribe." Also in regard to origin of life scenerios (and in relation to the open systems argument,) sometimes it is noted that the simple fact that there is a constant supply of energy from the sun then order can increase on earth. However, this is very misleading. Raw, undirected energy by itself is very destructive. 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, a car’s paint job, a wooden fence, or a decomposing animal carcass, both with and then without the addition of solar radiation). Energy is necessary but not completely sufficient. A coupling mechanism does indeed need to be in place, but more is needed than energy from the sun. George Gaylord Simpson and W.S. Beck, both evolutionists, have clearly seen the problem. They say, "We have repeatedly emphasized the fundamental problems posed for the biologist by the fact of life's complex organization. We have seen that organization requires work for its maintenance and that the universal quest for food is in part to provide the energy needed for this work. But the simple expenditure of energy is not sufficient to develop and maintain order. A bull in a china shop performs work but he neither creates nor maintains organization. The work needed is particular work; it must follow specifications; it requires information on how to proceed." H. F. Blum, who wrote Time's Arrow and Evolution, said, "However we regard the problem, we must admit that photosynthesis of some kind, perhaps very different from any we know today, arose very early in the course of organic evolution, if indeed it was not involved from the beginning [emphasis added]." Here Blum pinpoints the problem and brings himself almost to the point of admitting the necessity of the existence of an energy conversion mechanism right from the start. However he does this with much reservation, because he probably counts on future discoveries and knows that the evolutionary theory may have strength elsewhere (because such a full-fledged admission would probably be fatal to evolutionary theory.) The problem of the second law in relation to the origin of life has been partially addressed by Ilya Prigogine. He invisions far from equilibrium thermodynamics to solve the problem. He visualizes the possibility that the 2loT might be circumvented by a series of fluctuations, eventually leading to a cell. What he forgets is the fact that if a fluctuation of a system far from equilibrium did just happen to move to a more highly organized state, the probability is overwhelming that the next fluctuation would move to a lower state of organization, wiping out all organization that had been gained. After all, explosions, landslides, and volcanoes are all examples of phenomena far from equilibrium. Thaxton et al. state, "Prigogine has developed a more general formulation of the laws of thermodynamics which includes nonlinear, irreversible processes such as autocatalytic activity. In his book Self Organization in Nonequilibrium Systems (1977)19 co-authored with Nicolis, he summarized this work and its application to the organization and maintenance of highly complex structures in living things. The basic thesis in the book is that there are some systems which obey non-linear laws---laws that produce two distinct kinds of behavior. In the neighborhood of thermodynamic equilibrium, destruction of order prevails (entropy achieves a maximum value consistent with the system constraints). If these same systems are driven sufficiently far from equilibrium, however, ordering may appear spontaneously. Heat flow by convection is an example of this type of behavior. Heat conduction in gases normally occurs by the random collision of gas molecules. Under certain conditions, however, heat conduction may occur by a heat-convection current---the coordinated movement of many gas molecules. In a similar way, water flow out of a bathtub may occur by random movement of the water molecules under the influence of gravity. Under certain conditions, however, this random movement of water down the drain is replaced by the familiar soapy swirl---the highly coordinated flow of the vortex. In each case random movements of molecules in a fluid are spontaneously replaced by a highly ordered behavior. Prigogine et al.,20 Eigen,21 and others have suggested that a similar sort of self-organization may be intrinsic in organic chemistry and can potentially account for the highly complex macromolecules essential for living systems. But such analogies have scant relevance to the origin-of-life question. A major reason is that they fail to distinguish between order and complexity. The highly ordered movement of energy through a system as in convection or vortices suffers from the same shortcoming as the analogies to the static, periodic order of crystals. Regularity or order cannot serve to store the large amount of information required by living systems. A highly irregular, but specified, structure is required rather than an ordered structure. This is a serious flaw in the analogy offered. There is no apparent connection between the kind of spontaneous ordering that occurs from energy flow through such systems and the work required to build aperiodic information-intensive macromolecules like DNA and protein. Prigogine, et al.22 suggest that the energy flow through the system decreases the system entropy, leading potentially to the highly organized structure of DNA and protein. Yet they offer no suggestion as to how the decrease in thermal entropy from energy flow through the system could be coupled to do the configurational entropy work required. A second reason for skepticism about the relevance of the models developed by Prigogine, et al.23 and others is that ordering produced within the system arises through constraints imposed in an implicit way at the system boundary. Thus, the system order, and more importantly the system complexity, cannot exceed that of the environment. Walton24 illustrates this concept in the following way. A container of gas placed in contact with a heat source on one side and a heat sink on the opposite side is an open system. The flow of energy through the system from the heat source to the heat sink forms a concentration relative to the gas in the cooler region. The order in this system is established by the structure: source-intermediate systems-sink. If this structure is removed, allowing the heat source to come into contact with the heat sink, the system decays back to equilibrium. We should note that the information induced in an open system doesn't exceed the amount of information built into the structural environment, which is its source. Condensation of nucleotides to give polynucleotides or nucleic acids can be brought about with the appropriate apparatus (i.e., structure) and supplies of energy and matter. Just as in Walton's illustration, however, Mora25has shown that the amount of order (not to mention specified complexity) in the final product is no greater than the amount of information introduced in the physical structure of the experiment or chemical structure of the reactants. Non-equilibrium thermodynamics does not account for this structure, but assumes it and then shows the kind of organization which it produces. The origin and maintenance of the structure are not explained, and as Harrison26 correctly notes this question leads back to the origin of structure in the universe. Science offers us no satisfactory answer to this problem at present. Nicolis and Prigogine27 offer their trimolecular model as an example of a chemical system with the required nonlinearity to produce self ordering. They are able to demonstrate mathematically that within a system that was initially homogeneous, one may subsequently have a periodic, spatial variation of concentration. To achieve this low degree of ordering, however, they must require boundary conditions that could only be met at cell walls (i.e., at membranes), relative reaction rates that are atypical of those observed in condensation reactions, a rapid removal of reaction flow products, and a trimolecular reaction (the highly unlikely simultaneous collision of three atoms). Furthermore the trimolecular model requires chemical reactions that are essentially irreversible. But condensation reactions for polypeptides or polynucleotides are highly reversible unless all water is removed from the system. They speculate that the low degree of spatial ordering achieved in the simple trimolecular model could potentially be orders of magnitude greater for the more complex reactions one might observe leading up to a fully replicating cell. The list of boundary constraints, relative reaction rates, etc. would, however, also be orders of magnitude larger. As a matter of fact, one is left with so constraining the system at the boundaries that ordering is inevitable from the structuring of the environment by the chemist. The fortuitous satisfaction of all of these boundary constraints simultaneously would be a its miracle in its own right. It is possible at present to synthesize a few proteins such as insulin in the laboratory. The chemist supplies not only energy to do the chemical and thermal entropy work, however, but also the necessary chemical manipulations to accomplish the configurational entropy work. Without this, the selection of the proper composition and the coding for the right sequence of amino acids would not occur. The success of the experiment is fundamentally dependent on the chemist. Finally, Nicolis and Prigogine have postulated that a system of chemical reactions which explicitly shows autocatalytic activity may ultimately be able to circumvent the problems now associated with synthesis of prebiotic DNA and protein. It remains to be demonstrated experimentally, however, that these models have any real correspondence to prebiotic condensation reactions. At best, these models predict higher yields without any mechanism to control sequencing. Accordingly, no experimental evidence has been reported to show how such models could have produced any significant degree of coding. No, the models of Prigogine et al., based on non-equilibrium thermodynamics, do not at present offer an explanation as to how the configurational entropy work is accomplished under prebiotic conditions. The problem of how to couple energy flow through the system to do the required configurational entropy work remains." They go on to state, "Throughout Chapters 7-9 we have analyzed the problems of complexity and the origin of life from a thermodynamic point of view. Our reason for doing this is the common notion in the scientific literature today on the origin of life that open system with energy and mass flow is a priori a sufficient explanation for the complexity of life. We have examined the validity of such an open and constrained system. We found it to be a reasonable explanation for doing the chemical and thermal entropy work, but clearly inadequate to account for the configurational entropy work of coding (not to mention the sorting and selecting work). We have noted the need for some sort of coupling mechanism. Without it, there is no way to convert the negative entropy associated with configurational entropy and the corresponding information. Is it reasonable to believe such a 'hidden' coupling mechanism will be found in the future that can play this crucial role of a template, metabolic motor, etc., directing the flow of energy in such a way as to create new information?" Gish also noted some problems in Prigogine's assumptions in a 1978 edition of Acts & Facts. He says Prigogine's model assumes: "1. A steady net production of enormous quantities of nucleotides and amino acids on the hypothetical primitive earth by simple interaction of raw energy and simple gases. 2. A steady net production of enormous quantities of energy-rich organic molecules to supply the required energy. 3. The combination, in enormous quantities, of the nucleotides to form polymers (DNA). 4. The selective formation of homopolymers (such as poly-A and poly-T) rather than the formation of mixed polymers of random sequences. 5. The establishment of an autocatalytic cycle. 6.Errors in the formation of the polymers producing a new polymer which directs the synthesis of a primitive protein enzyme. 7. The primitive protein enzyme catalyzes the formation of both itself and the nucleotide polymer (DNA). 8. The above molecules somehow manage to spontaneously separate themselves from the rest of the world and concentrate into condensed systems coordinated in time and space." He goes on to state, "Not a single one of the above assumptions has any shred of probability under any plausible primitive earth conditions. Improbabiliy piled on improbability equals almost impossibility." He of course explains why these assumptions are faulty.
I do not want to get into a big discussion on thermodynamics. I just said this to make a point.
For origin of life scenerios involving hydrothermal vents, etc. check out these websites:
Sarfati, Origin of Life: Instability of Building Blocks
http://www.trueorigin.org/originoflife.asp
Sarfati, Hydrothermal Origin of Life?
http://www.trueorigin.org/hydrothermal.asp
Sarfati, Self-replicating Enzymes? A Critique of Some Current Origin of Life Models
Missing Link
| Answers in Genesis
quote:
While objects in the world interact according to how physical-chemical conditions allow them to, humans try to understand the world around them by creating concepts, words, and languages to represent what they observe. In short, humans create mental models of physical events to comprehend what they observe, and then physical models of their mental models to communicate this comprehension to others. The physical and mental models are what we call information.
This is true, and I guess that this would call this information. Information does exist, and it is a quantity besides matter and energy. It's not just some abstract idea-it is a reality. A reality that cannot exist without an intelligence. Your quibble about our brains being physical in nature is both correct and incorrect-they are physical, but they contain information that is non physical. For information to be transferred, no conciousness is necessary. However the origin of this information requires volition.
quote:
This is wrong as DNA itself has plenty of information, the only caveat is it must be within the right environment. For example you can take "freefloating" DNA (as long as it hasn't been degraded), stick it in an empty cell body (even a foreign cell body) and it can start generating proteins. This is also witnessed in the phenomena of bacteria injesting DNA and even parts of DNA structures, and "using" it. Not that it "chooses" what to use, but the new DNA reacts per chemical reactions with other DNA strands and effects the overall physical nature of the bacteria. The DNA does not have to be "correctly formatted", nor were they "corrupted" if broken up. They are "informative" as far as life is concerned long as they generate proteins in the correct environment.
The lesson here is that a preprogrammed language structure is needed to understand the information. Thaxton says, "Molecules characterized by specified complexity make up living things. These molecules are, most notably, DNA and protein. By contrast, nonliving things fall into one of two categories. They are either unspecified and random (like lumps of granite and mixtures of random nucleotides), or they are specified but simple (like snowflakes and crystals). A crystal fails to qualify as living because it lacks complexity. A chain of random nucleotides fails to qualify because it lacks specificity.{17} No nonliving things (except DNA and protein in living things, human artifacts and written language) have specified complexity.
For a long time biologists overlooked the distinction between two kinds of order (simple, periodic order versus specified complexity). Only recently have they appreciated that the distinguishing feature of living systems is not order but specified complexity.{18} The sequence of nucleotides in DNA, or of amino acids in a protein, is not a repetitive order like a crystal. Instead it is like the letters in a written message. A message is not composed of a sequence of letters repeated over and over. It is not, in other words, the first kind of order.
Indeed, the letters that make up a message are in a sense random. There is nothing inherent in the letters "g-i-f-t" that tells us the word means "present." In fact, in German the same sequence of letters means "poison." In French the series is meaningless. If you came across a series of letters written in the Greek alphabet and didn't know Greek, you wouldn't be able to read it. Nor would you be able to tell if the letters formed Greek words or were just groupings of random letters. There is no detectable difference.
What distinguishes a language is that certain random groupings of letters have come to symbolize meanings according to a given symbol convention. Nothing distinguishes the sequence a-n-d from n-a-d or n-d-a for a person who doesn't know any English. Within the English language, however, the sequence a-n-d is very specific, and carries a particular meaning.{19}
There is no detectable difference between the sequence of nucleotides in E. coli DNA and a random sequence of nucleotides.{20} Yet within the E. coli cells, the sequence of "letters" of its DNA is very specific. Only that particular sequence is capable of biological function.
The discovery that life in its essence is information inscribed on DNA has greatly narrowed the question of life's origin. It has become the question of the origin of information. We now know there is no connection at all between the origin of order and the origin of specified complexity. There is no connection between orderly repeating patterns and the specified complexity in protein and DNA. We cannot draw an analogy, as many do, between the formation of a crystal and the origin of life. We cannot argue that since natural forces can account for the crystal, then they can account for the structure of living things. The order we find in crystals and snowflakes is not analogous to the specified complexity we find in living things.{21}
There needs to be a language system for information to be conveyed. Without this, it cannot be (at least not with a representational function).
quote:
g) the supernatural entity God, who contained information to create life, must have been created by another entity that had still greater information.
There is simply no escaping this result. Not even through appeals that God exists beyond the laws of time and space. If so, then Dembski's 4th law is moot. Remember everything you (and he) have expounded is based on the idea that information is an entity wholly separate from the physical world, and bound by the separate laws of information. They must bind supernatural as well as natural, as long as it is information.
Not necessarily. First of all, God is not constrained by natural laws (since he is supernatural), so disobeying natural laws are no problem. Secondly we know that there had to be infinite information in the past. However, since the 2loT tells us that there was a beginning, and not infinity past, then that only leaves the possibility of a being with infinite information.
4I may take a break in replying to all of these posts. I have spent too much time on the internet lately. So if I don't reply to this or other messages, you will know why.
).
You gave a computer analogy before, but it wasn't a fair analogy, because it doesn't describe the way things are observed in real life.
™ Version 4.2