The sneaky b'stards!! I agree with you, that is dishonest. And kind of conspiratorial in a way. I think I'll head over to talkorigins to learn a bit more about abiogenesis. There'll be no wool-pulling near my eyes.
I haven't checked but there probably isn't much on abiogenesis at talkorigins. You could try some googles for current research in the area. self-replication (self-replicator), abiogenesis, origin of life, RNA world, are some keywords that might produce appropriate hits.
There is a fair amount of research going on it seems but it is a difficult problem. Personally, I think that "I dunno" is the best available answer to the question of abiogenesis. The creationist mind set is not comfortable with "I dunno" and the creationist organizations try to play "god of the gaps" with any question that doesn't have a firm answer. How dumb is that theology?
We really could use another sample of life. That is why Europa or Mars could be so potentially interesting. Working from a sample of one it is very hard to know what conclusions can be drawn.
Just another example of water going uphill. Siphons are able to pull water uphill, although the overall change in elevation is downhill. However, to get water up to a higher elevation, you have to use pumps, or a work input. The fact that we are able to pump water over ridges to irrigate farms seems to fly in the face of the 2LoT, at least according to creationists. They always seem to forget about energy inputs causing decreases in entropy.
I am not going to get into all of this at this time.
I will say that "negenetropy" IS needed. I will only say NOW how I personally thought so- the historical scholarship needs a good penmanship which I dont have at this momement. I have wondered if indeed there may be NEGENTROPY CREATED in the interval that cell death phenotypes create due to increased entropy of decompostion by some quantity correlated with cell "mass" on death.
I believe that it was the Shrodinger Dublin Lecture where the phrase got perhaps some noterity. The work of the Russian Gladshev if followed would I SUSPECT remand the need to use something like it anyway one may read my own reading for I think it is historically accurate (I have not looked it up lately and I think I got some idea from MOROWITZ in the flute book) that Gibbs was able to talk about STATISTICALLY perversions that were OPERATED by dyadic governors. NOW no matter how one WORKS on the STATS if there were perversions behind this equational entropy that Maxwell called on to be learned (it is in one of his papers collected by DOVer Press) THIS ENTROPY and any negation BY SIGN of the same (whether by programmed cell death as I suggested is demonstrable of by some more brained statistical means of a back variable etc) could be additional subject LOGICALLY to multiadic alterations in the computation. That physically seems possible but if one restrains one to ONLY following say Einstein's approach to molecular visualization (THE VIRIAL) then this logical possiblity and hence terminological need may fall by the physcial handle of reality. It is all a worthwhile thing. Keep at it. Best Brad.
Apoptosis is a programmed cell death (as you probably already know). It is an orchestrated event that requires new proteins to be synthesized, or upregulation of already present enzymes. So at first, there is a decrease in entropy as ATP is used to form proteins from disorganized amino acids. However, the end result could be considered a negative entropy event, where proteases become more prevalent as well as damage due to oxidative burst,lysozyme activity, and DNase/RNase activity. "Streaky" DNA (digested DNA) is the gold standard for qualitatively measuring apoptosis, while caspase upregulation measured by ELISA/qPCR is a more quantitative measure. I don't know if this answered your questions or not, but hope this helps.
Ned was suggesting that the term is useless itself. I disagreed and the specifics you provided could assit me in docuemting the reasons of my disagreement. There is some physical"" inutition which is not in line with my position however as that really did depend somewhat on interpretation and not just scholarship.
Now is not the place to try to parse my understanding of Pais's "Einstein" but in 'Subtle is the Lord' P notedp68, "A month before replying to Herz, he(AEINSTEIN) phrased the second law quite properly in another paper^**='The irreversibility of physical phenomena is only apparent...(a) systemn PROBABLY (P's emphasis) goes to states of greater probability when it happens to be in a state of relatively small probablites' thus on this apropo (if?) it the NEGATION of entropy changes to the larger could reject NEGENETROPY should all of the "relative" be thought AND WORKED as "probabiliTIES" but this disses both E's and mines' more phenomenological access to scientific reality should the nonstatistical statement in the same also exist materially. I was suggeting that increased entropy (thinking of the action of endonucleases) on an event of apoptosis ALSO has action occurring in the other direction to this relative!!!!! motion"" from a state with smaller probability to larger where entropy would be computed. I did not extend that day the analysis of repulsions physically in virials to topobiology of SAMs in the basement membranes which might supply the naturalsim then as to any statistical divisions but I did suggest that Gibbs' work on My or E's view might provide the demonstrability necessary to proceed to find the probabilites and denied Ned's notion.
Quite revealing was this that Pias found(p59) "Einstein's position regarding questions of principle in stastical mechanics is best explained by first reviewing breifly the contributions of Maxwell and , especially, of Boltzmann. Gibbs will not enter into this review because he did not influence Einstein and also, because as Lorenz noted in the presence of Einstein, the Einstein and Gibbs approaches are different(L2). Einstein did not disagree. Indeed, in responding to Lorentz's remark he observed, '(My) point of view is characterized by the fact that one introduces the probability of specific state in a phenomenolgoical manner. In that way one has the advantage of not interposing any particular theory, for example, any statistical mechanics'(E44)."
There are not sides but there IS a lateral extent extant.
Why is this even a discussion. Entropy is not a measure of order or disorder. This is a way to simplify the meaning to high school students. It is an explanation of energy being released and all of the components at most returning to their origional positions, thus creating no entropy. This would be under "ideal" situations, but in every day reactions/processes entropy is always created.
Entropy is NOT a measure of order except when relating directly to thermodynamics. A building does not have any more or less entropy than a stack of the same materials jumbled together. If you want to measure the entropy of building a building you can. You take all of the energy used to make the building and look at the final energy states of all of the components used to create it. You will have a net gain of entropy.
Whenever someone says something along the lines of entropy being created because something is more organized, just tell them to look up the thermodynamic definition of entropy and to correct themselves.
I am afraid that I must tell you that it IS relevant but instead of getting into different interpretations of physics which in my book will extend even beyond this next quote in historical time of the changes in signs (you may disagree and feel free to do so...) let me refer you to Boolep36 AN INVESTIGATION OF THE LAWS OF THOUGHT ON WHICH ARE FOUNDED THE MATHEMATICAL THEORIES OF LOGIC AND PROBABILITY " Discussing phyiscs meant that we would have some idea of x and y as we may not all agree here on what these "variables" are we disucuss. That's the state of c/e like it or not.14. Here, however, the analogy of the present system with that of algebra, as commonly stated, appears to stop. Suppose it ture that those members of a class x which possess certain property z, are identical with the members of the class y. Hence it cannot be inferred from the equation zx=zy, that the equation x=y is also true. In other words, the axiom of the algebraists, that both sides of an equation may be divided by the same quantity, has no formal equivalent here. I say no FORMAL equivalent, because, in accordance with the general spirit of these inquiries, it is not even sought to determine whether the mental operation which is represented by remvoing the logical symbol,z,from a combination zx, is in itself analogous with the operation of division in Arithemetic. The mental operation is..."
I did not say x=y because I would lke to know if postive pressure =negative vs positive curvature BECAUSE of negative pressure SOMEWHERE ELSE that clock could time to physically if existant. I have not tried to relate negentropy to changes in time however. It is just a thought.I had been working up a suggestion that Monod who thought that regulation is thinking before differentiation is mistken for the facts in apoptosis and instead of simply realizing that RNA switches exist I relate the more recent findings in molecular biology to a notion of a "clock" NOT any FRENCH concept of biological time for any old replication as I reject Dyson division of cell fate as EITHER replication OR metabolism. That is more likely the reason (false understanding in the authorities)that proteins where looked for where RNA acts. Whether it times entropy increases as well in some adaptation is my own idea but due to faluire to deal with temperature scale wise in embryogeny. There are physical reasons to suggest only other material but this depends on ones use of physical reasoning which is ceratinly not one with regard to entropy. I know that Eldridges discussion of it is inadequate evoluionarily and I will discuss this if you choose eslewhere.
I do not say if the INTERVAL of negentropy contributes MORE to order or disorder only that in the Gendaken expt on mitchondrial toxin/antitoxin origins claims of apoptosis immune differences of a few degrees of Carbon atom angles may even that elemetally need reinscription in statstistical partitions not presently carried out most likely for fear of NON-EQUILIBRIUM thermodynamics dominating in the difference of the process or body understudy. It matter whether it is being thought of as a time thing or a matter thing. Functionalism is not all there is to it.
"I am afraid that I must tell you that it IS relevant but instead of getting into different interpretations of physics"
Different interpretations? What the heck? I did not know there was more than one interpretation!!
"I say no FORMAL equivalent, because, in accordance with the general spirit of these inquiries, it is not even sought to determine whether the mental operation which is represented by remvoing the logical symbol,z,from a combination zx, is in itself analogous with the operation of division in Arithemetic."
I guess this is technically correct BUT the problem is that he already said the property is equal to z. That is what is not analogous in arithemetic. He made the mistake of making that compairison. If his statement about z is true then it actually is analogous with the operation of division in arithemetic. His argument is flawed by the little quote you already gave me.
"I did not say x=y because I would lke to know if postive pressure =negative vs positive curvature BECAUSE of negative pressure SOMEWHERE ELSE that clock could time to physically if existant."
Is this even an English sentance? Please explain what "positive curvature" is. Also how does positive pressure equal to something negative with no other value or units? Also "that clock could time to if existant"? Huh?
"I do not say if the INTERVAL of negentropy contributes MORE to order or disorder only that in the Gendaken expt on mitchondrial toxin/antitoxin origins claims of apoptosis immune differences of a few degrees of Carbon atom angles may even that elemetally need reinscription in statstistical partitions not presently carried out most likely for fear of NON-EQUILIBRIUM thermodynamics dominating in the difference of the process or body understudy."
How exactly does this violate thermodynamics? I would absolutly like to see how what you claim does not work out mathematically using the current model of thermodynamics. If it does work then nothing is being violated. If it doesn't and uses sound logic then you're looking at some great awards and huge grants to continue your work. Lol
Please, showing that you have a grain of understanding of the concepts of thermodynamics, show me anything, a link, a formula, an experiment that can be reproduced, anything, that violates the current models.
I just saw this post as you did not refer to me in it. I will get back to more of it later. YEs, Boole had already said said, "z", but that was him and that was then. But sticking with his lettering then, I realized that "y" still could find out differnt interpretations IN PHYSICS of today while I saw the potential of expontial xs that BOOLE did not. All of this goes to figure why and how NOW TODAY, I am using a,b,c,d (real numbers) in a Quarternion interms of ABCD on STRAIGHT LINES but this assumes some such modern physical intution such that momemtum flows and stress changes with respect the old vs the new isntrumental ether for example are cognized. In this post I was simply able to say BIOLOIGALLY that one should try to exponentiate the x BEFORE one even tried to think chemically about any old y"" or in that/this case a new, "z". If you dont want me to sleep on a response you have to post the reply to my name and not as a general one.
I was suggesting (the issue of violation"" has to do with the different standards that physicists acutally USE when doing 1st law thermo vs 2nd law thermo stuff)that on cell death the larger the cell that dies the more NEGENTROPY would be colinear per the set of incidences matained is some relative frequency in nature. The entropy increase due to endoneuclease etc action I proposed would have negative entropy correlation across the area where the decomposition and little fervant heat was occuring and thus would CORRELATE with cell death but have an inverted dynamical affect in effect. I did not at that time suggest exactly what the effect was but I was thinking of biologically closed electic circuits in the basement membranes however if melanin might be concived as a mirror on a stick and the nervous system thought of as means to operate at near speed of light motions then some other physics would ordniate the purely morphological possiblility. At the time I posted this remark I had not written about differnt kinds of time in this interval which do suggest particular kinematics to me now so then all I was considering was something like a real physical effeciency that Gould missed in the volume to surface forces D'Arcy Thompson proposed. But I had thought that THEN in terms of Bridgman's notions on light which I think I can now ALSO think about in terms of more material things like electrons.
As to any violation this would occur if I can do the math. I'm still working on that. The concept however holds especially in the knowledge of claims that South American E-fish and those in Africa were (by implication) dieelectrically convergent. Gould would be correct to suspect constraint here instead however he as not taken the step up from mathmatical "law" to centripetal distributions alterning one's physical intution. I have. And this occurs because the interval can be spanned by photons OR electrons or in the case of the letters "toad" that Gould was willing to have typed simply differently engineered modifications of sound propagation. I have not documented it but it appears that evos have insisted on retaining "modified" for "any mechanism" when a decent is imposed (modification with descent). These could equally well be affirmed or reversed (especially if action at a distance is repulsive per station as well as attractive by any physics).