Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 75 (8963 total)
243 online now:
AZPaul3, frako, jar, PaulK (4 members, 239 visitors)
Newest Member: Samuel567
Upcoming Birthdays: CosmicChimp
Post Volume: Total: 870,839 Year: 2,587/23,288 Month: 778/1,809 Week: 210/225 Day: 23/46 Hour: 2/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Thermodynamics, Abiogenesis and Evolution
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8894
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003
Member Rating: 4.3


Message 15 of 128 (99664)
04-13-2004 11:55 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by DNAunion
04-13-2004 9:54 AM


agreeing
I just want to toss my 2 cents (Canadian so really, really small) in here.

DNA has a clear point. The free energy is available but there must be some mechanism for allowing it to perform the work. That is all he is saying and it is the basic issue of abilogenesis.

We don't know the mechanism.

For example, it is perfectly fine to point out the sunlight makes the earth an open system. But without the mechanism of photosynthesis we still don't get life working.

Now DNA, the discussion was thermodynamics and you did confuse the topic by bringing in something else.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by DNAunion, posted 04-13-2004 9:54 AM DNAunion has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by RAZD, posted 04-13-2004 1:38 PM NosyNed has not yet responded
 Message 19 by DNAunion, posted 04-13-2004 2:22 PM NosyNed has responded

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8894
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003
Member Rating: 4.3


Message 20 of 128 (99704)
04-13-2004 2:27 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by DNAunion
04-13-2004 2:22 PM


something else
But when I made my first post in this thread the title of the thread was "Thermodynamics & Abiogenesis".

But the issue of a mechanism for using free energy to locally decrease entropy isn't directly a thermodynamic question. I'm sure we all expect that the mechanism for OOL will have to be thermodynamically "uphill".

So the second law itself doesn't pose a problem. If you agree with that then bring the mechanism issue up in a separate thread not here.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by DNAunion, posted 04-13-2004 2:22 PM DNAunion has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by DNAunion, posted 04-13-2004 8:22 PM NosyNed has responded

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8894
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003
Member Rating: 4.3


Message 28 of 128 (99763)
04-13-2004 8:34 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by DNAunion
04-13-2004 8:22 PM


Re: something else
Fine but then be careful to note when you are and are not talking about the 2nd law.

Yes, you are correct with your comment about my uphill comment. Some parts of the OOL must have been downhill to get to the right place. Then we need some mechanism to handle any uphill parts.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by DNAunion, posted 04-13-2004 8:22 PM DNAunion has not yet responded

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8894
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003
Member Rating: 4.3


Message 43 of 128 (99820)
04-13-2004 11:47 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by berberry
04-13-2004 11:43 PM


Re: Let Confusion Reign
Abiogenesis happened. Only creationists dispute it.

No they don't. They just have a different idea of how it happened. Life arose where there was none. That isn't disputed.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by berberry, posted 04-13-2004 11:43 PM berberry has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by berberry, posted 04-13-2004 11:51 PM NosyNed has not yet responded

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8894
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003
Member Rating: 4.3


Message 92 of 128 (491836)
12-22-2008 12:04 AM


Gradients demand life
http://www.pastpeak.com/archives/2005/04/the_thermodynam.htm

The above is a very non-rigorous look at the relationship between life and thermodynamics.

quote:
Discussions of how life coexists with the Second Law usually stop there: the Second Law isn't violated because the system's not closed. True enough, but not terribly satisfying. While it does explain how life is possible in the presence of the Second Law, it hardly explains what we see everywhere we turn: life spontaneously, aggressively, irrepressibly expanding to fill every available niche in the environment, creating ever richer and more complex ecosystems comprising an ever-expanding variety of increasingly complex life forms. We don't see life just getting by in the face of the Second Law; far from it. I.e., life isn't just side-stepping the laws of thermodynamics; somehow, life is actually favored by them.

and the not-particularly-rigorous-answer?

quote:
Life feeds on gradients and, in the process, helps to reduce them. In so doing, life does Nature's work. The bottom line: thermodynamic principles do not oppose life, they practically command it into existence. Life is an integral part of the universe, completely consistent with the thermodynamic principles that unite both living and nonliving matter. Life belongs*.

*their italics


Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by cavediver, posted 12-22-2008 3:46 AM NosyNed has not yet responded

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8894
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003
Member Rating: 4.3


Message 96 of 128 (506039)
04-22-2009 12:10 AM
Reply to: Message 94 by traste
04-21-2009 11:53 PM


Ruination
Your reasoning showed that you have a very little understanding in physics,read more.The second law stated that if things left unattended it will become a ruin.For example abandoned your haus and it will become a ruin.So if nobody cares about the universe,"Why it will not become a ruin"?Put this question in your coconut shell.

It is you that has very, very little understanding of physics.

That is not what the 2nd law says. It is a highly simplified example to give a flavor of what entropy is about.

It also does not imply: "So if nobody cares about the universe,"Why it will not become a ruin"

Thermodyamics does have bearing on any processes or mechanisms which affect your "haus" such as maintenance on it.

Since a "haus" is not an example that has anything at all to do with abiogenesis or evolution it is irrelevant here other than a demonstration that you don't know either subject at all.

If you wonder why it is a lousy analogy for evolution you should note that houses don't f**k. That is, in short, the difference.

If you wonder why it is a lousy analogy for abiogenesis you should note that 2x4s have no chemical affinity for each other.

When you understand those issues you will have begun to learn a little tiny bit about the subject at hand.

Edited by NosyNed, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by traste, posted 04-21-2009 11:53 PM traste has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020