Evolution vs. Thermodynamics

Maybe its just me, but the second law argument seems like one of the worst in the anti-evolution arsenal. As long as you have an open system with power pouring into it, there is no conflict with the second law. And our sun is pumping in plenty energy.The complexity confusion you noticed I've seen in other arguments as well. There is no problem with increases of complexity, if you've got the power. I think the confusion arises from the idea of entropy. Entropy == disorder (colloquially). The opposite of disorder is order, which colloquially means organization and implies complexity. Problem is that science doesn't use the term 'order' like that and 'entropy' doesn't exactly means disorder. It just means 'lowest energy state'------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by frank:

Bugbear was an imaginary English hobgoblin that had the shape of a bear.

---

.... sounds cute and cuddly------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by blitz77:
"But simply adding energy to a system doesn’t automatically cause reduced entropy (i.e., increased organized complexity, or build-up rather than break-down).

---

Actually it does, pretty much by definition.Assume a volume of gas at 100% entropy, and then magically make a heat source appear. In very short order, you get convection currents.The portions of the article you quoted suffer from some severe equivocation. It mixes scientific and colloquial terms and uses the slighly different meanings to make a point. Logically fallacious, plain and sinple. Entropy does not mean disorder in the colloquial sense of the word. It just means a tendency toward a low energy state. Ice, for example, is lower energy state than liquid water; it is also a MORE structured state.

quote:

---

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, your car’s paint job, a wooden fence, or a decomposing animal carcass, both with and then without the addition of solar radiation).

---

More eqivocation. What we consider disordered colloquially isn't necessarily disordered in a thermodynamic sense. Rust is a chemical reaction creating more complicated molecules out of less complicated. Correct me if I'm wrong. That we have a use for the less complicated molecules does not mean rust is entropic.

quote:

---

1. a program (information) to direct the growth in organized complexity

---

Nope. See convection currents above.Gotta go. I'll hit the rest of this later.------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by blitz77:
No, that is not true. Ever heard of this law in chemistry? The entropy of a perfect crystal at absolute zero has zero entropy. If you increase its temperature by adding energy, its entropy increases.

---

My point was to disassociate 'order', 'disorder', and 'entropy' You're crystal analogy pushes that point for me. I used ice.But based on your comments, I have to reformulate my statement. Again using my box-o-gas analogy, the entropy of the whole system goes up but you get self-organizing behavior-- the convection currents-- at least up to a point. You get power to drive reactions, which living things require. This illustrates the problem of associating 'disorder' and 'entropy' I fell into that trap too.Entropy has to go down for life to develop, since a state of complete entropy is a state of zero energy. No energy, no reactions, no life. Steven Hawking argues this. I just grasped his logic.Geez!!! I hate to reverse myself like this (but its your fault )------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by blitz77:
The input of energy supposedly in early earth is lightning. However, wouldn't it be much more likely that lightning would decompose any products that occur?

---

Why not geothermal energy? [/quote][/b]Also, this supposedly happens in an anoxic environment. This would mean that there would be no ozone layer. But this ozone layer also protects organisms from cosmic rays and UV.[/b][/quote]1) Modern life forms are vulnerable to UV and cosmic rays. This doesn't mean that early life was so vulnerable. But even if it was...2) The models I have seen usually involve thick clouds rich in volcanic material. Ozone does not have to be the only shield.

quote:

---

Just the sufficient accumulation of peptides in one area is quite improbable.

---

The ocean surf concentrates this stuff, or at least it concentrates stuff, today. It could have done the same for peptides.

quote:

---

It also requires energy for the peptides (which, after forming in the atmosphere, enter the water) to link up to each other.

---

How much energy? Last model I looked at had the oceans at a couple of hundred degrees.

quote:

---

And what is the probability that they are all left-handed? Macromolecules also form from both L and D forms.

---

Am I wrong in thinking that left and right molecules are not perfect mirror images? If so, they must function at least slightly differently.

quote:

---

And then there's the heterotrophic vs autotrophic debate. Most models I've seen have them start out as heterotrophs, assimilating organic molecules nearby until they become autotrophic. If they start out as heterotrophs, you would need an even greater concentration of organic molecules. And this isn't even including the time required for them to evolve into autotrophic organisms (which means that those molecules would be assimilating nearby organic molecules for quite a time).

---

Good thing we have a billion or so years for all of this to happen.[/B][/QUOTE]------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by blitz77:
[B][quote]While hydrothermal energy could be a possible source, they harm other vital components of life.[/b][/quote]

​

We are talking about a planetary system. Components from many sources will mix and match.

​

Besides, there are living thingies very near hydrothermal vents today.

​

Nature - Not Found
No webpage found at provided URL: http://gsa.confex.com/gsa/2001ESP/finalprogram/abstract_8352.htm

​

quote:

---

He also points out that RNA bases are quickly destroyed in water at 100C. It destroys many complex amino acids (eg serine and threonine). Heating also racemizes amino acids, preventing exclusive left-handed amino acids.

---

​

I think you are jumping ahead of me.

​

quote:

---

Clouds are not that great at stopping UV.

---

​

Well, for one we are not talking about rainclouds but clouds rich in volcanic material.

​

And two...
EvC Forum: Information and Genetics

​

[quote][b]Also, the evidence for a reducing environment is not as strong as it seems.[/quote]

​

[/b]

​

The nature article cited does not assume a reducing atmosphere. It seems the consensus is that the reducing atmosphere assumption is wrong.

​

quote:

---

Most evolutionists give the example of magnetite. However, the iron formations also contain oxidized oxygen which requires an oxidizing atmosphere, making it quite debatable. Then there's sulfur deposits. If earth had a reducing atmosphere, you'd expect sulfide precipitates in archaen rocks. However, none have been found. Then there's also evidence for oxidized weathering crusts below banded iron formations. Archaen oxygen is also indicated once again.

---

​

I think this falls with the fall of the reducing atmosophere.

​

[quote]But how concentrated can a surf concentrate the peptides? Enough for the formation of proteins, along with enough for the self-replicating molecules to reproduce?[/b]

---

I would argue so, tentatively. They concentrate on shore in little pools. But this is only one of the options.

quote:

---

And also, I thought you were talking about the hydrothermal model. Where would it concentrate, as it requires energy to link up the peptides?

---

I am talking about hydrothermal energy, perhaps not the hydrothermal model per se. The energy I am thinking of permiates the planet. Initially the whole planet was very hot. The energy I am thinking of is the energy released as it cooled. Initially, it was much too hot for anything to form, but the temperature slowly dropped to more or less modern degrees. There is a lot of energy in that period of cooling. Of course there are hydrothermal vents and lightning and whatnot as well, all contributing in some way or messing things up in other ways. [quote][/b]As I said before, hot water destroys complex amino acids and destroys RNA.[/quote][/b]Why do we need to start with complex amino acids and RNA? I think you are jumping ahead of me. [quote][/b]they are mirror images.[/b][/quote]ummm.... Chiral molecules lack reflection symmetry. San Diego Supercomputer Center

quote:

---

Surely abiogenesis would have some use for D forms as well if it occurred.

---

Well, assuming that both forms had an equal chance of occuring.
No webpage found at provided URL: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/142514.stm

quote:

---

So you have these self-replicating heterotrophs eating up organic molecules nearby for the length of time until one becomes autotrophic? And abiogenesis supposedly occurred soon after when surface water became available.

---

Well, yeah...Actually, I see abiogenesis starting soon after surface water became available. It would have taken quite awhile for something resembling modern life to evolve.------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

[QUOTE]Originally posted by blitz77:
[B]But the organisms you are talking about have cell membranes and means of protecting themselves. Without these forms of protection, how would they survive? And do any of those living thingies not have cell membranes?[/quote][/b]I think we are talking about different time frames and about different organisms.For the first, the time frame I have in mind, I think, is much earlier initially than what you seem to be thinking about. This point is much more important latter in the post.For the second, the first organism to inhabit the vents probably had cell membranes. I see the vents as spewing important components, not as efficient manufacturers. I'd be lying if I said I had all the details.

quote:

---

So you would have to say there were permanent volcanic clouds hanging in the sky to protect earth? What about winds, etc moving them around?

---

Given the time frame I have in mind, I think it is fair to assume a pretty dust-heavy atmosphere. Nonetheless, I am not taking a hard line on the volcanic clouds, just pointing out that the mechanisms blocking UV today are not the only possible mechanisms.

quote:

---

So in such an atmosphere, there wouldn't be much if at all any free hydrogen in the air, or ammonia, as in an oxidizing atmosphere they would be quickly oxidized. So what is the alternative model you have for producing organic molecules?

---

I'll check again, but I believe the scenario was covered in the article I cited. [quote]So would you say that it could concentrate enough for proteins to form? After all, an average sized protein contains 500 amino acids. Give me a concentration (molarity) of peptides in water that you suggest would have proteins forming.[/b][/quote]Starting with 500 amino acids is jumping the gun. If I am not mistaken, a sequence of 30 or so acids has been shown to replicate. Besides, we are talking about a BILLION years or so. Chemicals have lots of time.

quote:

---

As the planet cooled, wouldn't energy have mostly radiated out into outer space? Tell me how the energy produced by cooling can be used.

---

Of course it would radiate into outer space---- VIA the oceans and the atmosphere.... the energy is used to drive chemical reations.

quote:

---

Like your left hand and your right hand are non-superimposable mirror images.

---

Ok. Fair enough, but my left and right hands are non-superimposable because there are slight differences between the two. I don't get it. I don't see how you can have it both ways.------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by blitz77:
Ok, fair enough, but which model do you prefer? The cell membranes originating and replicating by the addition of more lipids until it splits into two, or cell membranes + self-replicating molecule inside?

---

Without a complete model it is impossible to say which to back, and no model is complete enough to fit the bill.That said, I suspect that you something of both going on initially--perhaps for millions of hundreds of million years. Lipids just form, as has been pointed out, so no sense repeating it. What I imagine is that self-replicating molecules developed on their own and eventually colonized the bubbles of lipids.

quote:

---

But anyway, correct me if I'm wrong, wouldn't the lipid membrane prefer to stay in 1 globule instead of splitting into two, as splitting into two exposes a bigger surface area to the water, which is disfavored by thermodynamics.

---

The bubbles will become unstable once they react a certain size, so splitting is inevitable disfavored or not.

quote:

---

But the 30 or so sequence that replicates cannot really mutate. If there is only a small mutation, the mechanism would be lost. In a larger molecule, mutations could be tolerated more.

---

Life, or what was to be life, took a very long time to emerge. This is only a problem with a very short time-frame.

quote:

---

But wouldn't this still be heat energy?

---

Yes. Why is that a problem?

quote:

---

I don't think you understand why they put the "non-superimposable mirror image" thing there. It is because if you put one hand on top of the other, they do not overlap exactly. The L and D molecules just differ in the arrangement, clockwise or counter-clockwise. They are mirror images, so when they say non-superimposable it means that the two molecules are not identical arrangement.

​

---

hmmm..... I still have my doubts. I'll look it up again.[Removed extraneous quote UBB code. --Admin]------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com[This message has been edited by Admin, 08-01-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by blitz77:
This does not explain how in the end the self-replicating molecule would produce the bubbles of lipids for a membrane.

---

True. But assuming a selective advantage to living in these lipid bubble, we can also assume selective pressure towards maintaining and eventually generating the bubbles.

quote:

---

I'm not sure how big they need to be to become unstable... so around a few cell sizes they would become unstable?

---

ok... maybe someone can tell us for sure.

quote:

---

But there is a very short time frame... the earliest bacteria in the evolutionist model appeared immediately after surface water became available.

---

The Earth formed around 4.5 billion years ago. Maybe someone can comment here, but the oceans seems to have formed around 700 million to a billion years later. The earliest reported fossils are about 3.5 billion. This is a very brief time frame for life to emerge.Interestingly, this 3.5 bya bacterial fossil is about a billion years older than anything else yet discovered, and the find is much debated. Basing an argument on this, thus far, anomolous and uncertain find, is not a good plan. Nature - Not FoundA Non-Biological Origin For Carbon In Ancient Rocks

quote:

---

Give me some chemical reactions in which the addition of heat produces lower entropy molecules (without using a mechanism for decreasing entropy, as before abiogenesis there wouldn't be a mechanism).

---

Sorry, but this is mostly smoke screen.1) What other common energy source is there but heat?2) You seem to be denying that organic molecules cannot form spontaneously, and this has been shown to happen in the lab.[/B][/QUOTE]------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com[This message has been edited by John, 08-02-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by blitz77:
Definitely not spontaneously because it consumes more energy than it produces.

---

oh geez..... we have a power supply....

quote:

---

You had sparks in the Urey-Miller experiment, and that wasn't heat.

---

Miller-Urey is not the only experiment that has had sucess.

quote:

---

Anyway, the reducing atmosphere is debatable.

---

Sure is, if not altogether abandonned. I posted something to this effect already.

quote:

---

And the concentration of the required constitutents is not spontaneous.

---

Wow, deja vu....We've been throught this before.------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by blitz77:
you must have just finished writing this one and not noticed my next one.

---

Yeah, you're right. [quote][/b]You cannot have heat converting into bond energy[/b][/quote]Then we have no chemistry? Yes?

quote:

---

only way bond energy can be produced using heat is if entropy increases.

---

Fine by me.

quote:

---

I'm not sure whether this makes sense, tell me if I'm wrong please.

---

I am not exactly sure what you are trying to say. The post was very confusing. But, it seems to have undermined all of chemistry. Try again, perhaps that will help me understand.------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by blitz77:
Without an at least equal increase in entropy somewhere else

---

Fine.

quote:

---

Thus you need something else to supply the increase in entropy at least equal or greater to the decrease in entropy (2nd law of thermodynamics).

---

You don't need this step.The energy used to produce the bond balances the entropy.

quote:

---

Oh well, gotta go sleep.

---

Sleep? You work nights or you are halfway around the world from me.------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by Randy:
The thermodynamic arguments on this thread that has become about abiogenesis rather than evolution seem a little confused to me.

---

Hey, thanks Randy.I knew blitz was off-track but chemistry isn't my best subject.And... welcome to the forum.------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by blitz77:
John agrees with me however that we did not have an reducing atmosphere. To quote him-

​

quote:

---

Sure is, if not altogether abandonned. I posted something to this effect already.

---

​

---

I may have to eat my words on that one, but for now.... No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.chem.duke.edu/~jds/cruis_dhem/Exobiology/PBearth.html[Added missing UBB /URL code. --Admin][/b][/quote]Nature - Not Found------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com[This message has been edited by Admin, 08-06-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by blitz77:
Interestingly, in the self-test question 8 it says that a hydrothermal origin of life is unlikely because of a.Organic molecules are unstable at high temperatures
&
b.The proposed temperature gradient would be too small to produce a significant amount of organic compounds

---

I don't believe the issue is settled. Looks to me like the page is pushing the extra-terrestrial origins of amino acids. Apparently the author feels as you do. Fair enough, no one can prove anything yet.Good stuff about the reducing/non-reducing atmosphere though eh?------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com