As discussed here extensively, nothing in “evolution” makes any sense: “natural selection, fitness, speciation, human evolution, gradualism, divergence of character, UCD, TOL, etc. etc.” Not one makes sense. Meanwhile, the “evolution” argument is just one big “affirms the consequent” logical fallacy, while Paley’s excellent argument has never been overturned, and an intuitive intelligent design detector can be used to easily disprove “evolution”. Is there a need for any more proofs? Not really. Are there any other proofs? You bet. Take entropy for instance…
Figure 1
Figure 2
- Second Law of Thermodynamics shows that a spontaneous process cannot also revert spontaneously. This is because spontaneous processes always increase the system’s entropy. A uniform gas in a chamber will accumulate in a corner only with external intervention and spontaneous chemical reactions can only revert if external work energy is applied. Current models of entropy assume the gas particles in a chamber to be independent (sometimes represented as pebbles on a Go board) and explains their never observed convergence on one side of the chamber as only due to that particular microstate having a very low probability(*). However, gas particles always interact with each other (Brownian motion) while pebbles do not. Thus, a reliable way to know that entropy of a system increases is if work energy could be obtained when transitioning from the low to the high entropy state while energy is always required for the reverse process.
- Total entropy of an isolated system can never decrease. Entropy is currently assumed just a statistical law. Thus, if N molecules are in an isolated system (box), the number of microstates associated with j of them being in one half while N-j being in the other half is Ω = N! / (j!*(N-j)!). If N is small, fluctuations seem possible, but before N increases to anything measurable, the probability of fluctuations rapidly decreases to nil. Furthermore, even these theoretical fluctuations, as improbable as they are, might be impossible since the statistical view does not account for molecular interaction observed as Brownian motion and as gas resistance to compression and expansion. Better fundamentals or statistics, either way entropy will never decrease spontaneously in an observable system (Fig 1.a).
- Decreasing entropy is not the reverse process of entropy increasing. That is why a broken egg coming together is easily identified as unreal and a reversed movie of its real shattering. The known laws of physics are the same forward and backward (time-reversal invariance), therefore the reverse shattering process of an egg would not violate any law, but only because these laws are always idealized. Supposedly, if just the right forces are applied to the broken pieces, the egg will come together. In reality this is impossible, and not because the unbroken egg is a highly unlikely microstate, but because entropy increase is not directly reversible even in non-isolated systems. This irreversibility holds for all heterogeneous systems, including life which is perhaps the most heterogeneous system of all. Entropy increase is directly reversible only for homogeneous systems and only if in a defined space. For instance, an expanding gas in an ideal piston creates a force that, when reversed, compresses the gas back into its original state. However, a solid cube of ice can be easily melted by increasing the temperature, but the original ice cube will not reconstitute by lowering the temperature, hence this process too is irreversible despite the cube of ice being homogeneous (Fig 1.b). As far as heterogeneous systems, even separating two mixed gases is way different than the original mixing process, hence mixing is irreversible (Fig 1.c). Entropy decrease is not only different, but also much more complex than entropy increase which is usually spontaneous. Abiogenesis is the entropy-lowering reverse of the biologic decay process, and therefore – if at all feasible – much more complex than adding chemicals and energies.
- Once in equilibrium, a “primordial soup” does not change spontaneously. Life is metastable – it requires certain forms of energy to sustain and spontaneously decays when it no longer receives that energy as well as after the end of the normal lifespan of the organism. It was hypothesized that random fluctuations can spontaneously create compounds and structures given enough time. Abiogenesis, as a reverse-decay process, cannot simply be an outcome of Brownian motion of the chemicals mix because a perpetual motion machine powered by decay and abiogenesis cycles would violate the ‘conservation of energy’ principle. Experimentally, one can confirm that chemical blends in static equilibrium never transition spontaneously into a different equilibrium state (this includes oscillating reactions after the settlement period).
- A “primordial soup” cannot generate life even if energy is applied. It was hypothesized that abiogenesis can be a product of tidal pools, deep sea hydrothermal vents, and the undersurface of ice caps where persistent and abundant energy is available in the form of thermal and electrochemical gradients. Indeed, energy can throw systems off balance and create all kind of chemical compounds and physical structures. However, as the energy applied increases, a complexity limit and hence a dynamic equilibrium is reached where molecule destruction offsets their creation and, if even more energy is applied, molecule destruction dominates, eventually leaving the experimenter with gunk and none of the desired molecules. Miller–Urey and subsequent experiments were not ended because they reached their goal – life – nor because they ran out of energy and materials, but because they reached this dynamic equilibrium, and by adding more of anything would have left them with fewer of the targeted compounds. The amino acids obtained were not the end product but the intermediate between the original molecules and the useless gunk that was the product of the Maillard reaction caused by the energy applied to the system. More complex molecules (and maybe life itself one day) can be created by intelligent designers adding targeted compounds and energies. Then “why can’t natural processes somewhere somehow just mimic the intelligent designer in this vast and almost timeless universe?” The better question is: “why insist on natural processes when the model to be mimicked is that of the intelligent designer?”
- If natural processes were capable of generating life, the environment would be full of intermediate bio-compounds. Life is so complex that laboratories have no hope of replicating it in the foreseeable future. However, if abiogenesis were an outcome of natural processes, the cell structure would be produced only from subsystems and complex biomolecules that in turn would depend on simpler molecules down to H-C-O-N, the atoms of life. A “primordial soup” capable of generating life, thus must contain all intermediate compounds from the atoms of life to the most complex biomolecules and subsystems in an ever-decreasing ratio as complexity increases. Not knowing anything about how this process would work (or even if possible), the most reasonable assumption is a normal distribution of outcomes with life being an n-sigma event (with n unknown) while the availability of the atoms of life being a 1-sigma event and anything else falling in between (Fig 2). Many x-sigma events would be required for each (x+1)-sigma event, with a good first approximation given by the normal density function. Thus, the 2-sigma event could be the basic molecules of life (water, methane, etc.), and we would expect only one of these events for every seven of the 1-sigma events. This approximation would further yield (in one scenario) 1/7 fewer molecules of life than atoms of life, 1/17 fewer simple lipids and carbohydrates molecules (3-sigma) than of molecules of life, 1/43 fewer complex lipids and carbohydrates (4-sigma) than 3-sigma events, 1/110 fewer amino acids (5-sigma) than 4-sigma, 1/291 fewer simple proteins (6-sigma) than 5-sigma, 1/771 fewer complex proteins (7-sigma) than 6-sigma and then – rule of thumb – 1/1600 (8-sigma), 1/3800 (9), 1/9100 (10), 1/22k (11), 1/52k (12), 1/126k (13), etc. fewer of each additional sigma event than previous event where 8+sigma being (this scenario) nucleic acids, short chains, long chains, organelle subsystems, organelles, other critical cell components and finally the fully functional biologic cell – the n-sigma event which is not quite life but good enough for this analysis. Then how can we test this?
- Apart from life itself, the complex molecules of life are nowhere to be found in the universe. To test the ‘natural processes’ hypothesis of abiogenesis, one must observe the intermediate components of life in nature and in the ratios estimated above (or from another reasonable estimate). In addition, one must observe the spontaneous transitions (aided by energy) from simple to complex even if not all transitions are observed at once. Earth is “polluted” with life down to the deepest ocean trenches, therefore the first focus is the extraterrestrial space where, too bad, the largest confirmed interstellar molecules have a maximum of 13 atoms (apart from C60/C70 fullerene). Back on earth we see all intermediate components, but only within life itself. Outside of the cells, aside from the simplest biomolecules, we only see products of decomposition that are never in the ratios associated with abiogenesis, meaning we never see increasing molecule complexity in decreasing ratios resembling anything reasonably expected. Abiogenesis is not happening due to the irreversibility of the entropy increase and for the same reason egg breaking, butter melting, gas mixing, etc. are not reversible processes. Humans can only create a few of the complex molecules, although most always aided by life itself, and even then the power of synthetic biology is severely restricted. The more complex, the harder these molecules are to obtain and the faster they decay instead of spontaneously combining with one another to form even more complex compounds and ultimately life.
- Miller–Urey style abiogenesis experiments are ill conceived, hence doomed from the beginning. To be more specific, they are only good for PR (public relations) given the irrelevant “organic compounds” created that raise the hopes of the believers. Trying to obtain an automobile from scratch by mixing chemicals and energy, qualifies the person attempting as delusional and the one selling such vision as charlatan. So why would those attempting the same with life – which is infinitely more complex than an automobile – not also be labeled charlatans and delusional? Abiogenesis experiments belong to the Reverse Engineering category of processes and, when done right, they are very different than Miller–Urey. Their starting point is never some “primordial soup”, but the most advanced compounds available, preferably already organized in working subsystems. Swapping organelles or parts within organelles, exposing organisms to various environments, attempting to revive dead organisms, substituting engineered subsystems and so on are part of the hard work with long tradition and already being done in medicine and many industries for other purposes than to prove abiogenesis. If and when someone will be able to reverse the decaying and dying processes, we will know that abiogenesis is possible as an act of Intelligent Design creation. To confirm abiogenesis as an “unguided process” we would have to observe reverse-decay and reverse-dying processes happening in nature, not in a lab. Yet 2nd law proves this impossible.
- Is abiogenesis not feasible because it was a unique event? If true, abiogenesis would be a “materialistic miracle” and furthermore not just one, but a long series of “materialistic miracles” since a long series of – so far unknown – events are needed to get from atoms to the simplest organism. Yet one of the tenets of materialism is “no miracles” showing the inconsistency of the materialistic “unique event” assertion. And of course, physics and chemistry transformations are never unique. And even if entropy allowed for abiogenesis, the laws of life do not follow from any priors (physics, chemistry, mathematics). Life has a drive to survive and leave off-springs which entails harm avoidance, immune system, metabolism, food seeking, homeostasis, growth, reproduction, and body structure. Without these, any cell would start decaying the instant it was formed as in fact it does as soon as it no longer is alive. Despite having lasted almost since the formation of The Earth, life is metastable – one knock and it dies and then decays. This is unlike other negative entropy machines that can be restored (rebuilding proportional with the damage).
- Other considerations.
- “Dissipation-driven adaptation of matter” (J. England, MIT) claims that life is inevitable because life “absorbs and dissipates more energy from external sources” leading to faster entropy increase. However, there is no law that entropy has to increase faster. In addition, most of the entropy in the universe is captured by black holes with life having a nil contribution to that entropy.
- Some claim they have obtained “protocells” that seem to mimic real cells at least in part. However, “protocells” are to biological cells as fool’s gold is to real gold.
- “Kolmogorov complexity is lowest at low and high entropy and high in the middle hence life is supposedly inevitable (S. Carroll)”. However, life is not complexity. Life is much more than snowflakes, vortices and chemical reactions (candle burning). And most certainly, life is not the complex swirls of cream mixing into coffee on a journey from low entropy to high entropy (both having low complexity). In addition, unless very specific external action continues to be applied to maintain those patterns, they soon disappear like in sand dunes exposed to shifting winds. The patterns therefore do no “arise”, but are created by an external force.
- “Gradients of energy in deep vents are responsible for abiogenesis”. But all organisms from these exotic places are very similar to any other ones found elsewhere, hence all likely have the same origin. In addition, no free floating organic compounds (aside from decay byproducts) have been found there to suggest ongoing abiogenesis. And, aside from the simplest molecules, no spontaneous transitions from x-sigma to (x+1)-sigma bio complexity has ever been observed around these deep vents either.
- Of course life does not violate 2nd Organisms do conform to 2nd law when they decay as soon as they die. In addition, as observed by Erwin Schrödinger, “the increase in entropy from turning our low-entropy food into our high-entropy waste is greater than the local decrease in entropy from making the well-ordered structures within our bodies”. Nothing special so far – a refrigerator does the same: creates a zone of low-entropy while the entropy of the whole system increases and for as long as it’s fed energy.
- Randomness can theoretically account for any bizarre occurrences including Paley’s watch and F. Hoyle’s 747 in baby steps if enough time is given. But no such event was ever observed. In addition, breaking down the unattainable complex system into a combination of simpler components, each with higher probability of occurrence makes it no easier as the probabilities of all subsystem have to be multiplied to get back to the complex final assembly.
- Some claim that life itself prevents abiogenesis by ingesting all intermediate molecules spontaneously formed, but this can be easily prevented in sterile labs. In addition, all complex intermediate molecules observed outside of cells are due to decomposition, not abiogenesis.
- “Evolution” corollary number 1. If abiogenesis is impossible as an undirected, natural process, then whoever is responsible for abiogenesis is also responsible for the biologic landscape past and present, therefore “evolution” is also impossible as an undirected, natural process.
- “Evolution” corollary number 2. It is easy to verify that nothing ever “evolves” in the nonliving nature. Life is said to be “just chemistry”. These two combine to: nothing “evolves” in the living either. Solar systems, geographical features, fluid eddies, chemistry, snow flakes, etc. all go through their life cycles, and all are different from each other, but the life cycles of the newer entities are no more “evolved” than the life cycles of the ancient ones.
- “Evolution” corollary number 3. Presumably, “evolution” has not ended. And if ongoing, then one must see the normal distribution of the different transitioning organisms (the intermediary), just as we would see if abiogenesis were true. If humans evolved from monkeys and “evolution” is ongoing, then humans must still be in transition especially since the human population is one of the largest of all mammals and, the more individuals, the more “evolving” opportunities. The older Darwinists replied with a hierarchy of races. But that reply is not only fashionably repugnant, but also false and, amazingly, contrary to [at least] the Abrahamic religions that have always known better.
- In conclusion, abiogenesis is nothing more than the decay process running backwards, therefore easily visualized, yet impossible according to the second law of thermodynamics. In other words, “evolution” is nothing more than imagination run wild. Expecting abiogenesis to be within reach if only the proper forces and chemical compounds were added is as wrong as expecting the broken egg to come back together if only the proper sequence of forces were applied to the broken pieces.
Summary:
- A spontaneous process cannot revert spontaneously.
- Mixtures will never ever spontaneously separate per second law.
- Decreasing entropy is not the reverse process of entropy increasing and also much more complex.
- Once in equilibrium, a “primordial soup” does not change spontaneously.
- A “primordial soup” cannot generate life even if energy is applied due to dynamic equilibrium.
- If natural processes were capable of generating life, the environment would be full of intermediate bio-compounds.
- Apart from life itself, the complex molecules of life are nowhere to be found in the universe.
- Abiogenesis experiments belong to the Reverse Engineering category of processes.
- Miller–Urey style abiogenesis experiments are ill conceived, hence doomed from the beginning.
- Abiogenesis unique event conflicts with the “no miracles” clause of materialism.
- Even if entropy allowed abiogenesis, the laws of life do not follow from any priors (physics, chemistry, mathematics).
- “Evolution” corollary number 1 – no abiogenesis, no “evolution”.
- “Evolution” corollary number 2 – no “evolution” in the inert and “life just chemistry”, then no “evolution” in the living.
- “Evolution” corollary number 3 – no intermediate “evolving” entities, no “evolution”.
- Being a decay process running backwards, abiogenesis is as impossible as a broken egg being reconstituted by the “proper sequence of forces”. “Evolution” is also nothing more than imagination run wild.
(*)R. Penrose “The Emperor’s new mind”; PBS SpaceTime “The Misunderstood Nature of Entropy”; Sean Carroll “From Eternity to Here”, etc.
Links:
Abiogenesis: The Faith and the Facts
James Tour: The Mystery of the Origin of Life
Chirality, Maillard – caramelization, characterize the structure at every step:
https://creation.com/why-the-miller-urey-research-argues-against-abiogenesis
https://evolutionnews.org/2014/06/squeezing_the_l/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21422282
Entropy of a box of molecules
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2253472/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normal_distribution#Cumulative_distribution_function
http://physics.bu.edu/~redner/211-sp06/class-engines/class25_secondlaw.html
https://www.quora.com/How-quickly-is-the-entropy-of-the-sun-changing
https://www.thoughtco.com/how-many-atoms-in-human-cell-603882
https://www.amazon.com/Mysteries-Modern-Physics-Sean-Carroll/dp/1598038699
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Elements_abundance-bars.svg – abundance in the solar system
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller%E2%80%93Urey_experiment
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proteinogenic_amino_acid
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_gene_synthesis
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/a-new-physics-theory-of-life/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dissipative_system
https://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/dynamic/exploring.html
I am asking you to demonstrate that you have at least a minimal understanding of entropy by pointing out the errors in those two paragraphs.
[Tip: this discussion has nothing to do with natural selection, fitness, speciation, human evolution, gradualism, divergence of character, UCD, TOL, etc. ]
It appears to me, and anyone here who got past High School physics, that you have no clue whatsoever about entropy. Prove us wrong!
What, precisely, is wrong with the following:
Why don’t you focus on this OP instead of shooting the sky?
I know, right? Shannon hijacked “entropy”, but obviously data is not material and there is no “information” in particle physics. Not that there’s anything “material” at all, but that’s another discussion.
Not me. See above.
The microstate-macrostate frame is pretty clear.
Theoretically (with good enough insulation) the fridge interior is and remains in equilibrium. Last I checked, the living are somewhat different than an isolated ice box. Anyway, what has any of that to do with this OP?
Actually, the discussion is picking up and clearly more intelligent. So no, not “all comments” are nonsense. Do try to keep up.
This is retard. I make a number of very bold claims in this OP that you have yet to dispute let alone disprove.
So instead of addressing those, you come up with a “test” for others? No, you are the one being tested. How much exactly do you understand of this OP and more importantly, is there anything you can disprove? If not, you either agree “entropy forbids abiogenesis” or you clearly lack a “minimal understanding of entropy”.
You would be better off explaining why those points were abysmal, rather then just declaring it and then ignoring them.
You ask for respect in the same sentence as you utterly disrespect the effort put into making those points you call abysmal. The thing is unless you explain why they are abysmal it’s clear you don’t have answers.
If you really wanted a respectful conversation you’d explain to your intolocur why their point were abysmal and how they could improve their understanding.
Simply declaring it so you don’t have to address it shows how weak your position is. A strong position would have answers for such points, however abysmal. That you ignore them and skip over them is very telling. You don’t have the answers or knowledge required to make a cogent case so you pretend nothing was ever said.
See, this is why I’m not ‘up to the challenge’: you don’t know what the hell you are talking about. If you ignore the role of energy in chemistry and entropic gradients, or don’t see why it matters, how is anyone to persuade you otherwise? Take a frigging course!
Your essay is about entropy. The 2nd Law is about entropy. So that’s a pretty clear connection. But you are ignoring energy. You are taking a kindergarten approach in imagining that entropy is simply about arrangements of matter, represented by films running backwards.
Is a folded protein more or less ‘ordered’ than a freshly sythesised peptide? How is that order achieved?
Anyway, I’m off to see if I can generate some electricity from a shuffled card deck or a messy dorm.
The OP is an example of Creationist misuse of entropy, shot through with misapplication of the ‘order’ viewpoint. So …
Hahahaaaa! Good one.
I obliterated all of them. Keep up.
You poor illiterate. Since a “primordial soup” is an open system it cannot reach thermodynamic equilibrium. Keep up.
Are you sure?
Either way, that you fail to understand why endothermic reactions have indeed something to do with your cartoon of an essay, you’re still displaying dismaying ignorance.
Keep up.
No such fridge exists. What happens when you open the door to put food in to cool or to take out food to eat? In reality a fridge works because it is not in equilibrium with the kitchen.
A fridge is not an isolated system.
The second law of thermodynamics is supposed to be universal, no? I’m trying a simple example to point out that systems maintained in disequilibrium can happen without any violation of the second law, both fridges and living organisms. If you are claiming there are two laws – one for fridges and one for living organisms – you need to clarify that.
They obliterated your whole cartoon of an essay and demonstrated that you have no idea about thermodynamics. You even agreed with one of them: that a “primordial soup” is not a closed system, only you fail to understand that it obliterates at least half of your “points.”
So you think it’s illogical to say that a “primordial soup” would be an open system? Because you ignored that one only to, later, agree with me.
What about you took your time and considered what I said. I doubt that you’d understand any of it. After all, you think that an open system is one that reaches thermodynamic equilibrium. It’s not as if I tried again, I could expect an intelligent answer from you this time around. Your intelligence and literacy are not about to improve out of the blue.
Muahahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaa! Good one Nonlin. You reap what you sow. Isn’t that something they teach you in Bible school?
Are you sure?
Because if you have changed your mind, then the point about entropy and organization with changes in temperature holds.
As Allan said, all we can do is point and laugh.
Information for nonlin:
You are not alone in claiming some problem for evolutionary processes created by the second law of thermodynamics, I think creationists have been claiming problems since the 1970’s. A creationist called Mark Champneys has even made a video recently purporting to explain the problem, complete with verses and music. Granville Sewell, the world-famous expert on all sorts of entropies, featured it in an article at Uncommon descent.
The video was spotted and examined at Pandas Thumb and found to be wanting – the comments section is entertaining if anyone is locked down and bored. The fridge analogy gets discussed in the comments, too. Maybe nonlin should try his luck there if he/she is finding the respect levels a little low here.
Nooooooooooooooo! Really!? All this time I’ve been thinking that Nonlin was an original!!!
Exactly.
You say that, but it’s you that’s doing it.
This is the exchange in question:
You did not point out any logical errors, just said they were abysmal.
One one side we have people who are willing to engage and make their case, on the other we have you dismissing everything everyone has to say without explaining why they are wrong.
We’ll see how successful you are won’t we? How many people convinced so far?
OMagain,
It’s me who wrote that “Exactly.” Not Nonlin.
I copied your point because you said it much better than me.
I was thinking all this time that nonlin thought that nonlin was being original!
Nonlin: “Theoretically (with good enough insulation) the fridge interior is and remains in equilibrium.”
If you believe this then I have a perpetual-motion machine that you may be interested in buying.
Nonlin: “Last I checked, the living are somewhat different than an isolated ice box.”
You still don’t get it – **there is no such thing as an isolated ice box** – and for the same reason that life cannot be separated thermodynamically from its inorganic environment. Living things survive because they maintain chemical order by dissipating energy.
Nonlin: “Anyway, what has any of that to do with this OP?”
Think harder. Do it now.
Yes, I was trying to quote two people at once and that never goes well in wordpress 😉
OMagain,
No worries. In the end, when someone wants to understand the point, few words and corrections are necessary. When someone’s Nonlin, it makes no difference whatever we write or how well we write it.
Stop beating the bush and make your point if any.
How is this random question related to what I wrote? If you show the relation, I will reply, if not, fo.
And your proof is… NONE. Let’s cut the BS, will you?
Stupid comment of the year. Of course, you can isolate a “primordial soup” in thermodynamic equilibrium.
That’s exactly what I said. You don’t know the meaning of “theoretical”?!? Soo embarrassing…
Ok, so? What exactly do you think you’re disputing?
WTF is this gibberish?
I’ll review for entertainment. Anyway, what has THAT to do with THIS?
Yes. I reserve the right to ignore imbecilities.
By disputing, you’re saying “equilibrium cannot be achieved even theoretically”. And that’s retard.
Yeah man. Only, if you read for comprehension, I’m fine with the living surviving, and am only demolishing “abiogenesis”.
And you’re asking for respect?
The stupid comments are all yours, since you insist on talking about scenarios that are irrelevant to the origin of life. Try harder: the origin of life was not in a thermodynamically closed system. Did you understand that now, or your childish mentality cannot handle that much information?
Yet again your illiteracy holds. You could have followed the link, or is that beyond your mental capabilities too?
I’m not putting the link here again. If you could not click on a link, then putting it here again would be useless. It’s enough to say that you cannot follow a link to have a laugh at your expense, which is the most that can be done for you.
The link was for everyone following this thread. Though it might be instructive. Badly though Mark Champneys fares in that thread, he does a better job than you.
The title of your OP is “Entropy forbids Abiogenesis & Evolution”, a much more ambitious claim than Champneys and consequently a much more spectacular failure. Let me suggest, as others have done, if our criticisms have been unable to dent your confidence in your “ideas”, take them somewhere more public than our backwater. You are as ready as you will ever be. Go with God.
According to nonlin’s interpretation, 2LoT forbids abiogenesis.
According to nonlin’s interpretation, 2LoT forbids ice formation.
It’s a puzzler.
All of the thermodynamic arguments against evolution, and against abiogenesis, apply equally well to forbidding LIFE. Hint for nonlin: there’s something that timothya wrote about life that you should pay more attention to.
I think we should stop making fun of Nonlin’s illiteracy. This one is too cruel.
Mark Champneys made some decent points. Not great. And his focus is on “evolution”. Mine is more on “abiogenesis” without which of course there’s no “evolution”. I see Felsenstein is the defender on panda’s and he does a mediocre job. Is he no longer browsing TSZ? Or did he go mute?
Haha. Based on what? Your feeeelings?
Not yet I see.
Where would you get this stupid idea? Do tell. Btw, NOT cool to misrepresent!
You wish. But hey, maybe you will support your outlandish claims one day. Not to-day.
OMFG! Haaaaaaahahahahaaaaaaa! This from one whose whole babbling is based on what? Her feelings! Haaaaaahahahahaaaaa!
Haaaaaaaahahahahahaaaaaaa! Good one Nonlin!!
Haaaaaaaahahahahahaaaaaaa! “be respectful” Muahahahahaaaaaa! “not cool to misrepresent” Haaaaaaaahahahahahaaaaaaa! “you don’t understand entropy” Hahahahaaaa! Nonlin and her lack of self-awareness!
Don’t they teach that thing about “the beam in thy own eye” anymore in Bible school Nonlin? Or are you in some other religion that teaches the opposite? For you to be a hypocrite and not to expect to sow what you reap?
Made it. Your failure to grasp it ain’t really my problem.
Haha. Mr. B. Respectful.
You should be able to answer it anyway, surely? If you understand entropy and the role of energy transfer in spontaneous change, that is. If you don’t understand, you can bluster as above, and we can point and laugh.
My proof is the OP and your subsequent snippy ramblings. You’re a Creationist, and your OP is based on the simplistic ‘order/disorder’ view, illustrated by particles in a box, with no consideration of energy. Ergo, you’re an example of a Creationist misunderstanding and misusing entropy, particularly in relation to chemical systems.
You first.
If the ‘primordial soup’ ended up in equilibrium, how come the oceans aren’t in equilibrium any more? It’s not just Life that keeps them out of equilibrium.
You failed to read or understand.
I do explain very clearly – see paragraph 5. A “primordial soup” cannot generate life even if energy is applied
Furthermore, there are 14 paragraphs and 15 conclusions. At best you’re addressing just one of many important points.
Also, the “primordial soup” discussed is definitely not “particles in a box”. So… wrong again.
Your words are a clear example of poor reading comprehension.
Step one: “soup in equilibrium doesn’t work”.
Step two: “soup not in thermodynamic equilibrium doesn’t work either”.
I just realize the “problem” with Champneys:
While correct in most of his claims, he attacks “evolution” which is such a fluid myth that Felsenstein and others can retreat from one BS to another thus avoiding outright defeat.
In contrast, I show that undirected abiogenesis is impossible on the account of entropy transitions being asymmetrical and on contrary experimental evidence for abiogenesis. Being much more straightforward and with much less wiggle room, abiogenesis (lack thereoff) also invalidates “evolution”. As shown.
Abiogenesis is a collection of hypotheses about how living organisms first came to be on Earth. Evolution stands alone as a well established theory to explain the subsequent diversity.
Allowing for one second for the sake of argument* that 2LOT were to undermine some abiogenesis hypothesis, it does not follow that evolution is thus implicated.
You’ve shown nothing to anyone’s satisfaction but your own.
ETA*
Yawn!
Thus only one of the “points” refers to open systems. Good work Nonlin, since no scientist has ever proposed that life started in a closed system you got rid of all your “points” but one.
Good to see you realizing that you’re just writing complains against abiogenesis out of your ass.
You just admitted that only point 5 was about open systems.
Yet your whole “close system” diatribe was based on particles in a box. Good job destroying your own bullshit Nonlin. Not that this would be the first time you do so and fail to notice.
Again, no scientist is proposing such a thing for the origin of life. So, good to see you finally catching up.
On your say so? Sorry, but we’re not about to take your word for it. No matter how much this might hurt your feelings.
Since we’ve established that you have no idea about chemical reactions, we’re done here. You got rid of all your “points” but one, and the one doesn’t hold to scrutiny. However, you have shown that you’re not prepared for a conversation on that “point,” since you don’t get how that relates to life or to any other physical/chemical process. Thus you’re stuck by your arrogant ignorance there.
Given that, I leave you to your petulance, ignorance and illiteracy.
Let me know once you’re mentally prepared to learn something, maybe in ten years or so, and we might be able to start a true conversation about it.
Then we are left with two conclusions:
You are in error.
The origin of life was guided/designed.
Presuming that you are not in fact in error, what do you have to say about guided abiogenesis and the true origin of life?
Is your guider material (possibly an Alien) or immaterial (a god such as described in the bible), in your view?
In short, now you have demonstrated what is not are you capable of making a positive case for what is?
Well, I concede the point, but one has to wade through particles-in-a-box, closed systems and a mathematical treatment of particle distributions, with no energy states, to get there.
But what you arrive at is a simple assertion, not a proof. Here’s a counter-assertion: no amount of ‘intelligence’ can overcome the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.
You are kind of right in the sentence quoted. It seems implausible that Life can arise in open solution. But that merely removes that specific physical setup from consideration.
The other aspect to energy is what I was getting at with the illustrative example of protein folding. That is ‘spontaneous’ in an aqueous environment. But it’s not spontaneous because energy is ‘applied’. It’s spontaneous because energy escapes. This escape gives local ‘order’. Life as a whole works by tapping into processes of equilibration, not perturbation.
There’s no point going through it all if you don’t get the basics right.
Or poor writing on your part.
Creating a pointless discussion. No-one says it does.
Possibly. Is that it, then? The prebiotic environment consisted of nothing but ‘soup’?
Exactly! Darwin’s “warm little pond” has long been discarded as a venue for first life to get started.
No amount of hinting has gotten this point across. Evidently, basic High School thermodynamics is beyond these guys. Sigh.
Let’s step-by-step your argument:
1. 2nd law forbids abiogenesis as undirected…
2. This means life was created
3. The Creator also makes the laws of life.
4. Oops. Scratch that. “We no want no ID here”
5. The Creator leaves the scene after creating life (goes on vacation?)
6. For no particular reason and out of the blue, some undirected mechanism takes over in that vacuum of power?!?
7. The Creator never comes back to inquire about His creation?!?
Help me out. Where exactly is your reasoning going wrong? Because, you will agree, 6. and 7. are too crazy.
Actually, a guy right here wrote that 2nd law allows for statistical fluctuations even in equilibrium and those account for the miracles of abiogenesis because they’re so many. So, you see, I had to address “the scientist”. Ain’t that right, FKA Math Genius?
Now, this is only accounts for 2. and 4. (and as you see, I had to do it), so how do you figure “all…but one” anyway?
My advice: read for comprehension and ask for help if not your cup.
Not what I’m asking for. As you see (if you read) I present some well constructed proofs besides “your [my] word”. So go beyond “your [my] word”. Maybe look at the pictures too (sorry, no cute cats this time) and tell me what, if anything, you understand. Sorry, this is an unpaid internship.
Let’s explore “doesn’t hold to scrutiny”, shall we?
One step at a time. Let’s not “presume”; let’s make sure. I like to know, don’t you?
You concede but… ? What exactly do you concede, and why is there a “but” afterwards?
Actually, I think I offered proofs. So what do you think is missing?
What other “setups” are there? Panspermia?
You’re probably referring to something like this .
They qualify that by “However, the summation of the hydrophobic effect, hydrogen bonding, and van der Waals forces is greater in magnitude than the loss of entropy.”
Rest assured the 2nd law is not violated. Entropy of the full system does go up. And if you try to argue against my work by arguing against the 2nd law, you’re on the loosing side already.
Meaning?
Good! Time to discard the rest of Darwin’s nonsense!
But what else is there? Hydro vents? “Dissipation-driven adaptation of matter”? They’re all addressed in 10. Other considerations.
It’s not Alan’s reasoning that goes wrong. It’s more that you think that you know what such a “Creator” would want to do with “Her” “Creation”, and that everybody else agrees that what you think this “Creator” would do is precisely what this “Creator” would do.” So, it would not be Her will that would matter, but yours. Right? A powerful “Creator” would have no more imagination that Nonlin.
If a Magical Being in the Sky made life it doesn’t follow that “She” would make it so it wouldn’t evolve. I’d think that this would be an open question. I’d think that we could not know whether this “Creator” cared much about us or our opinions, or not at all. I’d think that I better be modest about what I can guess this “Creator” would do.
Given your illiteracy I doubt that’s what that person said. Some links for verification would have helped, but I doubt you have the literacy to find the comments and link to them.
In the meantime, every scientists describes open systems in their proposals for abiogenesis, and I’d side with scientists over an illiterate like yourself each and every time.
Because you could not point to more than one. I wouldn’t be surprised if you were wrong about your own bullshit though.
Irony-meter exploded.
We devastated everything you wrote. So, yes, just on your word. Take one example. You claim that abiogenesis is decay running backwards, yet you don’t see how ridiculous that claim is, nor do you offer any proof that before-life-started, hydrothermal vents consisted of decaying cadavers, or tide pools consisted of decaying cadavers, or that any system every proposed consisted of decaying cadavers, Leaving aside how nonsensical that would be. You have not shown any evidence either that scientists are proposing that life started when decaying cadavers just started running their decay backwards.
Already checked. Still, supposing we tried again, I do not believe in miracles, and getting you to read for comprehension and remain honest, would take a huge one to happen. Thus, this “exploration,” with you, is impossible.
Is there some doubt then? You seem quite confident in your claims. Nobody here has found a chink in your armor, according to you.
So, why wait? Why not progress onto the next stage now? Do all your opponents have to declare you the victor before you can move on?
Let’s make sure? Sure of what? What remains.
I concede that you mentioned energy. The ‘but’ has the meaning of ‘although’.
Proofs are for mathematics, You have merely asserted that abiogenesis is ‘impossible’ on entropic grounds.
A decent grasp of the subject matter.
There are more physical environments on earth than open solution.
Gosh, you can Google.
First you think Asimov is arguing against the 2nd Law, now you think it’s me. I am not. I am pointing out that a spontaneous process can occur without adding energy, entirely in accord with the 2nd Law. The energy, instead, dissipates.
Meaning life taps into the dissipation of entropic gradients, not their formation. Internalising this is a first step in learning about the relationship between entropy and Life.
What is hilarious is the basic form of the argument:
1) On thermodynamic grounds, Life cannot arise from non-life.
2) As a result of this line of argumentation, we can abandon thermodynamics altogether, and postulate an entity that can make stuff happen just by thinking about it. Including, but not restricted to, moving atoms past each other without having them follow an entropic gradient on their way to their desired position.
You should write this up for publication in Nature, Nonlin. They are absolutely gagging for this sort of content. You’re wasting your time among us small fry.
No. You’re missing biggly: the word is “undirected”. Sure, if you want to go for “3. The Creator also makes the laws of life”, I’m fine with that. But as soon as you go for “undirected”, you can’t untie “evolution” from abiogenesis.
He knows what he wrote and can vouch one way or another.
And you know what else? He was right to make a move for ‘fluctuations’. Violent transitions are rare in nature. The universe is mostly in quasi-equilibrium. Too bad entropy forbids them fluctuations.
Talk about “illiteracy”. Wow! You’re useless even as an intellectual punching bag. The point is: Of course there is no undirected abiogenesis. Those that imagine that aberration see the decay process movies and think naively that said movie can run in either direction. But of course that’s false. As demonstrated.
You do believe in undirected abiogenesis which is the biggest miracle of them all. Too bad it ain’t possible.
Yes.