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
No “can”. “Must”! That’s the meaning of “spontaneous”. You’re on shaky ground with ‘energy’. Here’s an interesting take on that: https://backreaction.blogspot.com/2020/10/what-is-energy-is-energy-conserved.html
My point is that whatever happens spontaneously, doesn’t also reverse spontaneously. Therefore, since decay is spontaneous, abiogenesis – the reverse-decay – cannot happen. Simple!
Translate “taps” into physics.
WTF does “dissipation of entropic gradients” mean?
Thermodynamics is fine. Undirected abiogenesis is not. Furthermore, I am not “postulating” anything. We’ll discuss “what next” once we agree “undirected abiogenesis” is not possible or prove otherwise.
Don’t be so modest. As an impartial 3rd party observer, they’re no brighter than you.
Depends on the definition for “undirected.” If by undirected you mean “purely random,” then you have two problems: (1) you imagine that non-random is synonymous with “some god is doing it” (2) you’re either defining deterministic processes like gravitation to be random, or you’re imagining that they’re moves that could not happen unless performed personally by a magical being.
However, if a Magical Being could create a whole universe, I don’t see why “She” could not make it so a mixture of random processes and deterministic processes occurred and were all that’s needed for evolution to happen without any further intervention from said magical being.
So, not only you think that a Magical Being in the Sky, would have less imagination than you, you also think that “She” would be so powerless, that “She” could only make a nature whose only “property” would be abject randomness.
By now they would have told me. So, don’t claim, show. In my experience, you cannot read for comprehension if your life depended on it. So, unless you can show me, I can safely assume that you misinterpreted whatever you read. You do that all the time.
That “fluctuations” can happen in equilibrium doesn’t mean that they don’t happen out of equilibrium, Let alone that the comment was meant to propose that abiogenesis happened in a closed system.
Fluctuations can happen catastrophically too. They don’t need to be calm and nice.
No scientist, as far as I know, is proposing that life started under/because-of violent transitions, thought that would be interesting.
Lots of stars, pulsars, comets, etc, beg to differ about whether violent transitions are rare. It’s possible, though, that we have different definitions for “violent”, and/or for “rare,” just like we might have different definitions for “directed.”
There’s tons of stars that beg to differ, but let’s suppose so: so what? Does your “quasi” mean that nothing at all can happen? You know we’re both reading and writing, right? So, something is happening, right? Unless you think everything on Earth is breaking the second law of thermodynamics. But, then again, how was such law conceptualized if nothing on Earth follows such patterns?
Tell that to the next tide you see, or the next time a new day dawns, or the next volcano erupts, the next meal your digest: “hey! you’re forbidden by the universe!”
But that wasn’t your “point”. You clearly said “decay running backwards” without any support for that claim other than your say so. Yet again, where’s the evidence that hydrothermal vents, etc, etc, were composed of decaying cadavers before there was any life there? How could something that hasn’t happen run in reverse Nonlin? Do you really not see how ridiculous your claim is?
Of course there’s no “undirected” abiogenesis. It’s “directed” by molecular properties, by entropy and enthalpy. The result of some mixture of random and deterministic phenomena. The properties of matter, the thermodynamics involved in how these atoms and molecules interact.
I have worked with some people investigating abiogenesis, and I have talked with many others in conferences: not a single one imagines a movie running backwards. Not one presents any scenario where a movie runs both ways either. Not a single one. Again, you’re saying so doesn’t make it so.
Demonstrated what? That abiogenesis cannot be decay running backwards? We already knew it. No need for some illiterate like yourself to come and tell us.
When did I say that? Show me, with a link, that I believe in “undirected” abiogenesis. That I don’t believe in Magical Beings in the Sky doesn’t mean that I believe all of nature to be abject randomness. It’s you who imagines that “direction” can only come from magical beings, not me. I see and I learn. I see somewhat deterministic processes, I see somewhat random ones. Therefore both happen.
Nonlin.org,
Good. So what’s this about energy being ‘applied’? Why is it relevant? No-one is proposing that Life arose from an equilibrium state. But there are numerous means of generating non-equilibrium states. The usual rejoinder is to point to photosynthesis. There, energy is ‘applied’ to an electron in the first instance. Then, in ‘spontaneous’ cascades (negative ΔG), it returns to its unexcited state, but on the way drives a proton gradient away from equilibrium. This in turn drives ATP formation, which molecule can then be coupled to other reactions, giving a net negative ΔG.
The ‘application’ of energy there is limited to the initial excitation. Everything from that point on is a result of equilibration. The change in ‘order’, as we tend to understand the term, is not represented by the excited electron, but by the states lower in the cascade – complex molecules, growth etc.
But another example is chemosynthesis. There is no ‘applied’ energy there at all. Instead, the chain is driven by a cascade of serial electronegativity. Chemical potential energy is harvested, again through proton pumps and ATP. Entire ecosystems thrive on this ultimate source, with barely a joule from photosynthesis or other ‘applied’ energy.
As illustrated above, all that is required is an ‘excited’, or higher-energy state. Life does not reverse the energy cascade, so there is no need to suppose that abiogenesis does either. Just as the sun does not push water back through the turbines of a hydro scheme (and it wouldn’t work very well if it did).
Thinking of entropy change as films running forwards or backwards is highly inaccurate.
I think you are perfectly capable of grasping the sense of that. If I were to ‘tap into’ a live wire, I could extract some of the energy for other purposes, such as frying eggs, or myself.
Really? It’s basic stuff. When a low-entropy , out-of-equilibrium state is poised to equilibrate (to move towards an accessible equilibrium state), there is a thermodynamic ‘gradient’, by analogy with a ball on a slope. As the equilibrium state is reached, the gradient levels off. The potential energy has ‘dissipated’, and is unavailable for work.
OK, ‘undirected abiogenesis’ is not possible. What next? How does your alternative deal with thermodynamic considerations?
Nonlin.org,
What, by volume? 🤣
Where’s all that light coming from, then, by night and by day?
Chemical thermodynamics for beginners
This “mixture” you speak of is pretty much the Darwinisto-atheistic claim. Which doesn’t work as I show here and elsewhere. Also, this “mixture” is logically incompatible with God. As shown. But little kid wants his cake and eat it too.
Furthermore, if God set up a self sustaining process, would you still call that “undirected”? Humans do that all the time and we don’t call it “undirected”.
Well, they don’t (can’t) happen in equilibrium as shown. One of my Big findings! And “fluctuations out of equilibrium” is meaningless.
We shouldn’t. I just addressed “directed”. As far as “rare”, anything inanimate is at least 90% of time in quasi-equilibrium, hence “rare”. And the living have or seek homeostasis also most of the time.
No. If the temperature goes up and down over a day, from second to second, the transition is not big enough to trigger anything violent like a rock splitting and falling from a mountain.
No. Those are external interventions. Not fluctuations in equilibrium.
You just don’t get it.
Nope. Entropy is not symmetrical. Big point 1! Also, there’s no intermediate compound evidence. Big point 2! See Fig 1 and Fig 2.
They are not aware.
Process cannot be random. Look it up. Also, deterministic is determined by something specific.
I already addressed. Yes they do. And they better.
The topic is abiogenesis.
The film shows the arrow of time. Forward and backward films of glass shattering and egg falling on hard surface are classics.
Then call it thus, not “entropic gradient”.
Why exactly? You don’t mean it.
It’s “quasi”. And I just expanded on that.
Allan Miller,
Are you making any progress?
To all the smart kids out there:
I am changing “complexity” to “non-random complexity”
Q1: Why?
Q2: How do we determine “non-random” in “non-random complexity”?
I will add 10.H to address this guy’s claim starting min 9:00 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nNK3u8uVG7o
Basically, he’s saying that F. Hoyle and C. Wickramasinghe estimate the probability of undirected abiogenesis to 1 in 10^40,000, a virtual impossibility. He counters with “incremental steps” which have a much larger chance of occurring and with a “much simpler proto life” target that is presumably easier to reach.
Q3: Why is this a fallacy?
Q4: How should we explain this to him?
If no one knows, I will provide the answers next time.
It’s a scientific claim that has nothing to do with atheism. That it doesn’t include gods is only evidence that so far “we have no use for such hypothesis.” It’s not evidence that no gods made it this way.
The only thing you’ve shown is that you have no idea. That you’re utterly confused. That you have problems with abstractions and definitions.
You didn’t show such a thing. You only showed that you think you can rule what “God” would or would not do, and how “She” would do it.
I don’t cal it “undirected” regardless of gods. Can you read at all?
Where? I did not see you addressing anything about “directed.” I just saw you failing to read what I wrote about it.
Pointing to something you think to be in “quasi-equilibrium” only “proves” that some things are in “quasi-equilibrium,” not that the whole universe is.
Are you mistaking homeostasis for thermodynamic equilibrium now?
So what? Why would it matter if it’s violent or not? You seem to be arguing against yourself.
Why should I care? I’m not the one insisting on equilibrium. That’s you. You said that most of the universe is in quasi-equilibrium, as if that meant that nothing happens or nothing should happen. Again: suppose that the universe is in quasi-equilibrium: so what? There’s still a lot of stuff going on, therefore your “quasi-equilibrium” claim (it’s just that, a claim), is useless for the discussion.
I get it all right. You claimed that abiogenesis is a decay process running backwards, and, when confronted with the astounding absurdity of your own claim, you cannot just accept your mistake and move on.
When did I say that entopy was symmetrical Nonlin? Did you even read a text you quoted yourself? Here it is:
Where’s the symmetry in that text Nonlin?
Oh goody. Another thread on entropy and the second law of thermodynamics. Maybe I’ll learn something for a change.
I addressed your false claim: here it goes again: no scientist proposes thatlife started from an equilibrium state. Clear now?
We all know. Only we understand that abiogenesis, like anything that happens, works with entropy, not against it. The examples of any processes are meant to get that point across, but your ignorance of entropy and processes makes it pretty much impossible for you to see the connection.
Sure, “scientific”… Hmm, “no god” kind of always means “atheism”. Kind of by definition.
Writing your own dictionary? Well, good luck with that.
Ok Karen.
Let’s see: homeostasis maintains the temperature, the volume and the pressure… to not speak of electric charge, radioactivity and so on… Hmm…
Quasi-equilibrium means less is going on. We kind of know that from chemistry and physics. Not you though. But just in case, quantify “a lot of stuff” to make sure. So you can look at trillions and trillions of whatever, but if not much is going on, then not much abiogenesis either. Not that any at all is happening where the action is either.
Did I mention “imaginary”? Kind of a fact… as far as we know experimentally. So yes, you can run back and forth at will… in your imagination.
When did I say you said so?
What do you mean “another”? Go on, link to some of the other ones you know. Fun! Fun! Fun!
And your experimental proof is?!?
Yes. Scientific. Not using a god as a hypothesis is not atheism, is trying to figure things out from what we can test and gather. Can we put gods in a flask? Test their amount of power? Test whether they need proportional amounts of energy as we do for thinking? Test their willingness to make life in one go or allow it to evolve? Check how many universes they can create per second? Check if they can create a single one to begin with?
Nope. Just refusing to be trapped in your false dichotomy. Lots of phenomena in physics, for example, are called “laws” because they follow patterns that can be put into equations: they have direction. No need to make my our dictionary. The meaning of words depends on their context, their etymologies, their evolution, our willingness to understand each other, and human ingenuity. I take “directed” to mean that something has a direction. If you don’t like it, at least you should be able to understand it. Are you?
So, you, and any other life form, don’t need to do anything, like, say, feeding, breathing, etc, in order to keep homeostasis? Hmmm …
For one, you cannot know how much is going on all across the universe. For another, look around you! Our tiny planet has a lot going on in this comparatively tiny space. I don’t need more out-of-equilibrium than this to be thoroughly impressed. A single hurricane can destroy large cities. A single earthquake can do as much. And you think something as tiny as the first life would require much more when so much life flourishes around you? Your own life doesn’t look impressive enough to convince you that quite a lot happens?
You have no sense of proportion. Call it whatever you like. Call it “quasi-equilibrium” if you wish. It’s still a discussion about the meaning of “a lot” and “quasi”, etc, but useless as a complain against abiogenesis.
Who cares? The fact is that no scientist is proposing abiogenesis as decay running backwards. Your mere claiming so doesn’t make it so. When will you learn that your claims are no evidence?
So you cannot read what you wrote either? Your illiteracy knows no limits.
So you think everything works against entropy?! Holy crap! Was all this talk about entropy “forbidding this and that” against your will?
1) You’re going to have to provide some evidence of that.
2) I don’t. If there are such people, I disagree with them.
The topic is abiogenesis and entropy. If you can’t grasp the latter in relation to biological systems, you aren’t really up to discussing the plausibility of transition.
The topic is abiogenesis.
I’ll call it what the fuck I like. The term is well established. I’m following convention, not inventing my own.
Yes I do. You’ve convinced me. Isn’t that your objective? Now, about your alternative … why so shy?
Sticking ‘quasi’ in front does not make it any less of a clueless statement. You really think the sun is in ‘quasi equilibrium’? And all those other twinkling sun-like objects?
No, but I enjoy a good laugh.
Perhaps we could have a chat about Weasel instead.
Well, get this, Nonlin thinks that homeostasis is thermodynamic equilibrium.
Every time I think “that’s just too much!” Nonlin manages to do worse.
It’s a goldmine. A glowing universe in ‘quasi-equilibrium’, abiogenesis as ‘reverse decay’ (perhaps that’s what Creation is: bacteria regurgitating an entire zebra 🤣).
False. We can and DO test for intelligent design when looking for ET life. And let’s go back to “entropy forbids abiogenesis”.
Not mine. It’s in the dictionary… the one we all use to communicate. Yes, I too sometimes disagree with the dictionary. The difference is that I disagree to clarify whereas you disagree to confuse. Being always confused as you are…
That would be fine. Except
1. wasn’t “evolution” supposed to be aimless?
2. a specific direction requires a specific source.
3. that source is what we’re talking about. Is it intelligence or what?
This random question doesn’t follow.
“Tiny”?!? Go make some life if such a trifle. And where’s the quantification of “a lot of stuff”? Anyway, I’m done explaining the obvious.
And anyway, I didn’t even use the quasi-equilibrium argument to show that entropy forbids abiogenesis.
That is exactly what they DO propose! If decay goes from the living cell to its basic molecules, they propose building from the basic molecules to the living cell. But since entropy change is not symmetrical, this is a hopeless task.
No, clueless one. I made a well-supported claim, namely that entropy is not symmetrical. That would be too much thinking for you, so of course it was not a reply to your primitive blabber.
“Against entropy”?!? No, not in this movie.
Allan Miller,
So why bother “replying” if all you have is 100% pure bullshit? Go peddle elsewhere.
Not exactly, but perhaps reading is not your forte. Or is it comprehension? Probably both.
Did you see this?
Nonlin.org,
Talk about smart kids, is it possible that not one of you can answer these simple questions?
The false dichotomy is not in the dictionary, it’s all yours. It’s not the dictionary that divides things into either abject randomness or magical-beings-in-the-sky. That’s only you and some of your creationist comrades.
Depends on how we look at it. It’s aimless in terms that it’s not trying to make something specific, it’s not aimless in terms of having a direction towards organisms better fitted to their environments.
Directions can vary from very specific to not so much. Survival given a very specific environment could be thought of as very specific (obviously), yet whatever survives there could be wide open, also depending on what has survived before. So, it’s a mix of directions, limitations, and openness.
The “sources” are from the life forms in place to what the environmental conditions might be.
For gravitation the direction depends on the masses involved and their relative distances, for electrical repulsions and attractions, depends on how strong the charges and how far from each other too, etc. So, again, direction doesn’t mean magical-beings-in-the-sky. It just means direction.
That you’d think it a random question shows that you truly have no idea. Remember it’s you who mistakes homeostasis with thermodynamic equilibrium. On top of that you don’t know why asking about feeding and breathing to keep homeostasis would be a pertinent question. Hmm …
From your unawareness about the relationship between eating, breathing, and homeostasis, as related to your amazingly ignorant claim that homeostasis is thermodynamic equilibrium, I doubt that you know what the word “obvious” means.
Good. Then I win.
That would be true only if they proposed that abiogenesis built up the first life form following the same path a decay process would take. Guess what? They never do such a thing. So, again, your saying so is not evidence that they do. Your saying so only shows that you have no idea, which isn’t too much of a surprise.
What for? I already knew that entropy is not “symmetrical,” yet you made that “well-supported claim” as if that was an answer to what I wrote. Yet, what I wrote has nothing to do with symmetrical entropies. Are you so clueless that you just write random claims hoping that they’ll look as if written by an astounding intellectual?
Then why did you write it as if that was an answer to my point? Just as a distraction because you’re too illiterate to understand what I wrote?
Then why are you asking for experimental evidence that processes work with entropy and not against it? Take a stance:
(a) If processes run with entropy, then we’re done: abiogenesis is proposed as a process that runs exactly like any other process in thermodynamics terms: with entropy, not against it.
(b) If processes run against entropy, then we could not have discovered such thing, let alone call it a “law”, and it could not “forbid” anything.
What say you?
Not exactly?
That looks like “yes exactly.”
Maybe besides your problems with reading for comprehension, you have trouble writing for comprehension. Not that I would be too surprised.
Firstly: I don’t need your approval to feel good about myself. Secondly, it’s obvious from your loaded questions that you have no clue. Thirdly, I don’t need yet another theme to have fun at your expense.
EntropyWeasel?
The Second Law of Thermodynamics prooves that the Dawkins Weasel program could not posslbly have produced the results it did, because, you know, ENTROPY prohibits it.
You’re brilliant Allan!
Nonlin.org,
Aha! Per nonlin rules, I win. Pardon me while I do the victory dance. [Tappity, tappity].
And when you say ‘100%’ …
😁
See? (He said, to no-one in particular). This is where treating all entropy change as a change in ‘order’ gets you. It’s begging to be misunderstood.
Allan Miller,
How much entropy is there in a perfect crystal at absolute zero? The macrostate can be described by a single microstate so entropy is zero. There is no disorder in a perfect crystal either. You do then have an ideal heat-sink though.
ETA ideal in the theoretical sense.
They don’t propose step-by-step from simple to complex, atoms to organism? Then what do they propose?
How did you know that? Prove it.
And no, not everything is an answer to your nonsense.
There is no abiogenesis process let alone “evolution”. What have you “discovered”? What “law” are you dreaming?
…to the simpletons. To the more sophisticated it’s a parallel worth exploring.
Your claim is so illogical it’s very funny. Are you totally clueless or not even trying? I bet on both.
The rest of your rant doesn’t make any sense whatsoever, so not worth addressing.
Whatever “rule” you’re thinking, it doesn’t apply to your gibberish.
Completely agree. And it’s not only Creationists, and Creationists posing as IDists, who make this mistake.
It’s a nonsensical question.
What part of “not by the path decay follows” did you not understand? It was molecules-to-cell-to-you, for example, but it did not follow a reverse path of decay. Or where do you think all the molecules that form you come from? How were they put together into you?
Do you understand now that molecules-to-organism doesn’t mean following a reverse decay path or not yet?
Didn’t you make the claim? Because I don’t see a reason to convince you of something you claimed. If you disagree with yourself that entropy is not symmetrical, feel free to go somewhere else to argue against yourself until you agree with yourself and then come back.
Then don’t present it as if it was. After all, it made you look like an illiterate buffoon. You have to be careful, it’s easy enough to see you as such a thing when you do attempt “answers.”
There you have it. See? You so easily come across as an illiterate buffoon even when you attempt to give answers: you “missed” just a couple words in your quote, and that was enough for you to forget that we were talking about the second law of thermodynamics.
Tip for reading for comprehension: context is very important. Take note. Ups, while reaching this sentence you have probably forgotten the tip.
It’s not even a parallel, which is why I asked the question that evidenced your amazing ignorance of thermodynamics. You didn’t even see the reason for the question!
That you did not understand it doesn’t make it illogical, it just makes you oblivious. irony be thy name.
You don’t know what making sense looks like Nonlin.
Nonlin.org,
Haha, another rule!
True. Even Dawkins has some teeth-grinding passages.
It’s down to a self-perpetuating educational slant, IMO. Frank Lambert spent much of a long life railing against this.
The proportion of any student cohort which goes on to become educators is biased towards those who ‘get it’ – who understand that what is ‘ordered’ is not merely the physical arrangement of the system, but its energy as well. Having got it, they pass this approach on to the next generation, only a proportion of which ‘gets it’, and from that same group come the next generation of educators.
We start with messy dorms and shuffled decks, particle distributions in an ideal gas, and then layer on the energy distributions of those particles. We shift from notions of 3D space to those of phase space. And that takes a bit of wrestling with. Those who never need think about entropy again get stuck with the physical-distribution idea, and films running backwards.
But, as Lambert says, what actually happens is that energy ‘spreads out’ within 3D space. For any given system, if entropy increases and energy ‘goes elsewhere’, the reverse process of that does not involve the same photons of energy coming back into the system. If entropy subsequently decreases locally, it’s not a film in reverse; it’s just a different ‘forward’ process.
That makes sense.
You’re not making your case for the difference you claim. ‘You-to-cell-to-molecules’ is the exact reverse of your path… and you miss many steps in between of course… and ‘cell’ not ‘you’ would be the end of abiogenesis. Because from ‘cell’ to ‘you’ it would be “evolution”.
Ok. So you didn’t “know”. You learned from me instead. But that’s a major point I’m making and one with which your fellow “scientists” disagree. They assume “time reversal symmetry” in abiogenesis.
Not my fault you understand at best a 10% of what you read. Try anger management to stop looking like an overexcited little monkey all the time.
Once again you start degenerating after a few semi-intelligent comments. Did you see a snake and are now hyperventilating?
Allan Miller,
Is that poetry? Is the alcohol speaking? Shrooms? Crack? One thing it’s not – coherent speech.
No it doesn’t. But if you insist, will you explain in plain English what that means and how if at all is related to ‘entropy forbids abiogenesis’?
Nonlin.org,
So anyway, since none of you head-up-your-ass poets out there got this, I will explain it:
I changed “complexity” to “non-random complexity” because that is what life is as opposed to the useless gunk random complexity output from Miller-Urey and the other abiogenesis experiments. And of course, we know “non-random” by rejecting the null “random”.
The youtube guy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nNK3u8uVG7o
said that F. Hoyle and C. Wickramasinghe estimate the probability of undirected abiogenesis to 1 in 10^40,000, a virtual impossibility. He counters with “incremental steps” which have a much larger chance of occurring and with a “much simpler proto life” target that is presumably easier to reach.
Of course, this is a fallacy because breaking down a multistep process into simpler, more probable components does nothing for the end result. If the process is 1% probable and each of its two steps are 10% probable, to reconstitute the process, one has to multiply the probabilities, hence 10% x 10% = 1% same as the original two-step process.
So, in the context of abiogenesis, if the whole thing looks impossible (as it does), a very long sequence of more plausible steps is just as impossible even though taken in isolation, those steps might look like they have a chance in hell.
Darwin – the guy that knew nothing about nothing – of course made the exact same mistake with his step-by-step “evolution” that he thought possible given minute variations and quasi-infinite time and space.
But this fallacy is no longer excusable now when basic statistics is a requirement for all that demand to be called ‘scientists’.
Oh, and there is no “simpler” “proto life”. See 10.b. – “protocells” are to biological cells as fool’s gold is to real gold.
You’re missing the point spectacularly. I’m talking about you, Nonlin. You yourself were made from-molecules-to-cell-to-you. That was not a decay in reverse. Your mother didn’t have a whole human being in her womb, so she did not build you from a complete human being. She had to do it from molecules. She ate, from the food she was able to make reproductive cells, your father, same thing, he had to eat and make reproductive cells from what he ate. So, you were made from molecules to cells to you, no decay in reverse necessary.
And, no, it’s not the exact reverse path of you-to-cell-to-molecules for the next reason:
Exactly! All those “missing steps” are what make those paths different, rather than simple reverse of each other. Otherwise you would not exist.
In my example, cell-to-you is development, embryogenesis.
The point is that the endpoints are not the same as the actual paths (ETA: Your own figures show paths that are not the same in both directions! You’re so astoundingly illiterate that you don’t understand your own shit!). the point is that building organisms from molecules does not mean following a decay process in reverse.
Are you starting to get it now? I doubt it, but we’ll see.
Oh, so you finally agreed with yourself? Good. Now, no, I haven’t learned a single thing from you, and no, scientists have never assumed “time reversal symmetry,” that’s just you being too much of a fool to understand that endpoints don’t mean the same path in reverse, despite one of your figures shows exactly that: different paths having the same endpoints.
Yet again my illiterate entertainment: your saying so is not evidence, it’s just a display of your astounding ignorance.
I understood all right. You shot yourself in the foot several times, and, when caught, you decided to play the fool to try and save face, only to fall into further contradictions. Unable to save face you prefer to display further illiteracy imagining, or hoping, that I won’t notice your desperation.
Helping you to ridicule yourself so evidently that you were left without answers surely has me hyperventilating out of laughter. Do you think I didn’t notice that you lost so many points that you’ve been dropping them from the conversation?
I had you cornered and you dropped them. Only one remains: your inability to understand that abiogenesis doesn’t imply a reverse decay. We will see if you have the intelligence to drop that one too. I say you won’t. That you’d rather say that you were born from a fully-formed human installed in your mom’s womb by magic than admit that you were built from molecules without going through a reverse decay pathway.
Got any?
Mind you, a daily dose of your belligerent cluelessness is all the stimulation I need.
Your inability to follow my crystal-clear prose speaks ill of your powers of comprehension… But yeah, have it your way, it’s all about films running forwards or backwards. Have a cookie. Pat-pat-pat.
So little monkeys and anger management don’t mix. Kind of like oil and water. Which brings up an important point: spontaneous reactions always increase entropy and spontaneous never reverses spontaneously. Pretty simple: look at oil-on-top vs mixed and we see immediately that oil-on-top is the higher entropy state and that oil-on-top to mixed transition cannot happen spontaneously. Amazingly different than cream on top of coffee or ink on top of water, etc. yet we can immediately point out the higher entropy state.
Now in biology: protein decays – easy and entropy increases. “Protein forms” – not happening spontaneously and in fact very, very hard even with intervention. Molecular machines can do that but humans can’t without harnessing these molecular machines. Abiogenesis? Fogetaboutit! Simple.
Where do we stand?
1. Many stupid claims of the type “you don’t know entropy”. Really?!?
2. Some dead guy arguing against something something entropy? Why do we care?
3. “Dynamic not static” and “stuff happens” despite quasi-equilibrium and homeostasis that allows little monkeys to live fairly long and fruitless lives? And what about “Dynamic equilibrium”? You know, the reason why hot vents and so on are totally useless to abiogenesis?
4. “I can imagine cause it’s a little thing” and “proto life”. Yeah, right! WTF is “proto life”? Stuffed animals?
5. Some rant against “disorder”? Now what has that to do with anything?
6. “Undirected is directed… by way of something something nebulous” No, we will not re-write the dictionary in this case.
7. “Evolution is independent of abiogenesis”. God takes care of biogenesis and then goes on vacation leaving Darwin in charge. Sure thing!
8. New one(!): “if embryo develops into an adult, then abiogenesis is possible”. IOW, “if God can do something, so can the monkey”? Because whatever the monkey can do, the fungus can do as well? And furthermore, forget the fungus, if monkey flings the poo, the cosmic karma (don’t ask) flings it right back at the monkey?
9. Another new one (monkey good!): “the steps in between don’t matter because the path is different”. But the end points DO matter (Fig 1)! And in this case, the difference between them is so extreme that no reverse path is possible to bio-decay. I mean we’re talking molecules-to-cell, not water-to-ice here. Secondary, in the statistical sequence (Fig 2) it’s not clear what steps if any could be skipped or reversed. Did anyone even propose a significant change to that sequence? Other that “proto-life” which is fool’s gold?
10. Other things important yet not explored: the utter lack of experimental evidence for abiogenesis; dynamic equilibrium; “abiogenesis unique event”; craziness of Miller-Urey; the laws of life do not follow from any priors (physics, chemistry, mathematics); no intermediate “evolving” entities, no “evolution” (gradualism fails); “Other considerations”
Nonlin.org,
The next step?
Nonlin.org,
Must have hurt you quite a bit to drop all your claims Nonlin. You came back to redouble in your show of illiteracy. Interesting.
Thanks for the entertainment.
Oh, I see. You prefer not to answer the question but make shit up:
I didn’t say that they steps in between don’t matter. Seems like you really love displaying your illiteracy. They do matter: they’re what make the paths different. Got it now or should I try a less advanced vocabulary?
Of course they do. I never say they didn’t either. Do you know anything about reading for comprehension?
Of course not, which is why nobody is proposing such a thing.
We know, which is why I keep asking you, and you’ll keep refusing to answer: you were built by your mom and dad from molecules to cells to you. Did that happen by reverse decay? Yes or no? If yes, then entropy doesn’t “forbid” a reverse decay process. If no, then there’s pathways from molecules to cells to persons not involving reverse decay.
Seems like you lost this one too. What a surprise.
My bet: you won’t answer because you know you lost this one too. You have nothing left but to display further and further illiteracy.
Holy crap with the illiteracy problem! Ha!
I didn’t say that my illiterate entertainment. The point is, again: there’s pathways from molecules to cells to persons that are clearly not reverse decay. Got it now?
God? Embryogenesis is very well understood, has been studied over and over, and not once any gods have been seen doing anything there. Are you imagining that when embryogenesis happens it’s a “reverse decay” orchestrated by your imaginary friend? That would be new and astoundingly stupid. Check it out:
a. If that were how your imaginary friend does it, then there would be no second law, since embryologists would not see a god, but would see that decay can run backwards.
b. If not by reverse decay, then whether you think that your imaginary friend is doing it or not, doesn’t matter, embryologists would witness paths from molecules to cells to persons that are not reverse decay.
You’ve lost either way, yet again.
Monkeys do reproduce, in case you didn’t know.
Do you think fungi don’t reproduce? Wow. You truly wanted to ridicule yourself much further.
Seems so. You’re reduced to monkeying around trying too hard to save face, yet flinging that poo to the sky and having it landing right on top of you. Seems like you like it, so enjoy.
Yes, really.
Entropy was formulated by dead guys (not at the time, obvs…). Said dead guy was a professor of biochemistry. But hey, you know better than he. You really get it… every one of these PhDs says, ‘how do you know so much about this?’ And you say maybe you have a natural ability. And an uncle who’s, like, a super-genius.
What in fuck is quasi-equilibrium? There’s either equilibrium, or there is not. It’s like being quasi-pregnant.
But where are my manners? Do go on …
‘Dynamic equilibrium’ at ocean vents, to the extent the term is meaningful in that system, does not stop ecosystems being sustained by their emanations. It is not an equilibrium in which energy is unavailable for work, and hence no barrier to abiogenesis.
Fuck knows what this is all about.
You are unfamiliar with the common practice of equating entropy with disorder? Gosh.
I’m giving up here; it descends, from a low point, to incoherence.
Well, among other issues, you don’t understand why asking about endothermic reactions is pertinent to entropy, you don’t understand why asking about food and breath is pertinent to a question about thermodynamic equilibrium vs homeostasis. From things like that it’s very evident that you don’t understand entropy.
It’s ironic that you call everyone “clueless” because they won’t accept your claims, yet you don’t want to be called ignorant when you clearly fail at the fundamentals.
And here you give us one clear example: that you missed the point shows your illiteracy and your ignorance of entropy. Yet you don’t want to hear it. Poor you.
Aren’t you alive? If so, then your “quasi-equilibrium and homeostasis allows little monkeys to live fairly long and fruitless lives.” Oh, you knew that? Well, of course. After all, you’re alive. Then what are you complaining about?
Today, hot vents are teeming with life. Therefore their “dynamic equilibrium” is sufficiently dynamic for life. Maybe you don’t know what the word “dynamic” means. Not that I would be surprised.
Who the hell knows what you’re talking about here. But if stuffed animals make you happy. (You were looking at the ones on top of your bed when you wrote this, weren’t you?)
People can have conversations about misunderstood versions of entropy without caring what you think. This is a free forum.
Now you think that the laws of nature are nebulous? Wow. New lows all the time. Oh! You forgot that I mentioned those? I’m soooo surprised! Nah. You’re an illiterate and proud of it. I expected you to forget.
Darwin is not in charge of evolution. Natural phenomena are.
I’m astounded at your arrogance imagining that some incomprehensibly-powerful magical being exists, yet you can tell whether she wants to stay around moving everything with her divine fingers, or if she prefers to let go of a self-flourishing creation.
P.S.: Thanks again for the entertainment Nonlin. Your illiteracy and ignorance know no limits. You always find a way to do worse. It’s amazing!
I gave up long ago. Now it’s just entertainment. Nonlin will never get it.
Anyway, I’ve been enjoying your explanations. I didn’t know about Lambert. That’s a great resource. Thank you.
This will all be revealed when we agree that abiogenesis is thermodynamically impossible. I tried agreeing, just to cut to the chase, but he didn’t believe me. I have no idea what gave me away …
He died quite recently, aged 102. I actually started an OP to mark his passing though never finished it. Keiths, a regular here, was critical of his approach, which certainly didn’t find favour everywhere. He could also be a bit of an asshole. But he did achieve some success with his campaign.
Lambert was most interested in education, rather than ‘the’ way to do physics. He was a chemist, like (in a former life) myself, and in chemical contexts the idea of energy ‘spreading out’ seems a more intuitive way to represent entropy increase than the molecules-in-a-box approach of statistical mechanics. It is that spreading out which renders it unavailable for work, rather than the number of different ways it can be unavailable!
Isn’t that prohibited by the Second Law of Thermodynamics?
Lambert was not without his critics. And I’m not talking about Creationists and other ID proponents.
Until you read the criticisms.
Sure. As I say above.
Read ’em, still think it makes sense. Many textbooks have changed their approach in direct response to Lambert’s polemic; those people are not without clue.
Can you illustrate a real-world physical system where entropy increases but energy does not ‘spread out’ in 3D space? Keiths came up with one, but it was specifically designed to be an exception – and did not appear to be an exception anyway, to me.
Show me yours.