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
Stupid claim number one million. No, your parents have no freaking idea what happened to them. They just fucked and later on here pops the little monkey. Not a fungus mind you, a little monkey just like them. Why and how? They have no clue and not just because they’re stupid little monkeys.
Even stupid little monkeys should know that the starting point of a person is a zygote, not molecules. And a zygote is not “molecules”, but a very specific cell. So NO, there is no path from molecules to cells. The only path out there is from cells to cells.
Patently false… or rather stupid. If it were true, at a minimum we would be able to develop embryos ex vivo. Which we definitely can’t.
And of course, conflating embryogenesis with abiogenesis is downright retard.
Who knew? An internet search can cure stupidity:
“A process during which the system only deviates from equilibrium by an infinitessimal amount. ”
The implication of this nonsense being that “energy available for work” ensures abiogenesis? How stupid is that?
Dynamic equilibrium means that them vents will make the same crap over and over again, so no progress towards non-random complexity aka abiogenesis. And we can and HAVE tested those vents and found them lacking any progress. And that IS “barrier to abiogenesis”. Same with Miller-Urey. Which apparently doesn’t prevent snake oil salesmen from peddling their crap.
That practice has nothing to do with anything I wrote. So cut the crap.
The topic is not “entropy” and is not “thermodynamic equilibrium”, but “entropy forbids abiogenesis”. This important nuance escapes ignorant little monkeys.
Once again, “teeming with life” is not the topic. As long as they don’t do any abiogenesis, and they most definitely don’t, them hot vents are irrelevant and useless. Just like the stupid “little pond” that I hear got canceled.
Absolutely. As long as it’s clear that said “version” has nothing to do with this work. Which it wasn’t [clear].
Why can’t little monkeys and people agree more often? The earth would be a better place and yada yada peace on earth.
Undirected is “directed by bullshit”! EXACTLY which law of physics? No one. Right!
I noted that you dropped claims, again, to try and save face Nonlin. You’re so much fun!
Wow! I didn’t imagine you despised your parents that much. And, surprise surprise, the illiteracy kicks again: your parents made you from molecules to cell to Nonlin. It doesn’t matter if they don’t know why or how that happened, they still did. Mostly your Mom.
So no food was digested and then incorporated to build those cells? The cells were built from nothingness? I knew you’re illiterate and ignorant, I didn’t know it was that bad. As I said, you manage to do worse every time. I truly don’t know how you can do that. Amazing.
Don’t be silly Nonlin, we understand a lot about gravitation and we’re unable to build solar systems or galaxies. Maybe you should take a look at a few volumes on embryology to get some idea how much we know. Sure, lots still to learn, but nobody has observed any gods doing anything in there, and, to the point that you’d rather not admit: they do not involve any reverse decay. Therefore molecules to cell to person don’t involve reverse decay. Again, your claim is so silly it implodes.
Oh my dear illiterate entertainment. You can’t help demonstrating that illiteracy. here it goes again: the point is not to conflate embryogenesis and abiogenesis, again, the point is that we have there a clear example that molecules to cells to person doesn’t mean reverse decay. Are you really that illiterate? Or is it just that you prefer to play the fool to avoid admitting defeat?
Allan wrote that very clearly: It is not an equilibrium in which energy is unavailable for work, and hence no barrier to abiogenesis. Remember that your problem is entropy as a problem for abiogenesis. If there’s energy available for work, specifically for sustaining whole ecosystems, then there’s no barrier to abiogenesis from the entropy point of view. All this means is that, if there’s barriers to abiogenesis, entropy is not one.
An ecosystem is “non-random complexity” Nonlin. Sustaining an ecosystem is no small feat. So, you might want to call them “quasi-equilibrium,” but your calling them so doesn’t make them any less dynamic.
This is yet another low Nonlin! Thanks. I knew you could do even worse. Now you claim that it’s not important to understand entropy in order to judge if entropy would “forbid” abiogenesis! You’re hilarious in your desperation.
(ETA: BTW, it was you who brought thermodynamic equilibrium time and again into the discussion. It’s also you who now insists on “quasi-equilibrium” as if that meant that there’s no energy available for much anything, aka, as if that meant thermodynamic equilibrium. So, again, go and argue with yourself. Once you reach an agreement with yourself, come back. Preferably with some actual understanding of the topic.)
Once again, teeming with life is relevant for understanding that if vents are problematic for abiogenesis, the reason is not entropy.
You were the one claiming that the problem with hydrothermal vents was the “quasi-equilibrium”, whereby you pretend that there’s no energy available for much anything. Yet, there’s plenty of energy available. Flowing constantly. Look at the ecosystems flourishing right there.
Well, because you, my little and hilarious monkey, don’t want to admit that you’ve got so much wrong. You prefer to regale us with demonstrations of astounding illiteracy. So, we people have nothing else to do but laugh at your monkeying.
Now you think that the laws of nature are bullshit? Then why are you so insistent on the second law of thermodynamics? You insist that entropy has a direction, that it’s not “symmetrical”, that it cannot go in reverse, but you don’t want to call any process directed by entropy, ahem, directed? If entropy gives no direction, then why are you saying that it does? If the second law of thermodynamics is bullshit, why are you talking so much about it as if you thought it represents something real?
Thanks again. Your ability to ridicule yourself is amazing.
Entropy,
In my original draft of that comment, I rejected the argument that vents were in dynamic equilibrium at all. Then I edited it to the version you quoted – if someone wants to call balanced input and consumption an ‘equilibrium’, they can, but it’s still not thermodynamic equilibrium.
But I’m inclined to go with my original instincts. Dynamic equilibrium refers to a reversible reaction – the forward and backward reactions happen continuously but cancel out, with no net change. But that’s not happening at vents. The material spewed out (which includes electron-donor inorganic species) is not being returned by any balancing process with no net change. Any redox reactions taking place are tending in one direction, driven by the differential oxidative potential between the oceans and the mantle, with constant refresh of substrates. The ‘fuel’ is consumed – the chemical potential energy is lost through oxidation, with nothing to make much use of it in a sterile world – but is perennially refreshed.
This, of course, being somewhat technical, will only result in the ‘no-speaky-English’ gambit from nonlin.
Allan Miller,
But in nonlin world, this is an earth-shattering concession. If you cannot decide which of the following phrases apply to thermal vents — ‘equilibrium’ or ‘dynamic equilibrium’ or ‘thermodynamic equilibrium’ — then you cannot say anything about what is happening in them. In nonlin world.
It’s map/territory confusion at its most basic level.
Here’s a tip nonlin: the words you use to describe vents have absolutely no effect on vents.
Now, using terms in the way that literate people do, vents are NOT in thermodynamic equilibrium.
nonlin’s “quasi-equilibrium” appears to correspond to “steady state”, or perhaps “nonlin cannot see anything happening here, so there isn’t”. The idea that there is not sufficient energy flows to drive the creation of complexity or the localized reduction in entropy or the creation of ordered systems out of disorder, etc. is laughable, nonlin’s petulance notwithstanding.
No kidding.
(Nonlin might yell “sacrilege” when she reads your post, or forbid us to talk about anything that she doesn’t want us to talk about between us. You know, because she owns the place.)
Preposterous and unique. Tell you what, find ONE other person to back you up on this stupid claim and I may explain a second time why it’s so stupid.
Soo retard. It’s like saying “the car makes itself because metal was incorporated by the Intelligent Designers aka Engineers into the process”.
Mark my words. If not already, one of these days you or someone you know will face the impotence and ignorance of the medical field and you will learn how stupid your claim is. And this ignorance is in large part due to the adoption of the cretin “evolution” narrative.
IOW “apply energy and non-random complexity just comes out”? How stupid is that? We know experimentally this is utterly FALSE. How about a counter example? I bet you have NONE!
“Sustaining” is not the issue. Creating something as in “abiogenesis” is!
There’s a huge difference between “problematic for” and “conducive to” which is the stupid claim out there.
Last I checked, there’s plenty of energy in the Sun yet no life. Go figure. Closer to home, how about sticking your empty head in a nuclear mushroom to look for abiogenesis?
The question was very simple. Flinging more poo around it won’t mask your ignorance: “EXACTLY which law of physics? No one. Right!”
This is FALSE. Again, the internet could cure your ignorance:
“A system in dynamic equilibrium will have small changes that sum together to produce no net change. Many biological systems are in dynamic equilibrium, from the water inside a cell, to the dynamic equilibrium experienced by populations of predators and prey.”
Those vents support those ecosystems precisely because they are in dynamic equilibrium! In fact, they are the classic example of dynamic equilibrium… also of your utter ignorance. Haha.
Another one bites the dust! Much worse since this one doesn’t even distinguishes “dynamic equilibrium” from “thermodynamic equilibrium”.
But WHOSE idea is that? Read and find out: isn’t that the straw man of someone with his skull full of straws? Haha.
BTW, where the fuck is that “disorder police” when you need it? Haha.
OK, then you appeared by magic.
😀
It would be more like: the car was built from tiny parts to larger parts to car, without it being a reverse car-crash-demolition process. Thus without breaking any laws of thermodynamics. Without running any movies backwards.
Your illiteracy is fantastic!
Energy flow is one of the requirements. The properties of the molecules involved is another. We know that organization doesn’t happen against entropy, but with it. We know experimentally that this is utterly true. For examples, you don’t need to look too far away. You are an example yourself. Your own brain runs with energy flows. You should also be able to look around you and see “non-random complexity” coming out. If that wasn’t happening with entropy, rather than against it, we would have never discovered the patterns gathered into the concept called the second law of thermodynamics. Let alone call it a law.
Everything we do ourselves goes with entropy, not against it, too. So, what are you talking about? Are you so blind that you do not see all the “non-random complexity”, both human-made and non-human made, all around you? Really?
One more: weren’t you saying that order wasn’t part of your diatribe? Because calling it “non-random complexity” doesn’t change the fact that you’re talking about organization, about order. Should you yell at yourself for talking about something that “wasn’t part of your OP”? Should you, once again, go somewhere else to argue against yourself until you can agree with yourself and then come back? Hopefully with some real understanding of the topic?
I thought you said that the topic was “entropy forbids abiogenesis.” Since an ecosystem can be sustained, obviously life is being produced, even if catalyzed by prior life. Thus, entropy doesn’t stop life from being produced around hydrothermal vents. Therefore, if abiogenesis is not possible around hydrothermal vents, entropy is certainly not the problem.
You keep reminding us that the theme is “entropy forbids abiogenesis”, and when we demonstrate that’s not the case, you want it to be “abiogenesis happened around hydrothermal vents”? Nope. Sorry. I rather keep the goal posts right where they are: entropy does not forbid abiogenesis. If there’s any problem to abiogenesis, it clearly is not entropy.
How about that?
So you’re not alive? I would have never guessed.
Why? When did I say it’s a matter of extra-large energy concentrations? A car runs on energy, which is taken from burning fuel (most cars). Would you claim that to be false because they would not run by putting them into a nuclear mushroom? You run on energy, taken from your food, but ultimately taken from the sun. Would you claim that to be false because you would not do very well if put into a nuclear mushroom?
As I said, it’s amazing how easily you can do worse.
It was very clear that you were calling laws of nature “nebulous” and “bullshit.” Still, astounding illiteracy Nonlin: I wrote laws of nature, not just physics. I gave you one of them in that answer: the second law of thermodynamics. Can you read at all?
Of course, I noted that you avoided answering the questions about the second law, entropy and direction. You know that defeats your bullshit thoroughly, and you rather pretend inability to read than admit your mistakes.
Ridiculing yourself is an art you have mastered beyond belief. I’m truly grateful for the entertainment and look forward for more astounding examples of your ignorant illiteracy covered in petulance for dramatic effect.
Then you’d be the first to byte the dust, since it was you who started by being unable to distinguish between dynamic equilibrium and thermodynamic equilibrium. Nice shot at your own foot!
However, DNA_Jock would be safe, since that comment started by explaining that you seem unable to distinguish between them.
Whose idea? Yours of course:
Maybe you should go and argue against yourself until you reach an agreement with yourself, and then come back. Hopefully with some real understanding of the topic.
Nicely done Nonlin. Nobody like you for self-ridicule. Thanks again.
Nonlin.org,
The next step, nonlin?
Depending on view-point, your OP was a complete failure to persuade anyone of anything or has merit. How can you test this? You need a bigger audience. No idea how you could achieve it but you should either think of a plan or find a more rewarding hobby.
Nice to see nonlin keep going with the map/territory confusion.
FYI, nonlin’s source for his quirky definition of “dynamic equilibrium” is the badly written chemistry-for-biologists biologydictionary.net, which does however note that “chemist [sic] often refer to dynamic equilibrium as a dynamic steady-state”, which is what I figured he must mean. So, not a problem for abiogenesis at all then.
In other news, I back Entropy up on his “Preposterous and unique” claim that nonlin was made from molecules.
Nonlin.org,
No, they aren’t in dynamic equilibrium. Sorry and all. You come up with a (poorly-written) quote that refers to water in a cell and predator/prey relations, and in some ridiculous ‘ta-dah’ come up with a does-not-follow ‘therefore’ relating to ocean vents, apparently now ‘the’ textbook example of a dynamic equilibrium. If only we could find support for this barking notion, eh? Somewhere on ‘the internet’, perhaps? Those denizens of the deep will be surprised to learn they exist in an environment of ‘no net change’, and disappear in a puff of logic.
Meantime …
1) They aren’t in ‘dynamic equilibrium’.
2) They aren’t in thermodynamic equilibrium either.
There you go. Every day a school day, huh?
Funny, when I Google ‘dynamic equilibrium’, I get loads of hits on reversible reaction chemistry, as I figured. Yet this, nonlin avers, is FALSE as a definition. It must have taken some industry to locate a usage outside of chemistry. Having done so, the chemists among us are proven ALL WRONG!!! Score +1 to Professor Google.
Allan Miller,
It’s also the one in Nonlin’s favourite resource.
Built by whom exactly? Did it build itself? Spontaneously?
WTF does “coming out” mean in physics? Are you “coming out” now?
WTF does “goes with entropy,” mean in physics? Talk about illiterate and science-challenged.
The topic is not “non-human made”, it is “abiogenesis”. And no, you and I have not seen any abiogenesis made. Termites and beavers and bees and cells and humans do NOT do abiogenesis. Because it’s impossible. That’s why.
And reproduction is not “made” either. It is something that happens to the organisms without their full knowledge. Aside from not being abiogenesis in any way. Poets and bullshit artists like yourself notwithstanding.
No, not “produced”. RE-produced! Poets and bullshit artists like yourself should at the minimum be good with words!
Still no answer… a common technique around here. Haha.
Entropy,
More bullshit. Whatever.
Science is not about persuading. You’re confusing it with politics. Although these days…
You got caught and now are scrambling. Badly!
Of course, dynamic equilibrium is a huge problem for abiogenesis. For instance, if you’re Miller-Urey and see that your setup doesn’t do anything new (dynamic equilibrium), you stop and package that little snake oil you got.
And if you’re not a complete moron, you see that hydrothermal vents don’t do any abiogenesis whatsoever. Do they?
I just explained that reproduction is not “made” but something that happens to the organisms without their full knowledge. Aside from not being abiogenesis in any way.
IOW, your parents didn’t “make” you. They just fucked and hopped or dreaded something like you might happened. Playing the lottery is not how anyone makes anything.
Allan Miller,
I see you try, but too bad bullcrap won’t cut it.
Logic 101: extending something beyond chemistry won’t invalidate chemistry. But we know logic is not your forte.
Meanwhile, no abiogenesis whatsoever. Don’t you ever wonder why?
Fact is:
1. Entropy increases relentlessly.
2. Any entropy decrease can only be local and must be driven by clear and specific factors. IOW, it doesn’t just happen.
3. The larger the decrease in entropy, the harder it is for the specific factors to come together.
4. It doesn’t take much entropy decrease to prevent all known factors from achieving that decrease.
5. Abiogenesis is the ultimate entropy decrease. What or Who is the driving force?
Solar energy powering endothermic chemical reactions. Same as the last dozen times you asked.
Nonlin.org,
Well, in order to get to a definition you claim renders mine FALSE, you had to scroll past a whole bunch of stuff that confirms it. So well done Captain Logic.
Also … in a prebiotic world, why do we care about biological equilibria?
What a spectacular face-plant.
Correct
It doesn’t need to be especially clear or specific. There just needs to be an accessible lower-energy state.
Local entropy decrease doesn’t happen? Biology, physics and chemistry would all tend to disagree.
So how big a decrease are we talking? Biggish? Quite big? Bigger than that? This big [stretches arms wide]?
Ah, the Nonlin Threshold. I’m cheerfully chugging away on the right side of it, fuelled by sandwiches and beer. I’d imagine something less complicated would have even less trouble.
No it isn’t. I would claim no more entropy decrease than is involved in, for example, bacterial metabolism, and probably a good deal less. Certainly less than that involved in making a herd of zebras by wiggling the old Magic Fingers. Of course, we don’t actually know the conditions, so can’t quantify.
I’m going to disagree slightly with Adapa here and say that I favour relative electronegativity, as drives the many chemosynthetic ecosystems today. There’s bags of energy available in such gradients to permit local entropy decrease, demonstrably.
Nonlin.org,
My question was “The next step?” for you. What science is and does is an unrelated issue.
Anyway, I see Joe Felsenstein over at The Pandas Thumb has responded to Mark Champneys, who looks like he needs support from a like-minded individual.
So I thought of you.
Tough to quantify. My initial vote was for {solidification of the earth’s mantle}: it’s very simple to visualize, and even a Claussian like Sal can calculate it. In any case, the entropy decrease in abiogenesis is piffling in comparison to either.
DNA_Jock,
If I was going for ‘the ultimate’, I’d be looking at a black hole or some such! But if earthbound, gravitational accretion from a dust cloud, and stratification, have given us a fair bit of local ‘order’.
It doesn’t matter, the fact is that there’s pathways that don’t involve “movies going backwards” leading to cars.
It’s interesting, though, that here you get all huffed-up because conscious activity is involved (as if that wasn’t also driven by energy flows), yet, later on, you get all huffed-up because conscious activity is not involved. Maybe you need to go elsewhere, argue against yourself, call yourself a moron back and forth, get to an agreement with yourself, if that’s even possible, then come back, hopefully with some real understanding of the topic.
It’s physics and chemistry, and the idea is quite simple. They develop, they are built, with entropy, not against it. I am keeping myself together all the time. That means non-reverse-decay processes that rebuild many of my parts from molecules to cells, etc. Just like yourself.
You are the champion at this. I’ve been using those concepts for quite a while, and only now you notice that you don’t get it, despite being so easy to infer if you only understood entropy. Talk about illiteracy and science-challenged!
I thought you insisted that the topic was “entropy forbids abiogenesis.” Still, my answer was to a specific “demand” you made:
See? A demand with words in full capitals and all. So, I gave you counterexamples. if you don’t want answers, why do you demand them? Maybe you should go elsewhere and argue against yourself, call yourself a moron back and forth, try and agree with yourself, if that’s even possible, then come back, hopefully with some real understanding of the topic.
It just happens? But, didn’t you say before that:
You shot yourself in the foot. Maybe you should go elsewhere, argue against yourself, call yourself a moron back and forth, maybe reach an agreement with yourself, if that’s even possible, then come back, hopefully with some real understanding of the topic.
Call them whatever you want. They’re still built from what’s around the hydrothermal vents, and thus molecules to cells to organism without it being “reverse-decay.” They still happen despite your claims that entropy wouldn’t allow it. They still happen because there’s energy flows. So, if hydrothermal vents are problematic for abiogenesis, the reason is not entropy.
The answer was given twice. That your skills at quoting “mysteriously” miss those parts, comes only to show that your illiteracy is profound, perhaps irremediable.
No it isn’t.
The Miller-Urey experiment doesn’t reach a “dynamic equilibrium.” It was never designed to do that. Maybe you don’t know what you mean yourself by “dynamic equilibrium,” because if you think that the Miller-Urey experiment is in an equivalent state as a hydrothermal vent ecosystem, you have very, but truly very, deep problems to solve. Not that it would be surprising.
Some moron, you, keeps insisting that the theme is “entropy forbids abiogenesis”, so it’s not “hydrothermal vents don’t do abiogenesis.” The answer to the former is: if hydrothermal vents are problematic for abiogenesis, the reason is not entropy.
So hard for you to agree with yourself. So hard for you to understand simple answers. So hard for you to understand entropy.
Your illiteracy is astounding. Feel free to show me the part where I claimed it to be a conscious activity. Hell, show me the bit where I said that conscious activity was required. It’s as if you’ve forgotten who’s the creationist here (another shot at your own foot). In the meantime, the fact remains that you were built from molecules to cells to Nonlin without it being a “reverse-decay” process.
Your illiteracy shall become legendary. Thanks again for the easy entertainment. Here you are, circling and circling into the very same mistakes, over and over and over. It’s astounding.
Allan Miller,
Yes, that’s a lot of local ‘order’ [insert ordure joke here], but I worry that the less numerate will have difficulty with measuring ‘order/disorder’. For instance, a lot of people think that order increases when your vinaigrette separates. One of the few things nonlin got right, heh.
I like the mantle because you don’t have to try to calculate the order/disorder, you can take a High School Claussian approach and ballpark the insane quantity of heat exported. I admit that it’s a bit more complicated, as Lord Kelvin found out. 😮
DNA_Jock,
I side firmly with the less numerate!
Vinaigrette, planetary accretion and protein folding do nicely illustrate where intuitions can be (mis)led by the idea of ‘spontaneous disordering’.
Then abiogenesis should be easy. Yet it’s nowhere to be found. Not even those reactions. Explain! I explained why not!
Like it or not, dynamic equilibrium is a clear concept and not limited to chemistry or biology.
Explain how those hydro vents could do abiogenesis when in dynamic equilibrium. Also explain why they are NOT doing it now as we speak.
2. False. We either TRACE every entropy decrease to a clear and specific factor or we are still SEARCHING for that factor. Take your pick.
2. Doesn’t JUST. Meaning “doesn’t spontaneously”.
3. You can compare. Take water to ice – earth movement does it. Now to ice spheres – it’s lower entropy and could happen on an isolated celestial body. Now to ice cube – that’s something humans do. And so on.
4. Of course it is. For entropy changes you have to look at the system before and after. So what’s your start / end for metabolism?
Have you heard “the human brain is the most complex [nonrandom] thing we have yet discovered in our universe”?
Yes, we do know “the conditions” meaning start/end point. We can’t always quantify because of the enormity of the task, but we can compare entropy changes to one another. And no doubt abiogenesis would be the largest entropy decrease ever for a process.
Gradients of any kind don’t do anything for abiogenesis. We have tested those and found them lacking. And energy is not the issue either. Again, experimentally confirmed.
Citation needed! Who is “we” in this context?
Therefore entropy does not forbid abiogenesis. Yet again, you shot yourself in the foot.
Oh! You don’t see the connection between “energy is not the issue” and “entropy does not forbid abiogenesis”? Clue: the field of research is called “thermodynamics.”
Seems like you don’t understand entropy. Yes. Really.
😀
Finally, notice that Nonlin has quitted shooting herself in the foot trying to argue against my points, so now she’s decided to shoot herself in the foot trying to argue against everyone else’s.
I win!!
Then bring Joe here. I am not going there to be censored. Same goes for PS and Biologos. Well, these last ones banned me outright. That counts for “science” these days.
You must normalize for weight or volume.
We already discussed this. And you have not proposed any alternative pathway.
So no “coming out”? And we discussed abiogenesis different than reproduction and metabolism.
So no answer, eh? Of course.
?!?
No, it doesn’t “JUST happens” as in spontaneous.
The rest of your rant is pure, boring bullshit, hence ignored.
Yeah, right. Now, when will you get something right? Haha.
Entropy,
Note to you: if no one pays attention to you it’s not because you said something smart.
We did not discuss such thing because you hadn’t told me that you believed that cars were built by a process akin to “movies going backwards.” I don’t know if I should be surprised that you believe that. Didn’t you say that entropy “forbids” those kinds of things?
Maybe you should go somewhere else, argue against yourself, call yourself a moron back and forth, reach some agreement with yourself, if that’s even possible, and then come back, hopefully with some real understanding of the topics.
I thought you said that we can extend concepts outside their normal usage and just use some logic to understand them. Maybe you should go somewhere else, argue against yourself, call yourself a moron back and forth, reach some agreement with yourself, if that’s even possible, and then come back, hopefully with some real understanding of the topics.
We did not discuss that. You just kept saying so as if we didn’t know, thus demonstrating your illiteracy, that is: missing the point time and again. The point is, again, that there’s pathways from molecules to cells to organisms that do not involve reverse-decay. Therefore, there’s no reason why abiogenesis should consist of reverse-decay. It’s very simple Nonlin.
Besides, you just declared that cars are built by a “movies going backwards” process. So, which is it? Is this possible or not given the second law of thermodynamics?
So, you don’t understand entropy enough to infer the meaning yourself, eh? Of course.
If the energy flow makes them “non-spontaneous,” by your definition, then you’re still contradicting yourself. Maybe you should go somewhere else, argue against yourself, call yourself a moron back and forth, reach some agreement with yourself, if that’s even possible, and then come back, hopefully with some real understanding of the topics.
Ignored because the whole “rant” is yours, and consists on you demonstrating astounding illiteracy and contradicting yourself over and over again. Your feet must be hurting quite a bit.
Therefore, I win!!
P.S.
Sure Nonlin. Now go get those feet healed.
Professor Felsenstein makes his own choices. I believe he’s focused on building activity at Panda’s Thumb. But I certainly think you would need to sharpen your act considerably to make any headway there. The PT management don’t suffer fools as obligingly as we do.
You won’t know whether that will happen unless you test your assumption. You might leave off on the gratuitous insulting though and perhaps include some evidence to support your assertions
Hardly surprising, religious sites tend to prefer more respectful dialogue than you are capable of.
Do you seriously consider yourself a scientist or the stuff you have been posting here as anything resembling science?
Interesting assertion, but I’ll play. What did you assume was the weight of abiogenesis?
Clear-ish. But your ‘logic’ appears to be that “there are usages outside reversible chemistry therefore ocean vents are in dynamic equilibrium”. Does. Not. Follow.
They aren’t in ‘dynamic equilibrium’, still less in thermodynamic equilibrium, so I don’t need to.
They may or may not be, but the vents are already teeming with life (gorging on ‘equilibrium’! 🤣), so anything more primitive would struggle to compete or evade consumption.
True. It’s about accessing lower-energy states. The paths to such states can be complex, unclear and nonspecific.
That is simply wrong. Chemosynthesis, for example, gives ‘local entropy decrease’ in the chemosynthetic organism. It has a net negative ΔG, and is therefore spontaneous (which does not mean instant). The energetic driver for that is the oxidative differential. The net oxidative differential ultimately relates to two inorganic molecules: an electron donor and a terminal electron acceptor. If such a differential has the capacity to drive local entropy increase in living things without breach of the 2nd Law, it has the same potential to do so for nonliving components, without troubling the laws of thermodynamics.
We only need an ‘entropy decrease’ of the order of that contained within a single prokaryotic cell. Probably a lot less.
No, we don’t. There is a vast array of potential physicochemical conditions, only some or none of which may lead to abiogenesis. Without knowing those particular conditions, we can’t say whether the net ΔG is negative or not. There is no a priori reason to suppose it net positive.
Would it heck! It might be impossible in fact, but it is entropically trivial.
We?
Entropy is all about energy!
A lesson for us all. Ecce tibi.
I had a quick look at non-chemical usages of ‘dynamic equilibrium’. The first two are from nonlin’s resource.
1) Cellular water regulation. In an organism lacking a cell wall, water enters through diffusion and is actively expelled – ie, work here is done against thermodynamic equilibration. So this isn’t much help to nonlin. With a rigid cell wall, the situation is slightly different – there is a physical restraint, in the presence of which the ingress and egress are both passive and balanced. That’s closer to being in thermodynamic equilibrium.
2) Predator-prey relations. Clearly, the organisms involved are a long way from thermodynamic equilibrium (indeed, the one relies on the other for maintenance of this state!).
3) From engineering, a body moving at constant velocity. I don’t know what is gained by applying the term here, but again, clearly work needs to be done against the tendency to thermodynamic equilibrium to overcome friction.
4) The hydrological cycle. This is driven by an energetic process – solar and internal radiation, mainly. Work can be done – turbines can be driven – so it clearly ain’t in thermodynamic equilibrium. The thermodynamic equilibrium state would be the termination of the cycle: all the rain stops, the rivers run dry, etc.
5) Fisher’s sex ratio
6) Mutation-drift balance.
I only mention these last 2 for completeness; I know evolutionary concepts bring nonlin out in a rash!
So what about vents? I simply can’t see the justification. If they are in ‘dynamic equilibrium’, so are volcanoes! Either way, they clearly aren’t in thermodynamic equilibrium.
What Allan wrote:
What Nonlin “reads”:
One of Nonlin’s potential answers:
That is retard, if you want to go against the 2nd law be my guest.
Entropy,
As discussed!
There is an error in that paragraph, though. I made it twice, but only spotted the first.
I have always assumed that those +/- errors were placed intentionally to test your audience for competence.
I so enjoyed Sal’s crash-and-burn with the added oxygen atom!
Er … yes! Yes, that’s what it is!
Yes. Assembly-disassembly is a thing. Good point.
Show the experiments!
General advice to little monkeys: hysteria won’t get you the next banana. Not in this lab at least.
How would you know who’s the fool? Have you yourself been judged? By what absolute authority?
Been there, done that.
Go check before commenting on something you don’t know.
100%.
Seriously?
Take the entropy decrease for one pound of biomass from molecules to cells (as in abiogenesis) and compare that to the entropy decrease for one pound of matter in star formation (or what have you). Not to the entropy decrease of the whole star.
Everyone knows that the entropy of an n-particle system is smaller than the entropy of a 2(or more) n-particle system. You did know this much, right? If not, see formula in paragraph 2.
I perhaps didn’t make myself clear enough. Suffering fools gladly is lifted from Paul’s second letter to the church at Corinth. But I just meant the moderation at PT is less lax than here and repeating unsupported assertions could get you labelled as a troll.
Been where? Done what? Have you written a paper and tried submitting it somewhere? Do tell!
I did in fact have a look at your interactions at both BioLogos and Peaceful Science. I don’t think you have much to complain about. Once you have set out your stall and been debunked, the rest is repetition.
Well, in that case you owe it to the scientific world to bring your stuff to their attention. I have to admire your doggedness. Zero comments on your own blog. Negative feedback from Uncommon Descent, BioLogos, Peaceful Science, The Skeptical Zone, Panda’s Thumb.
The Next Step?
Look, if you don’t speak the language of science, we can’t communicate. One last time:
dy·nam·ic e·qui·lib·ri·um
/dīˈnamik ˌekwəˈlibrēəm,ˌēkwəˈlibrēəm/
noun
a state of balance between continuing processes.
Would, could, should. Those are easy to test: see what’s being produced before consumption or reproduce whole thing in the lab. Nope. Nothing happening. Read 10.D. again. Also see Fig 1 heterogeneous systems for FACTS, not fiction.
Where’s your example against: “2. Any entropy decrease can only be local and must be driven by clear and specific factors.”? How is your comment even disputing this? All the examples I can think of support this, whereas you only need one counterexample. Which is?
Your own words – “clear and specific factors”. If it needs a driver, it’s not spontaneous. Do we both agree on 2? If not, show that “oxidative differential” happening spontaneously in the inert.
What “vast array”? You can decay a cell into its basic molecules. Those are your raw materials needed for abiogenesis. You can use whatever else you want as long as that “whatever else” is not part of the final cell. So you have initial and final.
Explain. Is abiogenesis not the highest entropy decrease pound for pound of all processes? I show that entropy decrease is not at all trivial as opposed to entropy increase. Therefore?
For abiogenesis, not entropy. Meaning “have all energy you want and you can’t achieve abiogenesis”.
Volcanoes are different. They erupt only once in a while whereas vents release material at a fairly constant rate. If they didn’t, that would kill the ecosystem. Not that volcanoes are any more conducive to abiogenesis than vents.
I perhaps didn’t make myself clear enough. You or them are in no position to judge given both you and them make preposterous claims (unsupported assertions) all the time. Ain’t that funny?
As far as I’m concerned, 100% of my claims are supported. Jokes aside.
Alan Fox,
Look, you’ll have to catch up.
Haha. Sure, “debunked”. Like everything here, right? You so funny.
Did I mention science is not a consensus enterprise? Did I have to?