Thermodynamics, Abiogenesis and Evolution

Yeah that seems close enough to me, my own.I think I understand and stood Georgi to indicate true, that he is not either accomodating "or" refuting creationism but dismissing it when it does not use thermodynamics in all its post Gibbsian glory and accepting it if it implies only change within his own "law".The difficulty is in first imagining the added issues that the difference of artifical and natural selection plys for said "isolationism". Unfortunately Gould sought to differentiate his view of ontogeny FROM Mayr's (1963 dismissal of deep homology) thus making a clear opening for Dawkins' writing style rather than recognizing that there IS a strand of thought available to the student that need not admit a common view of just what phylogeny "clumps" morphogenetically (Gould brought this so far as to use the word "thoracic" for both snakes and beetles) rather than showing that his reversal from his mentor's adaptation need NOT be aptive"" for a later generation of students of the synthesis. I know these sentences do not make things much better yet. (PS- Great to hear about you and Bates. I liked his other book "The Nature of Natural History", Gould surely was familiar with that!!) To me Dakwins misjudged the dovetailpenpoint of Gould but making macrothermodynamics Darwinian seems imperative. I have not worked out the exact quotes necessary to cut this difference between Gould and Dawkins. I am fairly certain such lingo exists however (I do not know if notions of "perfection" need be brought up or if Gould simply misread THE CARTESIAN(mathmatical) slide of D'Arcy Thompson ACROSS phylogeny(difference of mathematical philosophy and philosophical mathematics (this depends on how the general population of biologists accepts Gould's contribution, a stat I am not familiar with)(Gould *used* the relation of geometric and information duplication to wend a way between the conceptual differences of convergence and parallelism but I think algebraic rings can gainsay where Dawkins doubted the existence of Gould's use of hold and blueprint of the "design")).Edited by Brad McFall, : spellingEdited by Brad McFall, : spelling

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

quote:

---

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

---

and the not-particularly-rigorous-answer?

quote:

---

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

---

*their italics

Ah, well that clears that up nicely. I had wondered

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
with energy available there is no inherent problem for abiogenesis from the second law of thermodynamics.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your reasoning showed that you have a very little understanding in physics,read more.The second law stated that if things left unattended it will become a ruin.For example abandoned your haus and it will become a ruin.So if nobody cares about the universe,"Why it will not become a ruin"?Put this question in your coconut shell.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The difference is between a closed system and an open system, not necessarily between living systems and physics
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let me ask you is a living organism closed system or open?A system is closed
only if there is no energy that can crossed the boundary of that system.

It is you that has very, very little understanding of physics.That is not what the 2nd law says. It is a highly simplified example to give a flavor of what entropy is about.It also does not imply: "So if nobody cares about the universe,"Why it will not become a ruin"Thermodyamics does have bearing on any processes or mechanisms which affect your "haus" such as maintenance on it.Since a "haus" is not an example that has anything at all to do with abiogenesis or evolution it is irrelevant here other than a demonstration that you don't know either subject at all.If you wonder why it is a lousy analogy for evolution you should note that houses don't f**k. That is, in short, the difference.If you wonder why it is a lousy analogy for abiogenesis you should note that 2x4s have no chemical affinity for each other.When you understand those issues you will have begun to learn a little tiny bit about the subject at hand.Edited by NosyNed, : No reason given.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
If abiogenesis is prohibited by the second law of thermodynamics, that's a problem that cannot be overcome
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What is the connection of this reasoning to exemplary logic?Let see if you are really good in logic.Try this one.Power tends to corrupt
Knowledge is power
Therefore knowledge tends to corrupt.What is wrong with that argument?

First of all you need to learn what logic is.Your quaint aphorism, is not logic.It is an aphorism or an adage.I could give you definitions for these words, but will leave it to you. Maybe then you might learn something.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

Isn't it a syllogism? Albeit one comprised of bits of two separate adages/aphorisms.A syllogism is a form of logical argument, it just isn't a compelling one unless we have good reason to accept the premises.TTFN,WKEdited by Wounded King, : No reason given.

I would not say it is a syllogism because syllogisms make concrete statements If it is a syllogism it is a very poor one and not one that can be defended logically.Then again there are much better logicians than me here so if I am wrong please correct me.Basically my point was that he is using false logic.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

It's not a very well written syllogism. The first premise would be better written "all power always corrupts", but if we are charitable and do not consider the meaning of the words it appears to be technically valid.However, if we consider the intended meanings it seems likely that it includes an equivocation. For it to be truly valid the meaning of "power" must be exactly the same in both cases."Power corrupts" is a misquote. The original wording was "power tends to corrupt" (and note that this does not agree with the more rigourous wording I suggest above). And in context it referred to the political power of high office. Obviously the "power" that is knowledge is not identical to this power, so I would have to judge the syllogism invalid.

Your attempt to argue from the moral high ground ani't gonna' make it.In Message 95 you asked Maybe I missed its being answered but life is on open system. It includes the Sun. (or thermal vents or sulfide compounds)Over here you tried to make those nice, little, blue, quote boxes; therefore, your earlier argument that it wasn't your style was false. You just hadn't been able to figure it out. The reason you failed their was because you closed the quote with [q/s] rather then [/qs]. No big deal, but ,dang, it would be a lot easier to figure out what you mean if you'd use the nice, little, blue, quote boxes.Edited by lyx2no, : Add "earlier" url

---

Genesis 2
17 But of the ponderosa pine, thou shalt not eat of it; for in the day that thou shinniest thereof thou shalt sorely learn of thy nakedness.
18 And we all live happily ever after.

The second LAW of thermodynamics is often a law that is tossed about by creationists. This is a good argument because the law is one of entropy - that everthing from stars to cars are falling apart and winding down.This means there was an ordered creation OR special evolutionary magic that only occurs when unobserved. Both of these events creation and evolutionary magic are unobserved and therefore the belief in either is not science it is religion.
Off topic material hidden
Boyles Law and the 2nd law are Laws because we can prove them. They trump theories hand down. If you have a theory which goes against, as evolution does, the laws we know - one is wrong.
Off topic material hidden
Edited by AdminNosy, : No reason given.

Here is a good definition of "theory:"

Theory: a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses. Theories do not grow up to be laws. Theories explain laws.

​

Theory: A scientifically testable general principle or body of principles offered to explain observed phenomena. In scientific usage, a theory is distinct from a hypothesis (or conjecture) that is proposed to explain previously observed phenomena. For a hypothesis to rise to the level of theory, it must predict the existence of new phenomena that are subsequently observed. A theory can be overturned if new phenomena are observed that directly contradict the theory. (Source)

​

When a scientific theory has a long history of being supported by verifiable evidence, it is appropriate to speak about "acceptance" of (not "belief" in) the theory; or we can say that we have "confidence" (not "faith") in the theory. It is the dependence on verifiable data and the capability of testing that distinguish scientific theories from matters of faith.

And a definition of "law:"

Law: a generalization that describes recurring facts or events in nature; "the laws of thermodynamics."

Laws are often expressed as mathematical formulas, and are very limited in scope. And, as noted above, theories explain laws.
Off topic material hidden
Edited by AdminNosy, : No reason given.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Boyle's Law certainly does not dictate this. Do you actually know Boyle's Law? And this atmosphere of ours - what is it contained by? What could possibly make all the gases around us compact themselves against this planet? Why are these gases not expanding filling the galaxy?
Off topic material hidden
Edited by AdminNosy, : No reason given.