Thermodynamics, Abiogenesis and Evolution

quote:

---

Percy: This discussion has a similar feel to it. Nobody can figure out what point is being made, clarifications only introduce more confusion, an argument breaks out anyway, and in the center of the melee is...DNAunion.

---

Hold on Percy. Before you start targetting me, let's all note exactly who started the posturing in this thread: JohnF.

quote:

---

JohnF: Er, you appear to have a serious misunderstanding of thermodynamics.

​

... Therefore the idea of needing to know a mechanism (for the transition between states) in order to evaluate the thermodynamic possibilities is a red herring.

---

Gee, I guess I'm pretty stupid and underhanded, huh? So, are we all straight on who lit the first match in this thread?Second point Percy. Not everyone is confused. For example:

quote:

---

NosyNed: DNA has a clear point. The free energy is available but there must be some mechanism for allowing it to perform the work. That is all he is saying and it is the basic issue of abilogenesis.

---

I don't know why others - such as you - are incapable of understanding me. If I must speak in words no longer than 4-letters just let me know and I will try to oblige.Third point Percy, regarding...

quote:

---

Percy: It provides a nice sense of balance to know that the evolutionist side has its own Stephen ben Yeshua's and WillowTree's. So what Creationist position will you faux imitate next?

---

Since NosyNed agreed with me, are you insinuating that he too is some sort of Creationist? Must be, if he agrees with my position, and it is (supposedly) some form of Creationist argument.All in all, a fine post Percy! You pointed the finger at the wrong person, tried to claim that I was the problem of the confusion even though NosyNed was easily able to see what I was saying, and implicitly labeled NosyNed as some kind of Creationist. Keep up the good work![This message has been edited by DNAunion, 04-13-2004]

quote:

---

DNAunion: Tell you what, why don’t you tell us exactly what you (wrongly) think I said ...

---

quote:

---

JohnF: I thought you said:

​

"The second law of thermodynamics poses no problem at all for evolution: abiogenesis is a different story."

​

and "... the second law poses a problem for OOL"

​

and "The second law of thermodynamics poses a problem for abiogenesis in a manner similar to how gravity poses a problem for pyramid builders."

​

The last statement is likely to be correct, but all are unsupported assertions.

---

Uhm, if the last statement is correct, how could the others not be correct? If (3) is correct, then (2) must be correct. If (3) is correct, then (1) must be correct. So in other words, what you really meant to say was:"DNAunion, all of your above statements are likely correct..."[This message has been edited by DNAunion, 04-13-2004]

quote:

---

JohnF: It appears to me that you are claiming that we know that abiogenesis is impossible because it violates the second law.

---

Another person who can’t read.Look, I already stated that such is NOT my position. Here, let me show you also:

quote:

---

BerBerry: Are you saying that abiogenesis could not have happened because it is made impossible by the 2nd law?

---

quote:

---

DNAunion: No, that is not my point.

---

So gee whiz Percy, who really is the problem for the misunderstandings here? Not me. NosyNed understood me, and at least two of those who just can’t seem to understand what I am saying - JohnF and wj — can’t even understand English: which isn’t my fault.

quote:

---

JohnF: What you need to provide to support your claim is a calculation that shows that the second law of thermodyanamics prohibits a self-replicator from arising.

---

Really now? You know, you would be right if I had said "the second law of thermodynamics prohibits abiogenesis"...but guess what...I didn't say that. I said it posed a problem for abiogenesis.Do you really equate the words "problem" and "impossible"? You shouldn't - problems can be overcome: impossibilities can't. Two very different things.[This message has been edited by DNAunion, 04-13-2004]

Yes, yes, we know, you're once again the center of turmoil and completely blameless, the only one in the discussion with the intellect to comprehend your spectacular insights.There is no more a 2LOT issue with abiogenesis than there is with any other chemical process. Abiogenesis obeyed the laws of physics. At best your difficult to decipher claims boil down to abiogenesis having to obey 2LOT, which I don't think comes as a particular revelation to anyone.--Percy

quote:

---

Percy: Yes, yes, we know, you're once again the center of turmoil and completely blameless...

---

Finally, you said something that's right! :-)However, note that I have not said that I was blameless, just that I wasn't the person who STARTED the posturing. And guess what? That's a provable fact.

quote:

---

Percy: [you're] the only one in the discussion with the intellect to comprehend your spectacular insights.

---

No, NosyNed understood my point early on. The problem lies with those who don't try to understand - those, like you, who wrongly try to interpret my statements as if I were a Creationist. As soon as you and the others stop making that silly mistake the confusion will vanish.

quote:

---

Percy: At best your difficult to decipher claims...

---

I'm sorry, you mean my crystal clear claims that some people completely mangled, right?

quote:

---

Percy: ... boil down to abiogenesis having to obey 2LOT, which I don't think comes as a particular revelation to anyone.

---

Hmmm, where did I claim to be making a revelation of any kind? I guess you're more confused than I thought.

Ah, now I understand ... you have no point.If abiogenesis is prohibited by the second law of thermodynamics, that's a problem that cannot be overcome.If abiogenesis is not prohibited by the second law of thermodynamics, there is no problem.That's all there is.

It seems that your original point (if we can call it that) was devoid of any intellectual content, and deserved no response. Perhaps the confusion that people have comes from trying to perceive some reason for such an inane comment. If you will take some constructive criticism, you might try adding some substance to your posts to avoid such misunderstandings.

Ah, but there was a point. There is a problem that has yet to be fully solved. Furthermore, anyone who tries to pretend that there is no problem by relying only on vague appeals to "open system thermodynamics" is solving nothing: sufficient free energy is a necessary, but insufficient, precondition for abiogenesis.I guess all of that got lost in the distortions and posturings the others employed.[This message has been edited by DNAunion, 04-13-2004]

Sorry, that's not a possibility. Either there's a problem that cannot be solved, or there's no problem. And you have no idea which it is.

So DNA, after pruning the insults and derision, you are basically saying: abiogenesis must include a mechanism which is compatible with the constraints imposed by the 2LOT. So what? Has anyone asserted to the contrary here?It seems that some here may have mistaken DNA's argument for the erroneous creationist bleat that evolution/abiogenesis is contrary to the 2LOT. DNA's point is different, but trivial from a scientific perspective because an abiogenesis researcher would not seriously propose a mechanism for abiogenesis which contradicts the 2LOT and would need to .

Your point that the 2nd law is insufficient to explain abiogenesis is well taken. I don't think there's anyone here who is confused by it. The only reason I was confused is because the point is so obvious is didn't seem to warrant mentioning.Why is it necessary to explain abiogenesis in order to discuss whether it or evolution conflict with the 2nd law? Abiogenesis happened. Only creationists dispute it. No one here is trying to explain abiogenesis; in fact, no scientist has yet explained it. There aren't even any widely held theories on the matter, unless I'm mistaken.The question I was intending to explore in this thread was: Does the 2nd law (or any of the other laws of thermodynamics, for that matter) conflict with the theory of evolution or the origin of life? To my mind it does not. I did not intend to ask the question: How did abiogenesis occur? Therefore that discussion, as has been noted by several posters in this thread, belongs in another topic.EDIT: I'm leaning toward a caprice here. I've read over this thread again and I'm now a bit more interested in what DNAunion has to say. The original discussion I intended to draw here from the earlier thread has instead continued where it was. The discussion that has taken over here is not what I intended, but it's interesting anyway.DNA is correct to say that he isn't off-topic, at least considering the thread's title.My only argument with you, DNA, is that I don't see it necessary that one should explain a mechanism by which abiogenesis could occur before one can consider the thermodynamic implications of abiogenesis. You still haven't made your case on this point.[This message has been edited by berberry, 04-14-2004]

No they don't. They just have a different idea of how it happened. Life arose where there was none. That isn't disputed.

Good point. I didn't think of that. But in fairness, it must be acknowledged that abiogenesis as envisioned by creationists is an entirely different matter than abiogenesis as envisioned by scientists.

quote:

---

DNAunion: There is a problem that has yet to be fully solved.

---

quote:

---

JohnF: Sorry, that's not a possibility.

---

What planet are you from?

quote:

---

JohnF: Sorry, but [there being a problem that has yet to be fully solved] is not a possibility. Either there's a problem that cannot be solved, or there's no problem.

---

LOL! You're getting really desperate now!PS: I would respond in more depth but your logic is just too ridiculous to be taken at face value...countering it is just too damned easy...it's too good to be true. Somehow, I'm not sure how, you're setting some kind of trap for me, aren't you?[This message has been edited by DNAunion, 04-13-2004]