Thermodynamics, Abiogenesis and Evolution

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]

quote:

---

DNAunion: Somehow, I'm not sure how, you're setting some kind of trap for me, aren't you?

---

quote:

---

JohnF: Nope, just simple logic.

​

Either the 2LoT poses a problem for abbiogenesis, or it doesn't (whether or not we have the informatioin required to determine which). Clear so far?

---

Good enough...it's the next stuff where you run off track.

quote:

---

JohnF: If the 2LoT poses a problem for abiogenesis, that problem can't be solved.

---

That's a flawed premise. None of your other "simple logic" matters since this premise of yours is wrong.

quote:

---

JohnF: Where are your calculations that demonstrate that the second law of thermodynamics is a problem for abiogenesis?

---

I told you before, I don't need calculations. I have logic that shows, for example, that polymerization is an uphill process from free monomers. There's the problem. How was it solved prebiotically?They've tried triphosphates and gave them up, they've tried imidazolides - but their prebiotic plausibility is questionable, they've tried other activating agents but they are either not very effective or their prebiotic plausibility is in doubt too. There is a problem that has yet to be fully solved.Again, I don't need calculations - go back and look at post #30.

quote:

---

JohnF: If the 2LoT poses a problem for abiogenesis, that problem can't be solved.

---

quote:

---

DNAunion: That's a flawed premise. None of your other "simple logic" matters since this premise of yours is wrong.

---

quote:

---

JohnF: Indeed?

---

Indeed.

quote:

---

JohnF: You think that, if the 2LoT forbids abiogenesis, then abiogenesis can still take place?

---

No, I don't think that, I haven't said that, I haven't implied that, and I've stated that I am not climaing that the second law of thermodynamics forbids abiogenesis.Your distorting things: problems are solvable, impossibilities aren't. What's I've stated is that the second law of themodynamics poses a PROBLEM for abiogenesis, NOT that it forbids it. Problems are solvable; impossibilities are not. Two very different things.And I will point out that by this time you know damned well what I am NOT saying. Your ignoring that is an act of disingenuousness on your part.[This message has been edited by DNAunion, 04-14-2004]

quote:

---

DNAunion: I told you before, I don't need calculations. I have logic that shows, for example, that polymerization is an uphill process from free monomers. There's the problem. How was it solved prebiotically?

---

quote:

---

JohnF: It is not necessary to know the process to evaluate the thermodnamics (although it often helps).

---

Yeah, so what?

quote:

---

JohnF: The fact that polymerization is an uphill process does not lead to your conclusion that there's a thermodynamic problem; "uphill" processes happen spntaneously all the time.

---

Uhm, uphill processes never happen spontaneously: in fact, uphill indicates nonspontaneous.Uphill process can happen only if some mechanism coupling them to downhill processes is involved (or energy is provided by some other means). But then, the process that is spontaneous - downhill - is the OVERALL process, not the single one that was originally being considered.Since polymerization is uphill - which you accept - then it will not happen spontaneously. There's the problem. How is it solved? We know how it occurs in today's cells: not yet fully worked out is a plausible method of how it would have occurred prebiotically as part of kickstarting life.

quote:

---

JohnF: I'll tentatively accept your claim that tests have been unsuccessful; that still doen't mean that there's a thermodynamic problem.

​

It's a problem for abiogenesis researchers ... but it is not necessarily a thermodynamic problem, as you have claimed.

---

It is a problem OOL researchers and nature face/faced because of thermodynamics: the problem is imposed on them by the second law. If the second law didn't exist, there would be no problem getting monomers to polymerize prebiotically: (1) there would not be any restriction based on the process reducing entropy: no second law, no restrictions on changes in entropy; (2) nor would there be a restriction based on the process being energetically uphill: no second law, no restrictions on the energetics of processes. But the second law does exist.Let me make another point, which should have been clear all along. I am not saying there is a problem with thermodynamics, as in thermodynamics is flawed somehow: nope, haven't said that.[This message has been edited by DNAunion, 04-14-2004]

quote:

---

DNAunion: They've tried triphosphates and gave them up, they've tried imidazolides - but their prebiotic plausibility is questionable, they've tried other activating agents but they are either not very effective or their prebiotic plausibility is in doubt too. There is a problem that has yet to be fully solved.

---

quote:

---

LoudMouth: So maybe this is why abiogenesis research is still ongoing? I think you are mistaking dead ends in research with impossible goals.

---

No, you guys are the ones making mistakes. Compare my statement - "There is a problem that has yet to be fully solved." - with yours, which involves impossibilities. They are very different. In fact, I've stated multiple times in this thread that problems are solvable; impoissilibities aren't.You - and others - continue to read into my statements things which simply aren't there: even after I've explicitly stated, multiple times, that I am not saying what you people keep trying to state, claim, or insinuate I am supposedly saying.

quote:

---

LoudMouth: The very fact that scientists are very frank about plausible pathways and prebiotic activators should tell you that they fully realize the thermodynamic and free energy problems that face abiogenesis.

---

And your own statement should tell you, and others, that there are indeed thermodynamic/free energy problems associated with abiogenesis, which is what I said: I never said thermodynamics prohibits abiogenesis - no, that's what others have tried to stuff into my mouth: that's theirs words, not mine. Don't get confused.

quote:

---

Loudmouth: I think we can all agree that science has not found a reliable pathway, and I think that we can all agree that entropy factors into pathways hypothesized by abiogenesis scientists.

---

Good. Then what's the problem everyone has with what I stated?

quote:

---

LoudMouth: What I can't understand is what you are all in a huff about.

---

1) JohnF got all up in my face with his first reply: basically, I was ignorant and dishonest2) Several people quickly jumped and took on a gang mentallity, making it once again, basically, a gang vs. DNAunion thing3) Memebers of the gang - for example Percy - have tried to blame me for several things which weren't my doing, but were actually other people's fault: And of course the insinutations of me supposedly being a Creationist were once again peddled (for those gullible enough to swallow that load of marlarky)4) JohnF continues to insinuate things about my position that simply aren't true, and that he should know by now aren't true: distortion: and he continues to try to claim that I am ignorant (I'm blathering, look at my own logic and I'll laugh, etc.)I may have missed some.[This message has been edited by DNAunion, 04-14-2004]

quote:

---

Percy: Solar and geothermal energy was available. What's the problem?

---

Hey, I just realized that matter was also present. Putting the two together, Percy and I have just solved the origin of life mystery!After all, matter and energy were both available, so really, what's the problem? Gee, why haven't OOL researchers figured it all out yet: it should have taken them only seconds to realize what Percy and I just worked out. In fact, why are there any OOL researchers at all? There was matter and there was energy: case closed.

quote:

---

JohnF: And, until you produce evidence that the uphill processes involved in abiogenesis cannot happen in nature,...

---

I have no such burden since I have not claimed impossibility, not at all. I mentioned problems - problems are solvable; impossibilities aren't.You continue in your dishonesty.