|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 58 (9200 total) |
| |
Allysum Global | |
Total: 919,257 Year: 6,514/9,624 Month: 92/270 Week: 5/83 Day: 5/12 Hour: 1/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Thermodynamics, Abiogenesis and Evolution | |||||||||||||||||||||||
berberry Inactive Member |
rineholdr's title, not mine. This is a spinoff of 'The Big Bang - Questions from a Teen' in the 'Big Bang and Cosmology' forum.
rineholr wrote:
quote: and I responded:
quote: The earlier topic is straying from the original intent of the thread, therefore I'm proposing we move the discussion here.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
berberry Inactive Member |
DNAunion writes:
quote: I didn't realize we had moved so quickly from evolution to abiogenesis. I'm making no claims regarding abiogenesis. Until your 'prebiotically plausible mechanism' is discovered it seems pointless to argue whether abiogenesis conflicts with the 2nd law. I'm not sure I understand why you brought this point up. I thought the discussion was about evolution and the 2nd law. If I missed something somewhere I'm sorry.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
berberry Inactive Member |
AbbyLeever writes:
quote: Oh, yeah, I should've noticed that. Actually that title was copied from a subtitle in the earlier thread, it isn't mine. It is misleading, though; I wish I'd changed it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
berberry Inactive Member |
How about 'Thermodynamics, Abiogenesis and Evolution', since that seems to cover all the bases?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
berberry Inactive Member |
DNAunion writes:
quote: Insufficient for what? You keep repeating this, and I would agree that to the purpose of explaining abiogenesis certainly it's insufficient. But is that your whole point? That seems too obvious. Are you saying that abiogenesis could not have happened because it is made impossible by the 2nd law? If so, how do you suppose life began on earth? You seem to know a good deal more about this subject than I do, so please don't think I'm challenging you. I'm simply trying to be sure I understand you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
berberry Inactive Member |
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]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
berberry Inactive Member |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
berberry Inactive Member |
Percy writes:
quote: Yeah, I see what you mean and I realize that was a poor choice of words. What I meant was that identifying a mechanism by which abiogenesis can occur should not be necessary before we can observe that abiogenesis obeys the 2LOT (as well as the 3 or 4 other LOT, I forget the exact number). To put it another way: until that mechanism is identified it is pointless to speculate that the 2LOT might have been violated. I tried to follow your link, but each time I click on it I get nothing. Something appears to be loading for a second or two, then I get a blank screen without even an error message. Somewhere up the line in this thread (I did a brief search but couldn't find it, it might have been in the parent thread) someone objected to the use of the word 'disorder' in defining entropy. I agree that that is a poor definition but there is still a rather simple way to look at it: equalization of energy. If I remember correctly, a scientist studying the principles by which a steam engine operates was the first to stumble across the 2LOT. The uneven distribution of heat allowed the engine to operate. Once the heat was used, the energy it contained was dissipated into the environment. The energy still exists but is unusable for work because it can't be harnessed (or made uneven again). Therefore, entropy could be better defined as the even distribution of energy, unless I am very much mistaken. EDIT: Changed my mistaken use of the word 'uneven' in the final sentence to 'even'. [This message has been edited by berberry, 04-15-2004]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
berberry Inactive Member |
I follow your first paragraph but you lost me in the second, Brad. From what you say I gather that you are involved in abiogenesis research. Is that true? If so, do you work for a lab? Is it a private or government lab?
I don't mean to pry so feel free to ignore this. I'm just curious.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
berberry Inactive Member |
Just a quick note to Brad that there's a bit of news today about Einstein's theory. Seems NASA is set to run some tests on the theory from a satelite that was to have been launched today but has been delayed. You'll find details here. Sounds very interesting to me, but I never really understood that theory.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
berberry Inactive Member |
It'd suit me. I wouldn't be able to contribute much, but I'd certainly enjoy following the discussion. Might learn something, too.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
berberry Inactive Member |
I took a look at the site Brad linked in his post 82 above. It is one of Professor Gladyshev's pages and on it I found what I think sums up at least part of what Brad has been trying to tell us. The following quote is from that linked page:
During the last decades, an opinion has widely spread that there is the apparent contradiction between biological order and laws of physics - particularly the second law of thermodynamics. Besides, it is claimed that this contradiction cannot be removed as long as one tries to understand living systems by the methods of equilibrium thermodynamics. The author of the present work states: if living systems are described in the framework of hierarchic equilibrium thermodynamics, this contradiction does not exist. (edited to remove extraneous formatting)
Portions of Gladyshev's book Themodynamic Theory of the Evolution of Living Things are available for online viewing at the site. The book is published by Nova Science Publications of New York. I don't know anything about that publishing house. The book goes WAY over my head, as do Brad's posts about Gladyshev. Gladyshev's work sounds interesting to me, but I only understand the laws of thermodynamics at a very basic level. I have no idea whether the Professor's work is useful. Can anyone with a higher-than-average knowledge of physics answer a couple questions: 1. Is there any serious charge of a conflict between evolution and the 2LT coming from scientific quarters? If not, I should think that the paragraph I quoted above must be referring to creationism. 2. Is Gladyshev's theory established among scientists studying evolution? Is his work considered important? 3. What is Gladyshev's theory (expressed in the simplest possible language)? Does it alter or simply build on ToE? Is it more concerned with abiogenesis? 4. Is Gladyshev trying to accommodate creationism or refute it?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024