Originally posted by telerion
Yes, but the solar system is not.

Sure, but your net result for the universe would still be zilch, nada.

Originally posted by Halitose
Sure, but your net result for the universe would still be zilch, nada.

So the net result is zero (in the long term) what's wrong with that?

Originally posted by Halitose
[b]How is this relevant to the discussion?

www.answers.com/second law of thermodynamics

If the universe is a closed system, the second law of thermodynamics would certainly apply.

To me the formation of stars, galaxies, planets etc are shining examples of the fact that very complex things can form from something as simple as a cloud of hydrogen atoms.

Begging the question.[/b]

Okay Halitose,

I know your point and it is a good one. The 2nd law states that the universe tends towards entrophy, and this is correct, by and large. It is possible on a smaller scale to create order provided a larger amount of disorder is taking place somewhere else. For example, I can clean my lab (or flat for that matter), but it uses energy, I expell radiant heat, I digest the complex chemical in my food to more simple chemicals to get the energy. The increased order in my flat or lab has been paid for by the increased entropy in the food I ate and in my muscle cells and tissues (especially if I had to lift something big). Life works by channelling energy, not by creating it. The universe can deal with me creating order because the total entrophy of the universe has actually increased, just not in that particular place!

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Okay Halitose,

I know your point and it is a good one. The 2nd law states that the universe tends towards entrophy, and this is correct, by and large. It is possible on a smaller scale to create order provided a larger amount of disorder is taking place somewhere else. For example, I can clean my lab (or flat for that matter), but it uses e ...[text shortened]... he total entrophy of the universe has actually increased, just not in that particular place![/b]

A good point, but your example of microchange within a larger disorder uses your intelligence to facilitate it - an aspect quite lacking on primordial earth.

Originally posted by Halitose
A good point, but your example of microchange within a larger disorder uses your intelligence to facilitate it - an aspect quite lacking on primordial earth.

Okay, an amoeba consumes a food particle and breaks it down. The amoeba grows, decreasing its entrophy by increasing that of the food particule.
Amoeba do not exhibit 'intellegence'

If you want a chemical example of a simple to more complex system with only the input of energy see the chemical convertion of dinitrogen gas to ammonia by lightning (N2 + 3H2-> 2NH3)

Originally posted by scottishinnz
PCR. PCR is not DNA controlled.

PCR uses both a DNA template and a machine or lab setup made by humans, who are both intelligent and DNA based organisms.

The point being (before you ask), is if we can do it in a lab (very effectively using specific methodology) there is no reason why it couldn't happen in nature.

We already know organisms replicate DNA via a similar mechanism. I think this is what "DNA controlled" was supposed to mean. There's a DNA template and a DNA based organism involved.

Originally posted by Halitose
Theoretically, the universe is a closed system, yes?

Yes, I think. Are you claiming entropy within the entire universe decreases?

Originally posted by Halitose
No. You clearly have not learnt anything about the Theory of Evolution.

Lol, resorting to the renowned last-ditch defense: Argumentum ad hominem? 😞

It is not about random generation of anything. If you have a large enough system of replicating "things" whether small molecules, cells or multicellular life forms, which are ca ething more complex to replicate in when a virus is part of this chain of developing complexity?

What particles would be hydrologically sorted to form a more complex compound?

Would you mind clarifying what you mean by a "more complex compound"? Do you mean a system with less entropy?

Here's a relevant thread discussing the terminology used by many creationists, IDists, and others who challenge the TOE:

http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=22541&page=1

I have yet to see definitions of all these terms like "intelligence", "information", "complexity" in 11 pages of discussion. Until these terms are rigorously defined like entropy is, the typical arguments involving them are meaningless.

When starting from nothing and ending with something, this is certainly the case of "result in more complexity"

But there is no "starting from nothing" in abiogenesis theory. RNA starts from nucleoside triphosphates, which start from other molecules and solar energy, etc.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
PCR uses both a DNA template and a machine or lab setup made by humans, who are both intelligent and DNA based organisms.

[b]The point being (before you ask), is if we can do it in a lab (very effectively using specific methodology) there is no reason why it couldn't happen in nature.

We already know organisms replicate DNA via a similar me ...[text shortened]... A controlled" was supposed to mean. There's a DNA template and a DNA based organism involved.[/b]

Well, no, in PCR the process of DNA replication is thermally controlled. By a machine. As we have discussed at length, when the earth was young there was lots of energy abound, provided that the flux of energy through the environment was not uniform then temperature fluctuations are bound to happen. There is no reason that short DNA or (more likely) RNA sequences could not exist in this environment, and be replicated in a similar (although not exactly the same) manner as happens in a PCR machine.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Well, no, in PCR the process of DNA replication is thermally controlled. By a machine. As we have discussed at length, when the earth was young there was lots of energy abound, provided that the flux of energy through the environment was not uniform then temperature fluctuations are bound to happen. There is no reason that short DNA or (more likely) ...[text shortened]... d be replicated in a similar (although not exactly the same) manner as happens in a PCR machine.

I agree. I just interpreted the vague phrase "DNA controlled" differently than you I guess. What exactly was meant by that phrase anyway?

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
PCR uses both a DNA template and a machine or lab setup made by humans, who are both intelligent and DNA based organisms.

[b]The point being (before you ask), is if we can do it in a lab (very effectively using specific methodology) there is no reason why it couldn't happen in nature.

We already know organisms replicate DNA via a similar me ...[text shortened]... A controlled" was supposed to mean. There's a DNA template and a DNA based organism involved.[/b]

Unless you are trying to say that you can't have an organism without DNA or RNA, in which case I agree with you.

On the other hand, it is entirely possible to have DNA / RNA without an organism.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
I agree. I just interpreted the vague phrase "DNA controlled" differently than you I guess. What exactly was meant by that phrase anyway?

"How do you cross the hickup that DNA can currently only be created in a DNA controlled environment?"

This was Halitose's original assertion. I wasn't sure what he meant, but I'm assuming he meant inside a living cell.

Originally posted by Halitose
Sure, but your net result for the universe would still be zilch, nada.

Net result in terms of what? Entropy? The net result would be an increase in entropy or possibly zero. So?

Originally posted by scottishinnz
"How do you cross the hickup that DNA can currently only be created in a DNA controlled environment?"

This was Halitose's original assertion. I wasn't sure what he meant, but I'm assuming he meant inside a living cell.

Actually Hal, I can get across the hickup by removing the word 'currently'. The way it is currently isn't the way the world always was.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Okay, an amoeba consumes a food particle and breaks it down. The amoeba grows, decreasing its entrophy by increasing that of the food particule.
Amoeba do not exhibit 'intellegence'

If you want a chemical example of a simple to more complex system with only the input of energy see the chemical convertion of dinitrogen gas to ammonia by lightning (N2 + 3H2-> 2NH3)

Perhaps I should have defined my "intelligence" better. How about a non-random sorting-process, which directly decreases its own entropy? By that definition a Protozoan would qualify. I was anyway thinking more along the lines of photosynthesis and chlorophyll, a process/molecule that forms the base of our food chain - did the plants just live off nitric compounds for the millions of years it took to develop chlorophyll?

Ammonia is poisonous - this would decrease the chances of creating life.