The Second Law of Thermodynamics

Originally posted by dj2becker
Well as this thread has been directed at the 2nd Law vs the origin of life, and your pal is of the opinion that life did not evolve from non-life, then the obvious question would be how does he explain the origin of life, as that is what this thread is all about...

[edit]- I originally said that the initial post meade no mention of abiogenesis but in fact it does mention abiogenesis as well as evolution[/edit]

However, since both evolution and abiogenesis represent a local decrease in entropy, if it was a problem for one then it would also be a problem for the other.

As the 2nd law only applies to closed systems and the Earth is not a closed system, as has already been pointed out numerous times, it does not pose a problem for either abiogenesis or evolution. Lots of other examples of localised decreases in entropy on the Earth have also be given but the supporters of the view in the initial post seem to have a blind spot in relation to them and their implications.

--- Penguin.

Originally posted by UmbrageOfSnow
You are putting his words into a context he did not mean. He was not trying to give an accurate, scientific definition of the second law, he was trying to write a popularized account for a more general, less educated audience. He oversimplified, so what, that was part of his job almost. Writing simplified science for the masses. Once in a while his ...[text shortened]... of debate or formal context, so please don't. Find an accepted definition of the second law.

Would you mind pointing out which of his quoted statements are in agreement with abiogenesis theory.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
That's a refusal to answer the question you have about your own hypothesis? How, please tell me, an I supposed to answer a question about your idea, when I (a) don't know what you're talking about, and (b) think you are talking rubbish?

Which hypothesis have I made? This is what I quoted:

" It is well known that, left to themselves, chemical compounds ultimately break apart into simpler materials; they do not ultimately become more complex. Outside forces can increase order for a time (through the expenditure of relatively large amounts of energy, and through the input of design). However, such reversal cannot last forever. Once the force is released, processes return to their natural direction - greater disorder. Their energy is transformed into lower levels of availability for further work. The natural tendency of complex, ordered arrangements and systems is to become simpler and more disorderly with time."

R.B. Lindsay, "Physics - To What Extent Is It Deterministic?" American Scientist, Vol. 56, No. 2 (1968), pp. 100-111.

Would you mind explaining how this is compatible with abiogenesis theory?

Originally posted by scottishinnz
So what?

How do you propose abiogenesis occurred whilst keeping the above in mind?

Originally posted by UmbrageOfSnow
"No process is possible in which the sole result is the transfer of energy from a cooler to a hotter body."

"Entropy in a closed system can never decrease. Entropy is unavailable energy. In a closed system, available energy can never increase, so (because energy is conserved) its complement, entropy, can never decrease."

"The algebraic ittle knowledge of thermodynamics, physics, or chemistry to point this out.

Well I have heard it said that even there is no viable replacement for abiogenesis theory (within their philosophical presuppositions) and that is why they still keep it.

Originally posted by Starrman
Do you accept that evolution does not violate the 2nd law?

'Evolution' is a very broad term. You might need to be a little more specific.

Originally posted by Penguin
[edit]- I originally said that the initial post meade no mention of abiogenesis but in fact it does mention abiogenesis as well as evolution[/edit]

However, since both evolution and abiogenesis represent a local decrease in entropy, if it was a problem for one then it would also be a problem for the other.

As the 2nd law only applies to closed systems ...[text shortened]... itial post seem to have a blind spot in relation to them and their implications.

--- Penguin.

I think the real question is whether or not it has been demonstrated that a temporary local decrease in entropy would be sufficient to create life from non-life.

Originally posted by dj2becker
Well I have heard it said that even there is no viable replacement for abiogenesis theory (within their philosophical presuppositions) and that is why they still keep it.

You didn't even try to answer my question.

Using an accepted definition of the 2nd law of thermodynamics, why would abiogenesis violate it?

Just because there is no better explanation does not imply abiogenesis is wrong, in fact it only makes it more credible.

Originally posted by dj2becker
Would you mind pointing out which of his quoted statements are in agreement with abiogenesis theory.

None, what a surprise, you only quoted the one paragraph of his 515 books and tons of articles and stories. He agreed with abiogenesis theory at the time he wrote that article (and before and after), just because there is no support for it in that paragraph does not mean that he agrees with the way you are twisting his words.

He understood the implications of the laws of thermodynamics quite well, and if asked to give a formal definition, would have said something more like I posted rather than what was in that article which was meant for a general audience.

Originally posted by UmbrageOfSnow
You didn't even try to answer my question.

Using an accepted definition of the 2nd law of thermodynamics, why would abiogenesis violate it?

Just because there is no better explanation does not imply abiogenesis is wrong, in fact it only makes it more credible.

What do you mean by accepted? By whom? Yourself?

None of the definitions you gave dealt extensively with the 'molecular biology' part of the second law applicable to abiogenesis theory. The one I used did.

Originally posted by UmbrageOfSnow
None, what a surprise, you only quoted the one paragraph of his 515 books and tons of articles and stories. He agreed with abiogenesis theory at the time he wrote that article (and before and after), just because there is no support for it in that paragraph does not mean that he agrees with the way you are twisting his words.

He understood the impl ...[text shortened]... more like I posted rather than what was in that article which was meant for a general audience.

I am happy to hear that you were his mentor...

Would a few quotations in support of abiogenesis theory from his 515 books and tons of articles and stories be asking too much from you?

Cause I'm sure you could just give me a couple dozen off hand. His science fiction books were full of abiogenesis theory 😀

Originally posted by dj2becker
'Evolution' is a very broad term. You might need to be a little more specific.

I need to do no such thing, stop avoiding the question. For the third time, do you concede that the Theory of Evolution does not violate the second law?

Originally posted by dj2becker
How do you propose abiogenesis occurred whilst keeping the above in mind?

The earth is not a closed system. Provided we have a energy input (the sun) localised decreases in entropy can occur. This is manifestly true, as demonstrated by things like plant growth (energy input from the sun builds small molecules (CO2 and H2O) into complex carbohydrates, cell walls etc, or even by a simple process like evaporation, where an energy input (the sun) increases the energy status of a water molecule.

Abiogenesis could occur, and it's likely, would occur as solar energy provided energy for chemical bonds to form and break, and laws of probability means that the more stable molecules would break apart less readily, meaning, over time, a more complex system would arise. This was typified by the Miller and Urey experiment (despite its flaws).

Originally posted by dj2becker
Which hypothesis have I made? This is what I quoted:

" It is well known that, left to themselves, chemical compounds ultimately break apart into simpler materials; they do not ultimately become more complex. Outside forces can increase order for a time (through the expenditure of relatively large amounts of energy, and through the input of design). Howe ...[text shortened]... p. 100-111.[/i]

Would you mind explaining how this is compatible with abiogenesis theory?

Only if you explain to me why YOU haven't broken down in accordance with the 2nd law yet.

Originally posted by dj2becker
What do you mean by accepted? By whom? Yourself?

None of the definitions you gave dealt extensively with the 'molecular biology' part of the second law applicable to abiogenesis theory. The one I used did.

Accepted by me and let's say scottishinNZ just for fun. I would like to say accepted by the scientific community but you will turn that into a huge argument about what qualifies as the scientific community and if there is evidence that any particular definition is actually supported, so I'll settle for the two of us.

None of the definitions of the second law of thermodynamics dealt with molecular biology for a good reason, it is the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Definitions of entropy dealing with molecular biology are not neccesarily equivalent to thermodynamic definitions. If you are using the laws of THERMODYNAMICS, your argument must be based on thermodynamics.