|
Author
|
Topic: The Theory of evolution in the Perspective of Thermodynamics and Experience-de Jong
|
Zachriel
Member
Member # 1793
|
posted 24. April 2006 20:01
Bruce Fast: "Your restatement, unlike your initial knee-jerk blast of Theory-of-Evolution.net farely accurately states Pullen's position."
Pullen, as you do, tries to invoke the second law of thermodynamics to wave away any conceivable abiogenesis. This is a faulty position.
Bruce Fast: "To account for this supply of energy, first life will have to be more complex than the RNA world experiments currently envision"
Perhaps. Pullen himself notes that RNA replication has been shown to occur in an environment rich in activated nucleotides. Such nucleotides can spontaneously form in the presence of light. In any case, no one has proposed a complete theory of abiogenesis*. It may not even involve RNA. (But some very interesting experiments involved the evolution of replicating RNA!)
But the assertion of this thread is that thermodynamics prevents matter from so organizing itself. There is nothing, nothing in the second law of thermodynamics that prevents matter from engaging in complex interactions when in an energy rich environment. Complex organic compounds even form in interstellar nebula.
Bruce Fast: "First-life didn't just happen, and part of the reason for that is that first life must 'account for this supply of energy' or be subject to second-law dynamics."
My Goodness! No serious researcher has ever suggested that any aspect of abiogenesis could violate the second law of thermodynamics. Fortunately, there was plenty of free energy; photonic, thermal, chemical, radiation, etc.; on the primordial Earth.
--
* There is no complete theory of abiogenesis. The general hypothesis is that chemicals can spontaneously form primitive replicators. That replicating molecules have been discovered is a validated prediction of the hypothesis.
Abiogenesis is not a component of the Theory of Evolution, or Germ Theory for that matter. The first life form on Earth may have been a lucky accident, a natural property of carbon and liquid water, a unique circumstance, seeded by comets, planted by aliens, or even a Divine Miracle. The Theory of Evolution concerns the diversification of life, not its origin. However, it is known that life did not always exist on Earth, but that once it began, it diversified into a variety of forms.
Evolution Defined
IP: Logged
|
|
Bruce Fast
Member
Member # 924
|
posted 24. April 2006 22:56
So where exactly would the science of abiogenesis (which of course is charged with finding a naturalistic explanation for first life) end and evolution begin?
IP: Logged
|
|
Zachriel
Member
Member # 1793
|
posted 25. April 2006 07:30
Bruce Fast: "So where exactly would the science of abiogenesis (which of course is charged with finding a naturalistic explanation for first life) end and evolution begin?"
That's the unanswered question.
The window has been pushed further back over time. Predicted homologies within biochemistry have been found. Plausible replicators have been found. Nevertheless, there is a Gap in scientific understanding, albeit a narrowing one.
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 25. April 2006 07:50
Spontaneous generation or abiogenesis was formally disproven in three successive centuries, first by Redi, next by Spallanzani and finally and most decisively by Pasteur. Why must it still be assumed is the question that should be asked. The origin or origins of life could never have occurred by chance and most certainly never could have evolved by chance once created. To search for such possibilities is a fools errand. While there is no concrete evidence for divine intervention in today's world, such a past intervention cannot be dismissed at least by this investigator.
The primary error in all of science is that everything we see has resulted from identifiable, tangible, demonstrable, testable causes that are subject to experimental analysis. Most of what we know is not subject to such a process.
What is the cause of mathematics for example? I join with Godfrey Hardy by saying that mathematics has always existed independently of the mind of man and has only been discovered. The same can be said for all of Physics, Chemistry and Biology, indeed all of science. The scientist can only test mechanisms which are already in place. He cannot simulate devices and operations that no longer exist or need to exist. Among those are the origin or origins and the subsequent evolution of intital life forms. I feel there must have been several such primordial origins, the exact number still not known. These conclusions follow logically from the implications presented in the Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis. I see no evidence for subsequent interventons and neither did Grasse.
Einstein clearly recognized this - "Everything is determined... by forces over which we have no control." I would only substitute was for is. If a fundamental phenomenon has already been determined, can its origin any longer be discovered? Is not "prescribed" a synonym for "determined?" I answer with an emphatic yes. Others may not agree. That is what this forum is all about.
IP: Logged
|
|
Bruce Fast
Member
Member # 924
|
posted 26. April 2006 00:36
quote:
Bruce Fast: "So where exactly would the science of abiogenesis (which of course is charged with finding a naturalistic explanation for first life) end and evolution begin?"
That's the unanswered question.
Hmmm, would it not be the point where a realistic "common ancestor" organism is proposed -- a DNA, RNA or protein based reproductive "organism" which could realistically have come to be on its own, and which makes replicas of itself with some level of "mutation"? Once such an organism exists would not the principals of RM+NS be automatically invoked?
IP: Logged
|
|
Zachriel
Member
Member # 1793
|
posted 26. April 2006 10:47
Bruce Fast: "Hmmm, would it not be the point where a realistic "common ancestor" organism is proposed -- a DNA, RNA or protein based reproductive "organism" which could realistically have come to be on its own, and which makes replicas of itself with some level of "mutation"? Once such an organism exists would not the principals of RM+NS be automatically invoked?"
The sought-after unification of abiogenesis and biology requires more than a mere proposal. However, once imperfect replication begins, evolution is certainly possible. Some RNA has been shown to replicate with 95% fidelity, sufficient for preservation of traits but with variation. And artificial RNA has been shown to evolve, dramatically increasing in efficiency. However, problems include the difficulty of reconstructing natural synthesis of fragile RNA molecules.
Some of these discoveries confirm predictions of the abiogenesis hypothesis, but that hardly constitutes a complete theory.
From NASA.gov
Test-tube RNA: "When we subjected these ribozymes to a test-tube evolution, we found descendants that were 100 times more efficient."
IP: Logged
|
|
Bruce Fast
Member
Member # 924
|
posted 26. April 2006 12:34
Your "Test-tube RNA" link is broken. I would like to read it.
IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Bruce Fast
Member
Member # 924
|
posted 26. April 2006 18:09
You don't happen to know where one can get the original publication of this study do you? My experience with these things is that they look amazing when reported on, but not nearly so amazing when they are scrutinized.
IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Zachriel
Member
Member # 1793
|
posted 26. April 2006 21:25
Constructing an RNA world
David P. Bartel and Peter J. Unrau
"A popular theory of lifeÕs origins states that the first biocatalysts were not made of protein but were made of RNA or a very similar polymer. Experiments are beginning to confirm that the catalytic abilities of RNA are compatible with this 'RNA world' hypothesis. For example, RNA can synthesize short fragments of RNA in a
template-directed fashion and promote formation of peptide, ester and glycosidic linkages. However, no known activity fully represents one presumed by the 'RNA world' theory, and reactions such as oxidation and reduction
have yet to be demonstrated. Filling these gaps would place the hypothesis on much firmer ground and provide components for building minimal forms of RNA-based cellular life."
PDF available here:
http://www.sfu.ca/mbb/mbb/faculty/unrau/publica.html
IP: Logged
|
|
kyle7
Member
Member # 191
|
posted 01. May 2006 22:34
I go out of town and my post is filled up with posts filled with disinformation.
Zach says,
quote:
As far as the Sun hitting an automobile, well, sunlight is more than capable of pushing matter to create elaborate and complex comet tails. And sunlight is more than capable of driving all sorts of non-living chemical and mechanical activities, including the creation of complex organic compounds such as amino acids.
The entire application of the second law is bogus.
This is not exactly true! The complexity of these molecules are within a certain bounds based on the physics of the system. Even these systems have a certain equilibrium condition related to them. The "elaborate and complex comet tail" is a joke when compared to the complexity of life.
In order for the entropy to decrease, you need a thermodynamic mechanism. There exist some natural systems that enable entropy to decrease, but the degree of CSI related with these systems are always very low -- more closer to 1 mph compared with the speed of light. To say that there is a scientific explanation for the origin of life, specifically one which does not violate the second law, demonstrates the religiousity of those who claim to be unbiased naturalists. These individuals deserve to be mocked and ridiculed for their distortion of science!
IP: Logged
|
|
Bruce Fast
Member
Member # 924
|
posted 02. May 2006 00:42
Kyle7, teach you for going out of town.
Though Zachriel seems to acknowledge that any reasonable theory of abiogenesis would surely account for the second law, he doesn't seem to think that the second law is a factor in abiogenisis. I find this position on this matter to be puzzling.
In Intelligent Design or Evolution, Dr. Pullen suggests that RNA experiments requre activated nucleotides. His suggestion is that activated nucleotides are virtually non-existant in nature. Zachriel, on the other hand, seem to suggest that a little sunlight is all that it takes to get activated nucleotides. I'm afraid that my knowledge in this area, and my resources, are too limited to establish just how easy it is to "activate" nuclotides (whatever exactly that means.) I wish I could get Dr. Pullen to enter the debate but I haven't figured out how to do that.
Further, Zachriel has presented some extremely enticing studies. These, however, I have not had time, nor necessarily have the necessary background knowledge, to thoroughly critique.
Though your thread has wandered about a lot, I have found it very interesting. It isn't actually that far off of the topic of the second law as you initiated it. If you have more knowledge to either confirm or challenge Zachriel's input, I would personally find it valuable.
IP: Logged
|
|
Zachriel
Member
Member # 1793
|
posted 02. May 2006 07:51
kyle7: "This is not exactly true! The complexity of these molecules are within a certain bounds based on the physics of the system."
The discussion is the validity of invoking the second law of thermodynamics. The entropy of a kilogram of humanity and a kilogram of undifferentiated naturally occurring organic compounds is equivalent. The conflation of entropy with some notion of biochemical complexity is fallacious.
Bruce Fast: "Though Zachriel seems to acknowledge that any reasonable theory of abiogenesis would surely account for the second law, he doesn't seem to think that the second law is a factor in abiogenisis."
The second law is a factor in any chemical or physical process. However, the Earth is bathed in ample solar energy, as well as a supply of residual energy in its interior. Some of this energy will energize or ionize molecular complexes causing them to be chemically active (photons or electrons or other activated molecules) In this context, the free energy of the Sun is transferred into free chemical energy (with some energy lost in the process, of course).
IP: Logged
|
|
kyle7
Member
Member # 191
|
posted 04. May 2006 02:12
quote:
The entropy of a kilogram of humanity and a kilogram of undifferentiated naturally occurring organic compounds is equivalent.
Perhaps, you should specify the material and states --temperature, pressure, and volume, before you make these unfounded statements.
quote:
The conflation of entropy with some notion of biochemical complexity is fallacious.
If you take a strict classical perspective, the second law is essentially useless given the requirement of the system being at equilibrium and the process being reversible. The equilibrium requirement precludes any heat transfer, fluid flow,or chemical change. The first and second laws of thermodynamics have been extended to enable the analysis of complex systems, such as engines, refrigerators, heat exchangers, chemical plants, etc etc. This area is sometimes called engineering thermodynamics, which is concerned about the direction of processes, the rate of processes and the mechanisms enabling the processes.
Fundamental to engineering thermodynamics is the control of boundary conditions at the system and subsystem levels. Typically, the goal is to enable the entropy to locally decrease, while the net total entropy increases as expected from the second law of thermodynamics. Energy has to be controlled by mechanisms to enable the local decrease in entropy. Without the control of energy you will only get wasted energy flowing to other regions in an attempt to reach equilibrium. For example, light hitting a pool of water will typically heat up the water as the light energy transforms to heat and flows to the surrounding cooler regions. You will not see ice forming at one part of the pool while the other side of the pool heats up, when the water is higher than the freezing point. If you have a thermodynamic mechanism, this can change. A solar Stirling engine can be used to run a Stirling cooler which could then freeze a small chunk of ice when the larger body of water has a temperature much greater than the freezing point. But in order for this to happen, you need the THERMODYNAMIC MECHANISM, which in this case is the solar Stirling engine providing work for the Stirling cooler. It is a device which controls the flow of energy. Without it, you do not get the local decrease in entropy.
This discussion has a relation to Dembski's CSI concept. The further from equilibrium is the process and the more complex the thermodynamic mechanism enabling the process, the more CSI is inherently in the system. When you have a few components of a system working together "intelligently" you have a low CSI rating. When you have thousands or millions of components "intelligently" working together you have a high CSI rating.
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic