|
Author
|
Topic: The Theory of evolution in the Perspective of Thermodynamics and Experience-de Jong
|
Zachriel
Member
Member # 1793
|
posted 04. May 2006 10:24
kyle7: "Perhaps, you should specify the material and states --temperature, pressure, and volume, before you make these unfounded statements."
Gee whiz, kyle7. Assume they are at the same temperature, pressure, and density. There is no significant difference in thermodynamic entropy. When you put them in your heat engine, they release comparable amounts of work.
kyle7: "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."
That's historical nonsense. The laws of thermodynamics were devised *because* of observed limitations in the design of heat engines.
kyle7: "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."
Ice forms while steam rises across a pond. Fish swim in the thermal currents of deep cold waters. These interactions are standard thermodynamic processes with water found in all three states, and at a wide variety of temperatures.
kyle7: "Energy has to be controlled by mechanisms to enable the local decrease in entropy."
No "controller" is required to "enable the local decrease in entropy" in a pond. It only takes the warmth of the morning Sun.
IP: Logged
|
|
kyle7
Member
Member # 191
|
posted 10. May 2006 04:04
quote:
Gee whiz, kyle7. Assume that are at the same temperature, pressure, and density. There is no significant difference in thermodynamic entropy. When you put them in your heat engine, they release comparable amounts of work.
Sure this is basically true, but there is a fundamental difference between a dead body and a living body. Thermodynamically, you can add heat to a cold dead body so that the entropy is nearly equal (In reality a small difference in entropy can have significant effects, for example the difference between a dead body and live body). This added energy to the dead body will not transform the dead body into a living body. It doesn't matter if you add additional energy to the system -- it will not revive and spontaneously flow to the environment! This is the con job that many advocates of evolution are trying to sell the general public. They act as if the origin of live through natural processes is no a problem thermodynamically. This is a lie that deserves ridicule!
Little Jimmy wants a baby brother. Maybe he should get his momma to stick here finger in a light socket and turn it on. Certainly the added energy will produce a little brother!
This argument is applicable to both abiogenesis and to the supposed evolutionary development of life. Energy by itself, will not create life. You must explain the multitude of detailed mechanisms that harness energy and flows of matter. You must explain the self-assembling nanomachines.
quote:
quote:
The first and second laws of thermodynamics have been extended to enable the analysis of complex systems ...
Zach said,
quote:
That's historical nonsense. The laws of thermodynamics were devised *because* of observed limitations in the design of heat engines.
When the question whether thermodynamics has an impact on the origins and evolution debate, those who claim that thermodynamics is not relevant to this debate apply a very narrow classical perspective that does not account for the advances and extension of thermodynamics - though even this classical perspective is not generous to evolution if you look at the details. Some of the extension of thermodynamics has been the inclusion of energy flow processes such as conduction, radiation and convection heat transfer. Other extensions have been the inclusion of electrical and chemical processes. A host of other sub-areas of physics was also included. Also, thermodynamics has been extended to include open systems where energy and mass flow out of the system. Transient and nonequilibrium systems are also extensions. The advances in thermodynamics (sometimes called engineering thermodynamics) have been significant and some basic observations are apparent. One is that a large number of controlled and interacting parts are required to enable local decreases of entropy, where the local system is moving significantly far from equilibrium and the system is preforming a number of functions. The fine tuned systems, required of thermodynamics have a connection to Dembski's notion of complex specified information (CSI). Boundary conditions, materials, dimensions are all specified, as well as the interactions of the systems. To examine the information content of the system, every detail of the system has to be defined. For example, the information content in an engine is significant. Every part needs to be defined and all the associated relationships of the parts need definition. All the geometries need specification. Materials need specification. The relationship of the parts are important. For example, the spark plug needs to fire at a very specified time and the volumes within the cylinders require precise relationships at the time.
Information content requires contingency. A voluminous number of alternatives are possible but not any combinations will suffice. Precise relationships are required which are fine tuned. A functional engine requires CSI given the vast number of interacting parts. The probability of these parts coming together on their own is just too improbable. The same applies to life given the significant greater complexity such as self-healing, reproduction, immune systems etc etc. Life is a nanomachine which operates at both the micro and macro levels. We don't have the technology today to achieve systems even coming close to life.
quote:
Ice forms while steam rises across a pond. Fish swim in the thermal currents of deep cold waters. These interactions are standard thermodynamic processes with water found in all three states, and at a wide variety of temperatures.
Do you even understand the notion of equilibrium? Do you even understand the thermodynamic processes that are relevant to the debate? Spontaneous processes moving toward equilibrium have nothing to do with the second law debate. These processes are expected. Pouring gas on a car and lighting it will not move your car up the street. The energy will uselessly transfer to the environment. This is the expected process. Now if gas is put in the gas tank, the engine will run enabling the controlled use of the energy. No engine and no controlled use of energy!
Open systems moving toward equilibrium are also expected and don't have anything to do with the debate. What is significant are the processes that are spontaneous and moving away from equilibrium. These are locally entropy decreasing and require some auxiliary device to allow the process to occur as well as an energy source. Typically these are the systems that engineers are in the business of developing. The device enables the local decrease in entropy, while the net total entropy of the system increases. Without the device you will not see the local decrease in entropy. Uncontrolled energy will just dissipate to the environment.
quote:
No 'controller' is required to "enable the local decrease in entropy" in a pond. It only takes the warmth of the morning Sun.
Let us say that the water is 90 F and the surrounding environment is about the same. It would be a violation of the second law if you saw one side of the pond get hotter while the other gets cooler. It will not happen. If you shined all of light from the sun on the pool, you would not see an ice cube form in the pond naturally. Now if you had an auxiliary device this could be different. For example, if you had a solar Stirling engine running and powering a Stirling cooler, it could be possible to see ice forming near the cold cooler in the pond when the temperature of the larger body of water is 90F as well as the surroundings. This process would be considered nonspontaneous -- naturally it would not happen without some other auxiliary device and energy source.
IP: Logged
|
|
Zachriel
Member
Member # 1793
|
posted 10. May 2006 10:32
kyle7: "Sure this is basically true,..."
In other words, it's true.
kyle7: "...but there is a fundamental difference between a dead body and a living body."
Of course there is, but that is not the issue. The question is whether there is something in the Laws of Thermodynamics that prevents matter from spontaneously organizing itself — and there is not. In fact, matter often organizes itself in various and complex manners as energy flows through a system.
kyle7: "They act as if the origin of live through natural processes is no a problem thermodynamically."
The origin of life is a problem that is under active study. However, there is no problem within thermodynamics.
kyle7: "Energy by itself, will not create life. You must explain the multitude of detailed mechanisms that harness energy and flows of matter."
Both statements are correct. And I would point out that science does not claim to offer us a complete theory of abiogenesis.
kyle7: "One is that a large number of controlled and interacting parts are required to enable local decreases of entropy, where the local system is moving significantly far from equilibrium and the system is preforming a number of functions."
This is a false statement.
Let's start at the beginning. The laws of thermodynamics are not theories or hypotheses. They are observations. The statistical interpretation of these laws advanced in the early twentieth century did not change these fundamental observations.
kyle7: "Let us say that the water is 90 F and the surrounding environment is about the same. It would be a violation of the second law if you saw one side of the pond get hotter while the other gets cooler. It will not happen."
But, of course, all ponds receive heat from the Sun (that's how they got to 90 F), and this will create thermal differences, and these differences will create currents. Ice, liquid water and steam can all coexist within the same pond.
A bit larger "pond", such as oceans, and we will see the creation of hugely complex heat engines called weather, with intricate and deep ocean currents, lightning, hurricanes, rain water feeding rivers, cutting channels, creating sediments.
IP: Logged
|
|
Zachriel
Member
Member # 1793
|
posted 10. May 2006 10:58
kyle7: "One is that a large number of controlled and interacting parts are required to enable local decreases of entropy, where the local system is moving significantly far from equilibrium and the system is preforming a number of functions."
Not only false, but irrelevant. It doesn't matter how complex the interaction is, the laws of thermodynamics apply just the same. A refrigerator is just another heat machine. It's also why we can say with confidence that a complicated gizmo can't be a perpetual motion machine, even if we do not know exactly how all the parts fit together.
From the point-of-view of thermodynamics, organisms are just complicated heat machines. Put fuel in, get work out.
IP: Logged
|
|
Scott
Member
Member # 1222
|
posted 11. May 2006 10:40
quote:
The question is whether there is something in the Laws of Thermodynamics that prevents matter from spontaneously organizing itself — and there is not.
Actually, that is not the question, which is why you are talking past kyle7 and not addressing his actual argument.
quote:
In fact, matter often organizes itself in various and complex manners as energy flows through a system.
Perhaps. But we can be sure that if it does the 2nd Law is not violated. We can be just as sure that certain reactions, conformations, or organizations will not occur spontaneously, for if they did, the 2nd law would be violated.
How does all this energy flowing through the system get converted into work?
[ 11. May 2006, 14:46: Message edited by: Scott ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Zachriel
Member
Member # 1793
|
posted 11. May 2006 15:45
Scott: "Actually, that is not the question..."
kyle7 (from his first post on this thread): "[William M. de Jong] clearly presents the thermodynamic problem -- the need to direct energy and matter to enable the order to increase in open systems."
That was the issue.
Not only do we observe local decreases in entropy in non-living nature, but these decreases do not require something to "direct energy". A typical example would be a snowflake that forms, melts, evaporates, then is reformed into a new snowflake. Or the cooling mist of a waterfall.
(The Sun exhibits huge increases in entropy in the thermonuclear reactions in its interior which more than counterbalance the local decrease in entropy in Earth's biosphere. This is also a good example of how 'thermodynamic order' is confused and conflated with human notions of order.)
Scott: "We can be just as sure that certain reactions, conformations, or organizations will not occur spontaneously, for if they did, the 2nd law would be violated."
The application of intelligence or the presence of life does not change the laws of thermodynamics one iota. In fact, these laws were devised based on the observed limitations of design in the manufacture of heat engines. From the point-of-view of thermodynamics, life is just a heat engine, and like all heat engines it taps into an energy gradient to do work.
Scott: "How does all this energy flowing through the system get converted into work?"
When energy flows through a system, it can cause many changes to that system. These changes might include mechanical movements or currents caused by thermal differences, or molecular ionization. These changes can then cause a cascade of other events. And that can even cause complex molecules to spontaneously assemble, as has been observed under a variety of circumstances. These changes to a system are called 'work'. Some of the energy in each step of such a cascade is necessarily lost according to the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
IP: Logged
|
|
Christopher D. Beling
Member
Member # 723
|
posted 11. May 2006 21:15
Hi, Zachriel, Scott and Kyle 7,
I wonder if you have read the chapters 7,, 8 and 9 in "The Mystery of Life's Origin" by Thaxton, Bradley and Olsen? They discuss many of the issues - particularly the need of life to comply with the 2nd law (i.e. the need in all processes for the entropy [complex Shannon information]of the universe to go up - which incidentally only applies to large systems over reasonable times - the 2nd law can be violated for very short times and for small systems).
In addition to the compliance with the 2nd, there is also a need to comply with the 4th law (which says that complex specified information always goes down).
I think some of the confusion you are facing in the discussions is that what de-Jong refers to as the need to direct energy ("directed external effort") - is accomplished by complex specified information - there need to be instructions present in the DNA to direct the energy of the cell to get its work done - while at the same time providing the necessary instructions to "dump" sufficient entropy back into the universe. The origin of life - being the origin of these "life instructions" is in violation of the 4th law.
However, I believe that even without considering the 4th law, the 2nd law in itself is sufficient to tell us that life could not have occurred without intervention - you can see this with a simple calculation of the temperature of the heat source - if life were to arise spontaneously in a closed system (i.e. a system closed to matter passage - but open to energy passage - i.e. a heat engine)
__T1___
! !
DelE
! !
[Life]
! !
\/
_______
T2
The Entropy increase of the Universe is :
DelS(univ)=Entropy dumped into Universe at T2 -Entropy lost to Universe at T1+Entropy gained by life system at T1
DelS(univ)={DelE/T2}-{DelE/T1}+{DelS(th)/T1}+{DelS(conf)/T1}
where DelS(th) and DelS(conf) are the thermal and configurational entropy changes of "the life system" (or the system to change into life). Thaxton et al give numbers obtained from the literature for DelE, DelS(th) and Del(conf). The energy delE is 16.4cal/gm. DelS(th) and Del(conf) are respectively -65cal/gm and -16cal/gm repsectively [They are negative because entropy is not actually gained by a living system - but LOST - matter being more ordered than it would be without the energy flow]. Putting the numbers in one gets (units all the same):
DelS(univ)=16.4{(1/T2)-(1/T1)}-65/T1-16/T1>0
which when solved taking the lowest reasonable temperature for the dump temperature T2=273K one gets:
T1>5.9T2=1610K=1337C
Although the temperature of the surface of the Sun - and lightning sparks are high enough this temperature is clearly too large to maintain any life (DNA or RNA could not store information at this temperature or in any close proximity to such a temperature). Check the calculation, Chris
[ 11. May 2006, 21:51: Message edited by: Christopher D. Beling ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Zachriel
Member
Member # 1793
|
posted 11. May 2006 22:51
Christopher D. Beling: "Although the temperature of the surface of the Sun ..."
What is the effective temperature of the Sun's surface? What is the effective temperature of a photon which excites an electron in a chlorophyll molecule?
IP: Logged
|
|
Christopher D. Beling
Member
Member # 723
|
posted 12. May 2006 22:15
Thanks Zachrial,
I have to admit you are right. The temperature of the Sun's photosphere is around 6000C. The photon energies required to excite chlorophyl a and b are 3eV and 2.75eV respectively - corresponding to temperatures of around 33,000C.
So I agree with you that the input temperature (of photons) into the proto-life system is well high enough to make sure that the 2nd law is not violated (entropy of the universe goes up). Thanks for enlightening me on this point.
But there are some other matters to consider:
(i) The 2nd law together with sufficiently large a temperature difference can be a NECESSARY condition for life without it being a SUFFICIENT condition. I see so many books and articles that suggest that because the 2nd law is consistent with life (provided there is energy flow) that automatically this implies that the 2nd law will lead to the formation of life. I strongly believe this sort of argumentation is in error although showing it to be so seems to be difficult. Certainly the 2nd law does not forbid the formation of life in any simple way, but neither does it give a sufficient condition for life to form.
(ii) If you read the book "Mystery of life's origin" by Thaxton et al; you find that pre-biotic chemical reactions that produce amino acids require photons in the 100 - 200nm VUV range. There are problems here
(a) the sun doesnt produce many photons in this range
(b) the gases in the earths atmosphere are self absorbing so that pre-biotic reactions would have to have occured high up in the atmosphere
(c) the sun produces many more photons in the 200-300nm UV range which are destructive to amino-acids (i.e. will blow them apart)
Thus physically one has "chance of production" low "position of production inconvenient", "chance of destruction high".
(iii) Amino acids (AA) are formed in exothermic reactions. i.e. heat energy is released to the tune of 50-250kcal/mole (2-10eV/molecule). This means that AAs are relatively easily formed based on the 2nd law, since there formation naturally releases entropy to the universe. To say this another way - from the universes entropy bank you pay in a little entropy (perhaps in the form of high temperature photons), and the universe receives a whole lot more entropy back (even though the AAs are more ordered than their constituants). In a sense the photon in AA formation experiments is acting just like a trigger - just releasing naturally available entropy. It is not there to ensure that the universe's entropy will go up - that will happen naturally one the reaction barrier is overcome. The formation of AA's is a "down-hill" reaction, and thus once triggered is spontaneous.
The situation is the complete opposite for the formation of polypeptides and polynucleoties and other bio-polymers that are endothermic to the tune of 5-8kcal/mole (~0.3eV). It is this endo-thermic nature of bio-polymer formation that REALLY requires the high T1, because without that high T1 the entropy of the universe will never go up.
But if we have high T1 photons so what? We can then drive that polypeptide formation up-hill and get life. But you cannot just shine light on AAs and produce a polypeptide chain. Light in the normal UV range from the sun (200-300nm) breaks up AAs. Even if it did not it would just knock them around and certainly not get them into a polymer. You need energy tapping molecules such a chlorophyll that are specially "tuned" with its long hydrocarbon side-chain to receive light at just the right frequency. But this is getting into deeper waters. Where did that chlorophyll come from? Thus I maintain that the 2nd law and large temperature differences may be NECESSARY conditios for life (and possibly its emergence) but are not sufficient conditions. Chris
[ 12. May 2006, 22:29: Message edited by: Christopher D. Beling ]
IP: Logged
|
|
kyle7
Member
Member # 191
|
posted 13. May 2006 05:01
quote:
Not only do we observe local decreases in entropy in non-living nature, but these decreases do not require something to "direct energy". A typical example would be a snowflake that forms, melts, evaporates, then is reformed into a new snowflake. Or the cooling mist of a waterfall.
Zach, once again your are distorting the debate like many do. The formation of a snowflake (or any of your other examples) is a process completely unlike abiogenesis or macroevolution. When the temperature of the surroundings decrease and heat flows out of water, snowflakes can form, but this is moving toward equilibrium. The central thermodynamic issue relevant to abiogenesis are processes that are moving away from equilibrium locally. For example, if you could show that ice forms on water naturally when both the surroundings and the body of water are 90 F then you would have an example relevant which supports your case. But this does not happen, contrary to your gross proclamations where you don't define your system and surrounding temperature. Now there is a statistical probability that it could happen but it is so small that we would consider it a violation of the second law if we did see it happen.
quote:
The question is whether there is something in the Laws of Thermodynamics that prevents matter from spontaneously organizing itself — and there is not. In fact, matter often organizes itself in various and complex manners as energy flows through a system.
Let me deal with this question in detail. There are some local decreases of entropy that occur in nature, but they don't help the explanation of abiogenesis or macroevolution.
1) Micro fluctuations around equilibrium: there are fluctuations due to the molecular movement where the entropy can change slightly. These fluctuations last typically for very short time lengths and they do explain anything other than very simple molecular development. The thermodynamics resists these fluctuations which level the system back out to equilibrium as expected from the second law.
2) Simple thermodynamic mechanisms found in nature: there are many simple mechamisms that result in local decreases of entropy. But these systems are just that, SIMPLE, and don't explain anything. Several examples are the following: a bubble can form on the surface of a pond and cause a small quantity of water molecules to be lifted off the surface of the water. Wind can cause ripples in the sand. Waves collide into rocks sometimes lifting small pepples onto higher rocks. Dissipative dynamical systems can cause patterns to form. But all these systems result in simple effects that are constrained by the physics of the system. Although there may be some complexity in pattern, they don't explain the complexity of function and a host of other complexities found in life, which are significantly more difficult to explain. Given that thermodynamics is statistical in nature, it can be shown that the probabilities quickly become small because of the large number of atoms.
For all other cases where we see local decreases in entropy when the system is moving away from equilibrium, the system must be intelligently designed. This third type of thermodynamic mechanism is the following:
3) Intelligently designed thermodynamic mechanisms: these systems have significant complexity of function, energy utilization, and dynamics such that CSI is observed in the system. There is a "fine tuning" and precision of these systems. These are the type of systems that engineers are typically in the business of designing.
Do the statements of the second law of thermodynamics apply only to closed (isolated) systems or do they apply to open systems? Please answer this question! How does this impact the thermodynamic debate over evolution and abiogenesis?
IP: Logged
|
|
Zachriel
Member
Member # 1793
|
posted 13. May 2006 09:17
Christopher D. Beling: "Thus I maintain that the 2nd law and large temperature differences may be NECESSARY conditios for life (and possibly its emergence) but are not sufficient conditions."
As there is no complete theory of abiogenesis, many such calculations are not necessarily relevant. However, it is possible that the Second Law of Thermodynamics can inform the debate. Many scientists working in the field do not consider that high energy photons are required, but no one knows for sure. However, no serious scientist proposes that any mechanism would violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Even intelligent intervention cannot violate the Second Law.
kyle7: "For example, if you could show that ice forms on water naturally when both the surroundings and the body of water are 90 F then you would have an example relevant which supports your case."
Happens every day. The Sun causes evaporation in a warm pond. The wet warm air rises and forms a column. The wet air cools and condenses into snowflakes, which melting 'droppeth as the gentle rain from heaven'.
Sometimes, hail will fall and ice will actually appear in the warm pond. There is nothing within the Second Law which prevents this local decrease in entropy.
kyle7: "But these systems are just that, SIMPLE, and don't explain anything."
That wasn't the issue raised (and certainly doesn't apply to a thunderstorm complex). The issue is whether there is something in the Second Law that prevents local decreases in entropy. There is not. And local can be the size of Rhode Island. Or as intimate as the mist of a waterfall cooling your brow.
kyle7: "Although there may be some complexity in pattern, they don't explain the complexity of function and a host of other complexities found in life, which are significantly more difficult to explain."
Of course. And as there is no complete theory of abiogenesis, that issue is still unresolved.
kyle7: "Do the statements of the second law of thermodynamics apply only to closed (isolated) systems or do they apply to open systems?"
The Second Law is usually stated for closed systems, but can be generalized for open systems.
IP: Logged
|
|
kyle7
Member
Member # 191
|
posted 14. May 2006 21:01
quote:
Happens every day. The Sun causes evaporation in a warm pond. The wet warm air rises and forms a column. The wet air cools and condenses into snowflakes, which melting 'droppeth as the gentle rain from heaven'.
Sometimes, hail will fall and ice will actually appear in the warm pond. There is nothing within the Second Law which prevents this local decrease in entropy.
Zach, you seem not to get it. Another example that is similar to your falling hail example is the case where one side of the pools boundary condition is 90F and the other side is 10F. Yes you will get ice naturally due to the cold boundary condition, but this has absolutely nothing to do with the thermodynamic debate related to abiogenesis or macroevolution. If I said that I could defy gravity and dropped a ball as evidence, you would say that I am off my rocker. Well, Zach you are doing soming similiar. The second law is concerned with the direction of processes. There are expected directions and unexpected directions. For example, if you open the lid of a pressurized bottle you would expect the pressurized fluid to come out of the bottle. You would not expect the outside air to naturally go into the pressurized bottle. Now if you could somehow control the room pressure to be higher than the bottle, yes you may see some outside air flowing into the bottle. Now you may say, "Aha, the second law does not hold!" But anyone with a little thermodynamics background would just laugh at you.
IP: Logged
|
|
Zachriel
Member
Member # 1793
|
posted 14. May 2006 23:13
You made this statement:
kyle7: "One is that a large number of controlled and interacting parts are required to enable local decreases of entropy, where the local system is moving significantly far from equilibrium and the system is preforming a number of functions."
This is false. Nothing precludes local decreases in entropy when energy moves through a system. Snow is one example. Lightning is another quite dramatic example and can provide whatever level of ionization you need to drive any reaction.
kyle7: "Another example that is similar to your falling hail example is the case where one side of the pools boundary condition is 90F and the other side is 10F."
Except that a thunderstorm complex pumps the water against the pull of gravity in order to freeze it.
De Jong: "In homes, offices, factories and laboratories, chaos never turns into order on its own and proceeds to maintain and expand itself, although the theory of evolution suggests this would be a normal and natural event. Instead, any order turns into disorder sooner or later, as predicted by the second law of thermodynamics."
Except that he is wrong. Macroscopic systems can spontaneously organize themselves when energy flows through a system.
More importantly, De Jong conflates human notions of order with thermodynamic order. There is no difference in thermodynamic entropy between an ordered deck of playing cards and a disordered deck. It is mere human preference. If you change your preference, it has no effect on entropy. If you want to change the entropy of playing cards, burn them.
kyle7: "this has absolutely nothing to do with the thermodynamic debate related to abiogenesis or macroevolution"
There is nothing within the laws of thermodynamics that precludes abiogenesis.
IP: Logged
|
|
Scott
Member
Member # 1222
|
posted 15. May 2006 09:44
quote:
There is nothing within the laws of thermodynamics that precludes abiogenesis.
How do you know this?
quote:
This is false. Nothing precludes local decreases in entropy when energy moves through a system.
Do you really believe you were responding to his entire statement and not just the portion of it you thought you could refute through your examples? How do your examples meet the requirements of his *entire* statement, which includes the phrase "where the local system is moving significantly far from equilibrium and the system is performing a number of functions?"
IP: Logged
|
|
Zachriel
Member
Member # 1793
|
posted 15. May 2006 10:02
Scott: "How do you know this?"
Thermodynamics concerns work. There is plenty of energy available in the Earth's biosphere to perform any manner of work. There is also plenty of high-energy particles available, including U/V radiation and chemically active molecules such as ozone — even lightning.
De Jong: "where the local system is moving significantly far from equilibrium and the system is performing a number of functions?"
We know that non-living systems can be far from equilibrium. Stand on a cliff overlooking the ocean as a thunderstorm moves onshore. Smell the ozone. Watch the lightning. Taste the seafoam. Listen to the wind.
As far as "functions", that's just word-salad. Function can mean anything. What is the function of mist from a waterfall? I say it is to cool my brow. What is the function of a thunderstorm complex? I say it is to throw hailstones and lightning at the unrepentent.
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic
