|
Author
|
Topic: The Theory of evolution in the Perspective of Thermodynamics and Experience-de Jong
|
kyle7
Member
Member # 191
|
posted 22. April 2006 05:29
William M. de Jong wrote about evolution and thermodynamics in May of 2005. He clearly lays out the thermodynamic argument against evolution for a general audience. Given that no feedback was given, I would like to discuss his paper. He clearly presents the thermodynamic problem -- the need to direct energy and matter to enable the order to increase in open systems. Are there any comments or criticism about this paper?
William de Jong Paper on Evolution and Thermodynamics
IP: Logged
|
|
Bruce Fast
Member
Member # 924
|
posted 23. April 2006 11:15
At theory-of-evolution.net Stuart Pullen does a great job of discussing the second law. He comes to the same conclusion that William De Jong comes to when it comes to the question of first life. His study of the state of abiogenesis is the best I've found.
Pullen suggests that despite energy sources, such as the sun, having no mechanism to tap those energy sources does not allow for "open system" status. He analogises that a car can quite happily run on gas, but if you expect a car to run because of the sun hitting its roof without the benefit of solar panels or another energy-tapping mechanism.
However, Pullen suggests that once first life has been established complete with ATP synthase, with a clear mechanism for harnessing external power supplies, the organism obtains a genuine "we are open" status, and is no longer bound to strict interpretation of the second law.
IP: Logged
|
|
Zachriel
Member
Member # 1793
|
posted 23. April 2006 12:50
Bruce Fast: "no longer bound to strict interpretation of the second law."
The second law encapsulates the observation that it is impossible to *design* something that violates the dissipative properties of work.
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.
IP: Logged
|
|
Bruce Fast
Member
Member # 924
|
posted 23. April 2006 13:05
Zachriel: quote:
The second law encapsulates the observation that it is impossible to *design* something that violates the dissipative properties of work.
Let's see, is the process of reproduct, of making a copy of one's self not "work"? If it is, there must be energy input. That energy, however, must be directed, random energy flying around just won't do it.
You flash the term "complex" when describing a comet tail. In doing so you clarify that you have not begun to understand the concept of specified complexity. If a spaceship were to fly through your "complex" coment it would change the nature of it's complexity, but would not affect the comet in the least. If, however, I give you a lobotomy, it would permanently affect you because you, believe it or not, are an example of specified complexity.
You may choose to actually read the cases that others are making before declaring that you know more than they do. You will find that Pullen's understanding of, and ability to explain, the second law is rather rich. You may be shocked to discover that people with a different view than yours are actually not all simpletons.
IP: Logged
|
|
Zachriel
Member
Member # 1793
|
posted 23. April 2006 15:26
Bruce Fast: "is the process of reproduct, of making a copy of one's self not "work"?"
Absolutely, and this process of reproduction proceeds in accordance with the second law of thermodynamics.
Bruce Fast: "If it is, there must be energy input."
Yes. In plants the energy comes from sunlight.
Bruce Fast: "That energy, however, must be directed, random energy flying around just won't do it."
In fact, plants grow and reproduce directly utilizing energy from the sun. Of course, some of that energy is lost as per the second law of thermodynamics.
Bruce Fast: "You flash the term "complex" when describing a comet tail. In doing so you clarify that you have not begun to understand the concept of specified complexity."
We're not discussing specified complexity, but the application of the second law of thermodynamics. You gave an example where an artificial device is required to convert the energy of sunlight in order to move a mass (an automobile). I gave an example where sunlight moves a far greater mass without artificial conversion, and in a very dramatic fashion.
Any assertion that the second law of thermodynamics does not apply to living or non-living or intelligently organized matter is false.
IP: Logged
|
|
Bruce Fast
Member
Member # 924
|
posted 23. April 2006 21:29
quote:
Bruce Fast: "That energy, however, must be directed, random energy flying around just won't do it."
In fact, plants grow and reproduce directly utilizing energy from the sun. Of course, some of that energy is lost as per the second law of thermodynamics.
Plants grow and reproduce directly utilizing energy from the sun without complex, specified internal mechanism to "harness" that energy, right?
IP: Logged
|
|
sanc olde
Member
Member # 1939
|
posted 23. April 2006 22:21
If it can be formulated that specified complexity can arise from an open system, then Neo-Darwinism has won the day. They have not, so origin is still an "open" question.
I don't think the second law has much to say about the origin of a system. Like all physical laws, it merely describes what happens, it doesn't prescribe what should happen. Since I believe that information in living systems are specified, it ultimatlely result to it being prescribed, which is beyond any physical law to explain. Example, explain through the use of physical laws Shakespear's:
quote:
With love's high wing's have I overfetched these walls
For stony limits cannot hold love out
And what love can do
That dares love attempt.
Explaining this like, molecules of the ink get attracted to the paper...etc, would be absurd.
From the standpoint of the 2nd law, there's not much we can say about specified complexity. Does a chunk of 1.0 kg iron have lower entropy than a 1.0 kg plate of iron with the chiseled information how to build a Mars rover if both are in thermal equilibrium?
IP: Logged
|
|
Bruce Fast
Member
Member # 924
|
posted 23. April 2006 23:24
Sanc Olde, the point is not that specified complexity necessarily is affected by the second law -- reproduction is. Reproduction is work, the doing of work always involves the second law.
As reproduction is a necessary prerequisite for natural selection, the first reproducing, information-based organism required a power mechanism.
[ 24. April 2006, 00:06: Message edited by: Bruce Fast ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Zachriel
Member
Member # 1793
|
posted 24. April 2006 08:03
Bruce Fast: "Plants grow and reproduce directly utilizing energy from the sun without complex, specified internal mechanism to 'harness' that energy, right?"
Nothing within a plant violates the second law of thermodynamics. There is nothing within the second law that distinguishes between the chemistry in plants from other chemistry.
Bruce Fast: "Reproduction is work, the doing of work always involves the second law."
That is correct, as does the formation of ice on a pond, the natural synthesis of amino acids in a stellar nebula, the formation of minerals in the Earth's crust, and digesting your dinner.
Bruce Fast: "As reproduction is a necessary prerequisite for natural selection, the first reproducing, information-based organism required a power mechanism."
That is not nearly so certain. Reproduction could ride on the free energy found in the environment, just as other complex chemical and physical processes do. However, this is still an unknown.
IP: Logged
|
|
Zachriel
Member
Member # 1793
|
posted 24. April 2006 08:23
kyle7: "Are there any comments or criticism about this paper?"
De Jong conflates entropy with human notions of order. As sanc olde points out, a lump of unformed iron and a plate of iron with intricate drawings has the same entropy (thermodynamic order). The human perception of order is irrelevant. When rusted, both pieces of metal release the same energy and yield the same byproducts.
De Jong incorrectly states that mutation is not a factor in the appearance of preferred canine traits in dog breeds.
Most of the rest of the paper follows from these fallacies and falsehoods, or are completely irrelevant to the second law of thermodynamics.
IP: Logged
|
|
Zachriel
Member
Member # 1793
|
posted 24. April 2006 08:29
Zachriel: "The human perception of order is irrelevant [to thermodynamics]."
Let me provide an example. A pastry has a specific entropy. But let's say you squint and see an image of the Madonna. Did the thermodynamic properties of the pastry change with your realization? And if you stop squinting and the image disappears, did the thermodynamic properties of the pastry change back?
Of course not.
A messy desk and a neat desk have the same entropy. The preference of humans for a neat desk is irrelevant to thermodynamics. A shuffled deck of playing cards and an ordered deck have the same thermodynamic entropy. If you want to change the entropy of the playing cards or your desk, light them on fire.
IP: Logged
|
|
Bruce Fast
Member
Member # 924
|
posted 24. April 2006 12:17
Zachriel: quote:
Bruce Fast: "Plants grow and reproduce directly utilizing energy from the sun without complex, specified internal mechanism to 'harness' that energy, right?"
Nothing within a plant violates the second law of thermodynamics. There is nothing within the second law that distinguishes between the chemistry in plants from other chemistry.
Oooh, slippery answer. I have not suggested that plants or anything else that actually happens violates the second law. Back to reality. Do plants grow and reproduce directly utilizing energy from the sun without complex, specified internal mechanism? The correct answer will be a yes or a no.
Now consider RNA world experiments, at theory-of-evolution.net I read that RNA experiments require "activated nucleotides"
Pullen says: quote:
Based on fundamental laws of physics, science can state with certainty that if a self replicating RNA molecule is found, the molecule will only be able to replicate in a test tube. It will require a continuous supply of activated nucleotides to drive its replication. While this might work in the test tube, it will certainly not work in the primordial soup. ... This means that the first successful self replicating RNA molecule must be able to direct the synthesis of adenine, cytosine, ribose, uracil and guanine. If it cannot do this, it will not be able to replicate in the soup. Furthermore, it must be able to activate all of the nucleotides. So this special RNA molecule must know how to tap a plentiful energy source and use it to drive many different chemical reactions.
Pullen argues convincingly that an RNA world lifeform must have specific mechanism which "taps" available energy for use in specific tasks, tasks that simply don't occur in any reasonable quanity by undirected processes.
When I read Pullen's case, I found that the state of the study of abiogeneis was vastly farther from success than has been reported. Science is a heck of a long way from figuring out how to make first life at all, let alone in a plausible environment. Further, science has radically exaggerated its successes in this regard.
IP: Logged
|
|
Zachriel
Member
Member # 1793
|
posted 24. April 2006 13:05
Theory-of-Evolution.net: "When a self replicating molecule replicates, the replication decreases the entropy of the universe. The second law is violated."
This is nonsense. Nothing about replication violates the second law of thermodynamics, whether plants or RNA molecules. RNA molecules do self-replicate under specific conditions. Whether those conditions were prevalent during the epoch in question is a different matter. However, the necessary free energy was certainly available, and there is nothing in thermodynamic laws that prevents activation of naturally occurring nucleotides.
Bruce Fast: "Science is a heck of a long way from figuring out how to make first life at all, let alone in a plausible environment."
Not in dispute. The appeal to the second law of thermodynamics is still a strawman as no reputable scientist would propose a scenario that violated such a fundamental observation.
IP: Logged
|
|
Zachriel
Member
Member # 1793
|
posted 24. April 2006 14:19
Theory-of-Evolution.net: "When a self replicating molecule replicates, the replication decreases the entropy of the universe. The second law is violated."
Restating this
When a self-replicating molecule replicates, the replication ...
requires energy. This energy can be provided by potential chemical energy within the environment. Any complete theory of abiogenesis must account for this supply of energy.
IP: Logged
|
|
Bruce Fast
Member
Member # 924
|
posted 24. April 2006 14:45
Zachriel: quote:
Theory-of-Evolution.net: "When a self replicating molecule replicates, the replication decreases the entropy of the universe. The second law is violated."
Restating this
When a self-replicating molecule replicates, the replication ...
requires energy. This energy can be provided by potential chemical energy within the environment. Any complete theory of abiogenesis must account for this supply of energy.
Your restatement, unlike your initial knee-jerk blast of Theory-of-Evolution.net farely accurately states Pullen's position. The fact that the energy required for reproduction must be accounted for and is not under current replicating RNA scenerios is a significant problem for abiogenesis. To account for this supply of energy, first life will have to be more complex than the RNA world experiments currently envision -- significantly more complex. This increase in the minimum complexity of a viable first-life, this effect of the second law of thermodynamics, is therefore hardly a straw-man.
Pullen suggests that by the time you create the necessary mechanism to "account for this supply of energy" on top of the necessary complexity to get an RNA chain that will reproduce, produces an organism that is not all that much simpler than the simplest independantly living organism known to man. We are back to Sir Fredrick Hoyle's position that first life is more likely than a whirlwind flying through a junkyard and coming out with a working 747.
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.
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic