Simple Thermodynamics Argument
Gary
seem to be a good strategy to keep the discussion simple for
non-scientific types. It should be made clear that the creationist
argument fails to establish any link between the implication of the
2nd Law, that usuable energy continually declines when all parts of
any system are considered, and the earth as a system, since it
receives energy from without: the sun. Everyone can easily understand
that rivers have a lot of potential energy, and after they have run
downhill to a lake or the ocean, that energy is no longer usable. And
if there were no sun, if we were somehow plunged into night all over
the world, that is what would happen. (And soon everything would
freeze). However, because the sun is pouring enormous amounts of
energy into our atmosphere and shining down on the oceans, water
evaporates into the atmosphere and eventually falls back to earth, and
the rivers are replenished with new potential energy. Thus a system
such as the earth, which continually receives enormous amounts of
energy from the sun, is in no danger of running out of usable energy.
The argument that systems that receive energy must be able to utilize
information to harness that energy is obviously refuted with this
simple argument. The natural processes of evaporation and
condensation do not need "information" or an "energy converter" given
by an intelligent designer in order to supply new potential energy.
Thus the failure of the creationists to make use of the 2nd Law
becomes quickly obvious. And any further discussion, such as examples
in nature of order arising from disorder spontaneously--shaking a
vinegar and oil bottle and watching the two separate, are not
discussions about the 2nd Law, because you have shown that the
creationists cannot use it, but are simply counterexamples to
assertions without any basis in science whatsoever.
Charlie Wagner
Gary wrote:
OK, now all you have to do is take the last step:
explain how photons from the sun can cause molecules of carbon dioxide,
water, nitrogen, etc. to assemble themselves into amino acids, proteins,
cells and living organisms, write the gentic code, create
photosynthesis, cellular respiration, replication, consciousness, and
all of the processes, structures and systems that are present in living
organisms. Good Luck....
Regards, Charlie Wagner
http://www.charliewagner.com
mor...@niuhep.physics.niu.edu
>Gary wrote:
>
>> While arguing the question of thermodynamics and entropy, it would
>> seem to be a good strategy to keep the discussion simple for
>> non-scientific types.
>> Everyone can easily understand
>> that rivers have a lot of potential energy, and after they have run
>> downhill to a lake or the ocean, that energy is no longer usable. And
>> if there were no sun, if we were somehow plunged into night all over
>> the world, that is what would happen. (And soon everything would
>> freeze). However, because the sun is pouring enormous amounts of
>> energy into our atmosphere and shining down on the oceans, water
>> evaporates into the atmosphere and eventually falls back to earth, and
>> the rivers are replenished with new potential energy. Thus a system
>> such as the earth, which continually receives enormous amounts of
>> energy from the sun, is in no danger of running out of usable energy.
[]
> OK, now all you have to do is take the last step:
No, he has done all the steps he intended to, explain in simple
terms why the 2nd Law argument is bogus.
>explain how photons from the sun can cause molecules of carbon dioxide,
>water, nitrogen, etc. to assemble themselves into amino acids, proteins,
>cells and living organisms, write the gentic code, create
>photosynthesis, cellular respiration, replication, consciousness, and
>all of the processes, structures and systems that are present in living
>organisms. Good Luck....
In other words you are arguing from personal increduality.
The above problems can not be explained simply, we are a long way
from being at the point where we can say with any certainty that they
are unexplainable.
Chris Ho-Stuart
> Gary wrote:
Why is this needed? The topic is thermodynamics; which is not
really relevant to the points you raise.
Added to which it is nonsense to say that photons from the
Sun are the "cause" of self assembling structures. They are
certainly plausible as the major sourse of available energy,
more than enough to account for any thermodynamic issues; but
thermdynamics is not particuarly relevant to the processes by
which these various complex structures arise; except in the
same trivial sense that the law of conservation of energy,
or conservation of momentum is relevant. That is the point of
the post, and which you continue to misunderstand.
The problems with explaining the phenomena you mention are real,
and those difficulties are not thermodynamic difficulties or
second law problems.
Chris
ian
"Charlie Wagner" <cewa...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:3D1B5225...@optonline.net...
Interesting questions, and an active area of scientific inquiry, but it does
not actually address the point that Gary was making: Creationist contentions
that evolution violates the 2nd Law arguments are bunk. Changing the subject
doesn't refute the argument.
-Ian
mor...@niuhep.physics.niu.edu
which was never replied to.
cha...@charliewagner.com (charlie wagner) writes:
>mor...@niuhep.physics.niu.edu wrote
>> Charlie Wagner <cewa...@optonline.net> writes:
>> >> "charlie wagner" <cha...@charliewagner.com> wrote
>> >>>But we *could* simply pick any point and make it the reference
>> >>>point and then define all other motion WRT this point.[]
If all you were interested in was an approximation as good as the
Newtonian one to predict the positions of the planets, I'm pretty sure
the math is at least theoretically doable.
The advantage of the Newtonian theory over yours is that I don't need
to know precisely where I am to do the calculations. From inside a
totally enclosed box with nothing more than an accelerometer to
determine net acceration/gravity I can do Newtonian calculations
to predict the actions of a dropped or thrown object to a high degree
of accuracy. Using your theory I would have to know where I was
WRT that particular point.
The other advantage of is that it is both predictive /and/ descriptive.
It gives some feel for what is actually going on.
For example if I wanted to understand why storms on a rotating planet
behave in a certain way it is trivial under Newtonian mechanics.
Your theory gives no understanding about what is going on, and provides
no predictive ability unless you know where you are relative to your
magic reference point.
Beyond that, the effects of special and general relativity are beyond
the relatively simple transform necessary to do the Newtonian work.
It has been too long since I took GR but I would be surprised if it
were even theoretically possible to do the transforms neccessary.
>> >In empty space, there can be no rotation, no movement, no velocity,
>> >no gravity. These 'qualities' can
>> >only exist WRT something else. Try to imagine the universe without any
>> >matter or energy. What would you have? Does it make any difference where
>> >you are? How can you be anywhere at all? Now imagine the universe with
>> >only one body in it. Perhaps the sun. Can this lone sun rotate?
The fact that you ask the question demonstrates your lack
of understanding of the knowledge of the field.
>> >At what speed does it move?
You stand on the surface and throw an object vertically. The object will
either go up and and come down to the spot it was launched, in which case
the star is not rotating, or it doesn't, in which case it is.
And you will have to do this in more than one position to make sure that
the star does not have linear motion. I believe making measurments in
three locations should be sufficient.
Trivial.
(Since we are talking about a star, one would simply observe the atoms
that come off of it. If it were a solid sphere one could do as I
have suggested, or measure strain between atoms)
Of course you can always invoke magic to explain away things you don't
like.
>> One way to approach this is to think of sitting in the middle of
>> a rotating merry-go-round. Do you think the earth is rotating around
>> you? Why does the drink you are holding spill?, why do you feel dizzy
>> afterwards?
>This says nothing about my position wrt absolute space. These are
>examples of rotational motion in inertial systems.
These are reality. The Earth rotates. Otherwise you need to resort to
magic to explain foucault pendulums, weather systems and geosynchronous
satellites.
>What I'm suggesting is that
>while
> the whole universe, meaning all of the mass and energy *in* the
> universe, may well be one big inertial frame of reference,
>[none-the-less]
> this universe exists within a non-inertial frame of reference
> called absolute space, where Newton's laws do not apply.
And your evidence of this absolute space is?
What additional predictive or descriptive powers does your assumption of
this absolute space provide?
IOW, does this suggestion do anything besides amuse you?
Robert
Derek Stevenson
news:3D1B5225...@optonline.net...
> Gary wrote:
> > Thus the failure of the creationists to make use of the 2nd Law
> > becomes quickly obvious. And any further discussion, such as examples
> > in nature of order arising from disorder spontaneously--shaking a
> > vinegar and oil bottle and watching the two separate, are not
> > discussions about the 2nd Law, because you have shown that the
> > creationists cannot use it, but are simply counterexamples to
> > assertions without any basis in science whatsoever.
>
> OK, now all you have to do is take the last step:
>
> explain how photons from the sun can cause molecules of carbon dioxide,
> water, nitrogen, etc. to assemble themselves into amino acids, proteins,
> cells and living organisms, write the gentic code, create
> photosynthesis, cellular respiration, replication, consciousness, and
> all of the processes, structures and systems that are present in living
> organisms. Good Luck....
What is there to stop them?
Michael Painter
The subject is 2LOT and the creationists false use of it.
Open as new topic if you want to talk about something different.
"I can't understand simple physics but I can understand god." would be of
interest.
It's akin to saying "I don't understand why a postage stamp maps to a
bedsheet but I have mastered topology.
Chas. 'Mark' Bee
No prob, drop back by around 2500 AD and we'll have it all in a
manila folder. just for *you*.
But thanks for playing. Too bad about the whole Argument From
Ignorance thing.
Charlie Wagner
ian wrote:
And calling it by a different name doesn't make the problem go away.
Evolution may not violate thermodynamics, but it sure as heck violates
our observations that things simply don't organize themselves without
intelligent guidance. Machines don't build themselves, books don't write
themselves, source code does not assemble itself...
Charlie Wagner
Chris Ho-Stuart wrote:
Hi Chris!
I believe that we had agreed that they were not strictly thermodynamic
difficulties and if you recall I proposed a new law to cover these very
issues. Remember Nelson's Law? :-)
The problem that I refer to above is a very real problem no matter
what you call it. Denying that it's a thermodynamic problem or a second
law problem doesn't make it any better. There's simply no mechanism,
either real or hypothetical to explain how unorganized molecules of
simple gases somehow gave rise to complex biochemical processes and the
structures and organisms that exist on the earth.
johns
Isn't it simply amazing that life assembles itself, though? Starts
from one cell, then two, then four... and so on. And all it takes is
a bunch of chemicals, too. Don't believe me? Let's see the 2nd Law
in action... stop eating and drinking.
--
JCS (Bruce)
University of Woolamaloo, Australia
Bob Casanova
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Charlie Wagner
<cewa...@optonline.net>:
It's not a "last step"; it's not even the same subject.
>explain how photons from the sun can cause molecules of carbon dioxide,
>water, nitrogen, etc. to assemble themselves into amino acids, proteins,
>cells and living organisms, write the gentic code, create
>photosynthesis, cellular respiration, replication, consciousness, and
>all of the processes, structures and systems that are present in living
>organisms. Good Luck....
Why should he agree to change the subject merely because you
wish to do so?
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
John Stockwell
>Evolution may not violate thermodynamics, but it sure as heck violates
>our observations that things simply don't organize themselves without
>intelligent guidance. Machines don't build themselves, books don't write
>themselves, source code does not assemble itself...
Unless you are claiming that you believe in
some sort of "vitalist" lifeforce, all multicellular organisms
(including you and me) seem to be quite capable of selforganizing from
single cells through purely chemical processes.
On the low end, even in the vacuum of space, everything from amino
acids to formaldehyde, to simple sugars seem to form through self
organization.
Indeed, there is no evidence that intelligence is capable of creating
life. So far we haven't been able to do it, and we are the only
known intelligence.
>Regards, Charlie Wagner
>http://www.charliewagner.com
--
John Stockwell | jo...@dix.Mines.EDU
Center for Wave Phenomena (The Home of Seismic Un*x)
Colorado School of Mines
Golden, CO 80401 | http://www.cwp.mines.edu/cwpcodes
voice: (303) 273-3049
Our new book:
Norman Bleistein, Jack K. Cohen, John W. Stockwell Jr., [2001],
Mathematics of multidimensional seismic imaging, migration, and inversion,
(Interdisciplinary Applied Mathematics, V. 13.), Springer-Verlag, New York.
Chris Ho-Stuart
> Chris Ho-Stuart wrote:
[snip]
G'day again Charlie,
> I believe that we had agreed that they were not strictly thermodynamic
> difficulties and if you recall I proposed a new law to cover these very
> issues. Remember Nelson's Law? :-)
A codification of your own unfounded personal incredulty,
having no standing as a physical law and bearing no relation
to the laws of thermodynamics? Yes, I remember it.
> The problem that I refer to above is a very real problem no matter
> what you call it. Denying that it's a thermodynamic problem or a second
> law problem doesn't make it any better. There's simply no mechanism,
> either real or hypothetical to explain how unorganized molecules of
> simple gases somehow gave rise to complex biochemical processes and the
> structures and organisms that exist on the earth.
This is false. You just don't like the explanations offered,
and are unable to express a coherent objections to those parts
of the problem which have been solved.
Cheers -- Chris
Charlie Wagner
johns wrote:
> "Charlie Wagner" <cewa...@optonline.net> wrote in message
> news:3D1B85A3...@optonline.net...
>>And calling it by a different name doesn't make the problem go away.
>>Evolution may not violate thermodynamics, but it sure as heck
>>
> violates
>
>>our observations that things simply don't organize themselves
>>
> without
>
>>intelligent guidance. Machines don't build themselves, books don't
>>
> write
>
>>themselves, source code does not assemble itself...
>>
>>
>
> Isn't it simply amazing that life assembles itself, though? Starts
> from one cell, then two, then four... and so on. And all it takes is
> a bunch of chemicals, too. Don't believe me? Let's see the 2nd Law
> in action... stop eating and drinking.
Did you not see the part about "without guidance"?
Life assembles itself guided by the instructions found in the DNA, not
just "from a bunch of chemicals". Now where do you think the
instructions in the DNA came from?
Regards, Charlie Wagner
http://www.charliewagner.com
>
Mark VandeWettering
Isn't the mere observation that such things have occurred sufficient?
> Regards, Charlie Wagner
> http://www.charliewagner.com
--
"The fundamentalists, by 'knowing' the answers before they start
(examining evolution), and then forcing nature into their straitjacket
of their discredited preconceptions, lie outside the domain of
science--or of any honest intellectual inquiry." -- S. J. Gould
Elmer Bataitis
> Evolution may not violate thermodynamics, but it sure as heck violates
> our observations that things simply don't organize themselves without
> intelligent guidance.
Yup, and stars don't ignite and hurricanes never get organized and scree
piles never have the big rocks at the bottom and little ones at the top.
I suppose one *could* make the case that things *never* organize
themselves without an intelligence to recognize the organization ;-)
***************************************************************
Elmer Bataitis “Hot dog! Smooch city here I come!”
Planetech Services -Hobbes
585-442-2884
"...proudly wearing and displaying, as a badge of honor, the
straight jacket of conventional thought."
***************************************************************
Mark VandeWettering
>> Isn't it simply amazing that life assembles itself, though? Starts
>> from one cell, then two, then four... and so on. And all it takes is
>> a bunch of chemicals, too. Don't believe me? Let's see the 2nd Law
>> in action... stop eating and drinking.
>
> Did you not see the part about "without guidance"?
Tell me exactly how life reproduces _with_ guidance.
In particular, if life develops only through guidance, this presumes
that there must be a guide. Who is this guide, and what evidence do
you have for supposing that he/she/it is ultimately responsible for
guiding the development of all life?
> Life assembles itself guided by the instructions found in the DNA, not
> just "from a bunch of chemicals".
DNA is just a bunch of chemicals. Didn't you know that? How can
chemicals be a guide? They just react in a way that is consistent with
the forces that act upon them.
> Now where do you think the
> instructions in the DNA came from?
There are no instructions in DNA. There are only atoms of matter. They
do only what the physical laws allow them to do.
> Regards, Charlie Wagner
> http://www.charliewagner.com
--
Elmer Bataitis
> johns wrote:
> > Isn't it simply amazing that life assembles itself, though? Starts
> > from one cell, then two, then four... and so on. And all it takes is
> > a bunch of chemicals, too. Don't believe me? Let's see the 2nd Law
> > in action... stop eating and drinking.
>
> Did you not see the part about "without guidance"?
> Life assembles itself guided by the instructions found in the DNA, not
> just "from a bunch of chemicals".
Gee Charlie, can you give us examples of these "instructions" found in
DNA? Can you supply any evidence that these "instructions" were encoded
by an external guiding intelligence?
Bigdakine
>From: Charlie Wagner cewa...@optonline.net
>Date: 6/27/02 11:34 AM Hawaiian Standard Time
>Message-id: <3D1B85A3...@optonline.net>
Hmmm.. so now we know who philosopher7 was..
Stuart
Dr. Stuart A. Weinstein
Ewa Beach Institute of Tectonics
"To err is human, but to really foul things up
requires a creationist"
Bigdakine
>Message-id: <3D1B5225...@optonline.net>
Of course Charles hasn't been able to tell us how thermo prohibits any of this.
But he does have a large IQ.
Paul J Gans
>Gary wrote:
There is a major difference between mechanism, which is what
you are talking about, and possibility.
Thermodynamics deals with possibility. It knows nothing about
mechanism. All it can do is say that there is nothing in the
second law to prohibit the developments you talk about.
---- Paul J. Gans
Paul J Gans
In fairness to Charley (why not) it isn't quite that bad.
He seems to have confused possibility (thermodynamics) with
mechanism. Mechanism of chemical reactions is a very hard
and complex subject. There are very few mechanisms for which
*all* the details are known. Nevertheless we manufacture
nylon and gunpowder without too much difficulty.
----- Paul J. Gans
Ian
You still haven't even attempted to address Gary's point. Guess you got no
answer to it. Changing the subject was your only out.
-Ian
Joe T.
> I believe that we had agreed that they were not strictly thermodynamic
> difficulties and if you recall I proposed a new law to cover these very
> issues. Remember Nelson's Law? :-)
> The problem that I refer to above is a very real problem no matter
> what you call it. Denying that it's a thermodynamic problem or a second
> law problem doesn't make it any better. There's simply no mechanism,
> either real or hypothetical to explain how unorganized molecules of
> simple gases somehow gave rise to complex biochemical processes and the
> structures and organisms that exist on the earth.
>
> Regards, Charlie Wagner
> http://www.charliewagner.com
>
Actually, there have already been experiments that successfully proved amino
acids, the basic building blocks of proteins and therefore life, have been
created in conditions very similar to what it would have been.
Paul J Gans
>ian wrote:
Well that's another argument. I'd rather we divorced it
from thermodynamics. There's enough confusion about that
already.
---- Paul J. Gans
Paul J Gans
[...]
>I believe that we had agreed that they were not strictly thermodynamic
>difficulties and if you recall I proposed a new law to cover these very
>issues. Remember Nelson's Law? :-)
> The problem that I refer to above is a very real problem no matter
>what you call it. Denying that it's a thermodynamic problem or a second
>law problem doesn't make it any better. There's simply no mechanism,
>either real or hypothetical to explain how unorganized molecules of
>simple gases somehow gave rise to complex biochemical processes and the
>structures and organisms that exist on the earth.
Well, that's a strong statement. Chemical mechanisms are
hard to work out, no doubt about it.
Folks have satisfied themselves that many reactions leading
to organization occur spontaneously outside of living things
and without any human interference.
For example, we *know* that water vapor (a simple gas) does
organize itself into snowflakes without any difficulty or
human intervention. Nor is the average snowstorm believed
to have any particular intelligence.
Silicates precipitate into a number of interesting forms,
some of which are optically active. Where did the intelligence
to spontaneously form optical activity come from?
You see, even on a simple level we discover that there
seems to be no role for "intelligence".
Or, put another way, it is all contained in the rules
for chemical bonding or, to be a purist, in quantum
mechanics.
---- Paul J. Gans
Paul J Gans
>johns wrote:
[...]
>> Isn't it simply amazing that life assembles itself, though? Starts
>> from one cell, then two, then four... and so on. And all it takes is
>> a bunch of chemicals, too. Don't believe me? Let's see the 2nd Law
>> in action... stop eating and drinking.
>Did you not see the part about "without guidance"?
>Life assembles itself guided by the instructions found in the DNA, not
>just "from a bunch of chemicals". Now where do you think the
>instructions in the DNA came from?
What you have is, in a sense, a case of complex catalysis.
Consider the formation of certain polymers in the presence
of the right catalyst (usually something as simple as the
proper metal or compound). The monomers have a little
"leg" sticking out. When the polymer forms the "legs"
can stick up or down. Without the proper catalyst the
legs are randomly oriented.
Pop in the right catalyst and the legs all point in the
same direction.
Neat huh?
Other catalysts promote one reaction and inhibit others.
Using them allows organic chemists to produce the desired
product rather than other products.
DNA seems to use a combination of these techniques (and
others). There's no intelligence involved in the simple
examples, why should we expect intelligence in the
more complex ones?
---- Paul J. Gans
Robin Levett
Yes. That's the one that uses only one eye because it doesn't want to
look at the contrary evidence, has barely a leg to stand on, and
applauds itself with its own remaining hand simply for staying upright
without doing anything useful.
> The problem that I refer to above is a very real problem no
matter
> what you call it. Denying that it's a thermodynamic problem or a
second
> law problem doesn't make it any better. There's simply no mechanism,
> either real or hypothetical to explain how unorganized molecules of
> simple gases somehow gave rise to complex biochemical processes and
the
> structures and organisms that exist on the earth.
Ever heard of chemical reactions?
--
________________________________________________________________
Robin Levett
rle...@ibmrlevett.uklinux.net
(address munged by addition of Big Blue)
Atheist = knows of and uses Occam's Razor
Agnostic = knows of but isn't sure whether to use Occam's Razor
Fundy = what's Ockam's erasure?
___________________________________________________
Charlie Wagner
Paul J Gans wrote:
Science deals with mechanisms not possibilities. Theoretically,
anything is possible. You can dream up any scenario to explain
something, there are no limits. But this is not scientific. Science
wants to know what is most likely, not what is possible. And this is
achieved by collecting data, making observations and gathering evidence.
After this is done, the evidence is examined and hopefully it can be
determined what is the most likely explanation. You are perfectly free
to say that life evolved by mutation and natural selection from the
chemical compounds present on the primordal earth, and you are also free
to say that God made the universe, the earth and all of the living
organisms in seven days. After all, that is certainly a possibility too.
But what separates science from myth is that scientific theories must be
supported by evidence. Without evidence to support them, theories such
as evolution and big bang are as worthless as religious beliefs.
<OT> Every once in a while, things seem to get real crazy. Today was one
of those days. With the flap over the pledge, the ruling on vouchers was
brushed aside. And now we can randomly test students for drugs in
school. The constitution is being decimated by the very people who
pretend to believe in it. I feel sad, sick and betrayed. I feel like I'm
reliving the past all over again. We fought this battle over religion
and prayer in the schools in the 60's and I thought it was settled. God
belongs in churches, not on currency, or in the pledge, or in school.
And people have a right not to have to submit to an illegal search and I
always thought you couldn't be tried twice for the same crime. Tell that
to the cops in the Rodney King case and to O.J. This country was
founded on these principles and they're being washed down the drain by
hypocritical, self righteous assholes who have no idea what America is
all about. I guess you can't be an American and not believe in a
monotheistic judeao-christian god. And now, instead of being a nation of
laws, we are a nation of mob mentality.
So, to soothe my pain, I got out my old copies of "The Realist"
and sadly wondered what Krassner is thinking about all of this. Or Mort
Sahl, or Lenny Bruce, or Terry Southern or Jean Shepard, or I.F. Stone,
or Jerry Rubin or Abbie or...Oh well, one thing is certain: progress is
an illusion.
But at least, last time I looked, Garibaldi's sword was still in
its sheath.
Charlie Wagner
Joe T. wrote:
>>I believe that we had agreed that they were not strictly thermodynamic
>>difficulties and if you recall I proposed a new law to cover these very
>>issues. Remember Nelson's Law? :-)
>> The problem that I refer to above is a very real problem no matter
>>what you call it. Denying that it's a thermodynamic problem or a second
>>law problem doesn't make it any better. There's simply no mechanism,
>>either real or hypothetical to explain how unorganized molecules of
>>simple gases somehow gave rise to complex biochemical processes and the
>>structures and organisms that exist on the earth.
>>
>>Regards, Charlie Wagner
>>http://www.charliewagner.com
>>
>>
>
> Actually, there have already been experiments that successfully proved amino
> acids, the basic building blocks of proteins and therefore life, have been
> created in conditions very similar to what it would have been.
>
>
>
Would you care to describe those experiments and give me the references?
Charlie Wagner
Paul J Gans wrote:
Sorry Paul, but it's much, much more than that. The sequence of bases
does not depend on any chemical reactions such as those seen in the
formation of polymers. The sequence of bases guides the production of
proteins that are used in the life processes. I know you know that, so I
can only assume that you're yanking my chain. You couldn't possibly mean
what you just said.
Regards, Charlie Wagner
http://www.charliewagner.com
>
>
>
>
Robert Parson
Paul J Gans <ga...@panix.com> wrote:
>Thermodynamics deals with possibility. It knows nothing about
>mechanism. All it can do is say that there is nothing in the
>second law to prohibit the developments you talk about.
I think this cuts to the heart of the confusion that we so often
see surrounding thermodynamic arguments in this group. Classical
thermodynamics is a rather peculiar branch of physics, in that it
sets very limited goals for itself. From the name, one would guess
that it ought to consist of some general equations that would allow
you to calculate the flow of heat through material systems, just as
Classical Electrodynamics allows you to calculate (in principle) the flow
of electrical currents and their associated electric and magnetic fields.
Instead, Classical Thermodynamics gives you a few very general equations
that allow you to say quite decisively that certain processes _cannot_
take place, but does not (without additional information) tell you
very much about things that _can_ take place. The power of this
approach is that it allows you to make very definite statements about
systems without knowing very much about them. For example, from the fact
that water expands when it freezes, one can rigorously deduce that frozen
water will melt under pressure - otherwise one could construct a perpetual
motion machine of the second kind that used the expansion of ice as its
driving force. Thermodynamics doesn't tell you whether a given liquid
expands or contracts upon freezing, but given this information it does
tell you whether the freezing point goes up or down.
It takes a while to get used to this sort of reasoning.
-------
Robert
SortingItOut
> johns wrote:
>
<snip>
> > Isn't it simply amazing that life assembles itself, though? Starts
> > from one cell, then two, then four... and so on. And all it takes is
> > a bunch of chemicals, too. Don't believe me? Let's see the 2nd Law
> > in action... stop eating and drinking.
>
>
> Did you not see the part about "without guidance"?
> Life assembles itself guided by the instructions found in the DNA, not
> just "from a bunch of chemicals". Now where do you think the
> instructions in the DNA came from?
>
I was going to ask if you could suggest a possible answer to this
question of where the instructions came from, but then I read another
post in this thread where you already answered it. You said:
"There's simply no mechanism,
either real or hypothetical to explain how unorganized molecules of
simple gases somehow gave rise to complex biochemical processes and
the
structures and organisms that exist on the earth."
I assume "hypothetical" is meant to include the many hypothetical
supernatural creatures which are often credited with creating life on
this planet. And I further assume that's because no one can explain
how a supernatural, non-physical entity (to borrow from your first
post in this thread) "can cause molecules of carbon dioxide, water,
nitrogen, etc. to assemble themselves into amino acids, proteins,
cells and living organisms, write the gentic code, create
photosynthesis, cellular respiration, replication, consciousness, and
all of the processes, structures and systems that are present in
living
organisms."
This seems to clarify that the reality that creationism has no more
credibility than any other idea for how life started. But then that's
why science is digging for the answers. Maybe it's a god. Maybe it's
just chemistry. We'll get there someday.
wf...@ptd.net
<cewa...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>
>Gary wrote:
>
>> While arguing the question of thermodynamics and entropy, it would
>> seem to be a good strategy to keep the discussion simple for
>> non-scientific types.
>>
>>
> OK, now all you have to do is take the last step:
>
>explain how photons from the sun can cause molecules of carbon dioxide,
>water, nitrogen, etc. to assemble themselves into amino acids, proteins,
>cells and living organisms, write the gentic code, create
>photosynthesis, cellular respiration, replication, consciousness, and
>all of the processes, structures and systems that are present in living
>organisms. Good Luck....
>
ah...i see the classic creationist dodge.
confuse the ORIGINS of life with the theory about the DIVERSITY of
life...i.e. evolution.
yes, a nice little propaganda trick.
--------------------
To find out who 'wf3h' is, go to 'qrz.com'
and enter 'wf3h' in the field.
lat. 40 41.288N
long. 75 32.177W
wf...@ptd.net
<cewa...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>
>johns wrote:
>
>>>
>>
>> Isn't it simply amazing that life assembles itself, though? Starts
>> from one cell, then two, then four... and so on. And all it takes is
>> a bunch of chemicals, too. Don't believe me? Let's see the 2nd Law
>> in action... stop eating and drinking.
>
>
>Did you not see the part about "without guidance"?
>Life assembles itself guided by the instructions found in the DNA, not
>just "from a bunch of chemicals". Now where do you think the
>instructions in the DNA came from?
>
which is not the question you asked in the first place. you said that
things dont get organized by themselves.
it's quite obvious they do.
now you're moving the goalposts...another classic creationist trick.
and you aint pretty enough to turn tricks.
>> --
>> JCS (Bruce)
>> University of Woolamaloo, Australia
>>
>>
>>
>
--------------------
wf...@ptd.net
<cewa...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>And calling it by a different name doesn't make the problem go away.
>Evolution may not violate thermodynamics, but it sure as heck violates
>our observations that things simply don't organize themselves without
>intelligent guidance. Machines don't build themselves, books don't write
>themselves, source code does not assemble itself...
>
charlie has forgotten about things called 'proteins'. i guess he
doesnt have any skin, or enzymes in his body.
proteins are assembled from amino acid building blocks, and the
process is encoded for by DNA...an entirely natural process which
proves that things DO organize themselves w/o guidance.
wf...@ptd.net
<cewa...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>
>Paul J Gans wrote:
>
>>>
>>
>> There is a major difference between mechanism, which is what
>> you are talking about, and possibility.
>>
>> Thermodynamics deals with possibility. It knows nothing about
>> mechanism. All it can do is say that there is nothing in the
>> second law to prohibit the developments you talk about.
>>
>> ---- Paul J. Gans
>>
>>
>>
>
> Science deals with mechanisms not possibilities.
uh, chemical kinetics deals with mechanisms. thermo just tells us if a
reaction CAN happen.
and where is the mechanism of creationism? seems you've got a double
standard...one for science, and one for 'goddidit'.
> After this is done, the evidence is examined and hopefully it can be
>determined what is the most likely explanation. You are perfectly free
>to say that life evolved by mutation and natural selection from the
>chemical compounds present on the primordal earth, and you are also free
>to say that God made the universe, the earth and all of the living
>organisms in seven days. After all, that is certainly a possibility too.
>But what separates science from myth is that scientific theories must be
>supported by evidence. Without evidence to support them, theories such
>as evolution and big bang are as worthless as religious beliefs.
of course, we have evidence for both evolution and the big bang. both
have mechanisms.
and where's the mechanism for creationism?? oh, darn...there isnt any.
so you just ruled out creationism. your own words just killed it.
>
This country was
>founded on these principles and they're being washed down the drain by
>hypocritical, self righteous assholes who have no idea what America is
>all about. I guess you can't be an American and not believe in a
>monotheistic judeao-christian god. And now, instead of being a nation of
>laws, we are a nation of mob mentality.
hey charlie
im an atheist. and im an american. you dont get the right to tell me
that only christians and jews are americans.
the ruling will be overturned. democracy wilts when confronted with
fanaticism. but in the short term, it's a glorious victory for secular
democracy.
John Wilkins
Here's a good site that has links to most of the popular accounts.
http://www.resa.net/nasa/origins_life.htm
This site reports and links to RNA world work, particularly the
discovery and investigation of ribosymes
http://www.postmodern.com/~jka/rnaworld/nfrna/nf-index.html
Here are some references to read. You will note I'm some years out of
date. I must update on this subject soon:
Baltscheffsky, H. "Major "Anastrophes" in the Origin and Early Evolution
of Biological Energy Conversion." Journal of Theoretical Biology 187,
no. 4 (1997): 495-501.
Baltscheffsky, H., C. Blomberg, H. Liljenstrom, B. I. Lindahl, and P.
Arhem. "On the Origin and Evolution of Life: An Introduction." Journal
of Theoretical Biology 187, no. 4 (1997): 453-9.
Basiuk, V. A., TYu Gromovoy, and E. G. Khil'chevskaya. "Adsorption of
Small Biological Molecules on Silica from Diluted Aqueous Solutions:
Quantitative Characterization and Implications to the Bernal's
Hypothesis." Origins of Life and Evolution of the Biosphere 25, no. 4
(1995): 375-93.
de Graaf, R. M., J. Visscher, and A. W. Schwartz. "A Plausibly Prebiotic
Synthesis of Phosphonic Acids." Nature 378, no. 6556 (1995): 474-7.
Ding, P. Z., K. Kawamura, and J. P. Ferris. "Oligomerization of Uridine
Phosphorimidazolides on Montmorillonite: A Model for the Prebiotic
Synthesis of Rna on Minerals." Origins of Life and Evolution of the
Biosphere 26, no. 2 (1996): 151-71.
Ertem, G., and J. P. Ferris. "Synthesis of Rna Oligomers on
Heterogeneous Templates." Nature 379, no. 6562 (1996): 238-40.
Eschenmoser, A. "Towards a Chemical Etiology of Nucleic Acid Structure."
Origins of Life and Evolution of the Biosphere 27, no. 5-6 (1997):
535-53.
Fontana, W., and LW. Buss. "The Arrival of the Fittest - toward a Theory
of Biological Organization." Bulletin of Mathematical Biology 56, no. 1
(1994): 1-64.
Forterre, P. "Thermoreduction, a Hypothesis for the Origin of
Prokaryotes." Comptes Rendus de l Academie des Sciences Serie Iii,
Sciences de la Vie 318, no. 4 (1995): 415-22.
Frank, S. A. "The Origin of Synergistic Symbiosis." Journal of
Theoretical Biology 176, no. 3 (1995): 403-10.
Hill, AR Jr. , C. Bohler, and LE. Orgel. "Polymerization on the Rocks:
Negatively-Charged Alpha-Amino Acids." Origins of Life and Evolution of
the Biosphere 28, no. 3 (1998): 235-43.
Horgan, J. "The World According to Rna. Experiments Lend Support to the
Leading Theory of Life's Origin [News]." Scientific American 274, no. 1
(1996): 27-30.
Huber, C. , and G. Wachtershauser. "Peptides by Activation of Amino
Acids with Co on (Ni,Fe)S Surfaces: Implications for the Origin of
Life." Science 281, no. 5377 (1998): 670-2.
Huber, C. and G. Wachtershauser. "Activated Acetic Acid by Carbon
Fixation on (Fe,Ni)S under Primordial Conditions [See Comments]. Comment
In: Science 1997 Apr 11;276(5310):222." Science 276, no. 5310 (1997):
245-7.
James, K. D., and A. D. Ellington. "Surprising Fidelity of
Template-Directed Chemical Ligation of Oligonucleotides." Chemistry and
Biology 4, no. 8 (1997): 595-605.
Keefe, A. D., S. L. Miller, G. McDonald, and J. Bada. "Investigation of
the Prebiotic Synthesis of Amino Acids and Rna Bases from Co2 Using
Fes/H2s as a Reducing Agent." Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences of the United States of America 92, no. 25 (1995): 11904-6.
Kochavi, E., A. Bar-Nun, and G. Fleminger. "Substrate-Directed Formation
of Small Biocatalysts under Prebiotic Conditions." Journal of Molecular
Evolution 45, no. 4 (1997): 342-51.
Lazcano, A, and SL Miller. "The Origin and Early Evolution of Life:
Prebiotic Chemistry, the Pre-Rna World, and Time." Cell 14 (1996):
793-98.
Levy, M., and S. L. Miller. "The Stability of the Rna Bases:
Implications for the Origin of Life." Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 95, no. 14 (1998):
7933-8.
Lifson, S. "On the Crucial Stages in the Origin of Animate Matter."
Journal of Molecular Evolution 44, no. 1 (1997): 1-8.
Lyubarev, A. E., and B. I. Kurganov. "Origin of Biochemical
Organization." Biosystems 42, no. 2-3 (1997): 103-10.
Mosqueira, F. G. "On the Origin of Life Event." Origins of Life and
Evolution of the Biosphere 18, no. 1-2 (1988): 143-56.
Muller, A. W.,. "Hypothesis: The Thermosynthesis Model for the Origin of
Life and the Emergence of Regulation by Ca2+. [Review] [34 Refs]."
Essays in Biochemistry 31 (1996): 103-19.
Orgel, L. E. "Polymerization on the Rocks: Theoretical Introduction."
Origins of Life and Evolution of the Biosphere 28, no. 3 (1998): 227-34.
Piccirilli, J. A. "Origin of Life. Rna Seeks Its Maker." Nature 376, no.
6541 (1995): 548-9.
Root-Bernstein, R. S., and P. F. Dillon. "Molecular Complementarity I:
The Complementarity Theory of the Origin and Evolution of Life." Journal
of Theoretical Biology 188, no. 4 (1997): 447-79.
Szathmáry, E. "Origins of Life. The First Two Billion Years." Nature
387, no. 6634 (1997): 662-3.
Wächtershäuser, G. "The Origin of Life and Its Methodological
Challenge." Journal of Theoretical Biology 187, no. 4 (1997): 483-94.
Wolf, Y. I., L. Aravind, N. V. Grishin, and E. V. Koonin. "Evolution of
Aminoacyl-Trna Synthetases-Analysis of Unique Domain Architectures and
Phylogenetic Trees Reveals a Complex History of Horizontal Gene Transfer
Events [in Process Citation]." Genome Res 9, no. 8 (1999): 689-710.
Yao, Shao, Indraneel Ghosh, Reena Zutshi, and Jean Chmielewski.
"Selective Amplification by Auto- and Cross-Catalysis in a Replicating
Peptide System." Nature 396 (1998): 447-50.
--
John Wilkins
Sweet Analytics, 'tis thou hast ravished me [Marlowe's Faust]
R. Baldwin
news:afgg8h$g82$3...@reader2.panix.com...
We have seen this same kind of argument a number of times from the
Creationist camp.
C: "Evilution violates the Second Law because the molecules got from
point A to point B, and the entropy went down (or complexity
increased) (or order increased)."
S: "That is perfectly consistent with the Second Law. A sufficient
energy source was available, so there is no violation."
C: "Yeah, but you still haven't explained how the molecules got from
point A to point B."
S: "That isn't a thermodynamic problem."
C: "Quit changing the subject."
For an example, see the following from Sarfati's response to
Scientific American at
http://www.answersingenesis.org/news/scientific_american.asp
>More important, however, the Second Law permits parts of a system to
decrease in >entropy as long as other parts experience an offsetting
increase. Thus, our planet as >a whole can grow more complex because
the sun pours heat and light onto it, and >the greater entropy
associated with the sun's nuclear fusion more than rebalances >the
scales. Simple organisms can fuel their rise toward complexity by
consuming >other forms of life and nonliving materials.
This energy input is necessary but not sufficient. The proverbial bull
in a china shop produces disorder, but if the same bull was harnessed
to a generator, this energy could be directed into useful work.
Similarly, living organisms have machinery to direct the energy from
sunlight or food, including the ATP synthase motor. But machinery
presupposes teleology (purpose), which means that the machinery must
have had an intelligent source.
Even though the argument starts out about the Second Law, it ends up
on a different topic - whether the path followed is feasible. Not a
Second Law problem.
R. Baldwin
All this is precisely beside the point. The pertinent question is
whether or not evolution violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics,
and it is trivial to show that it does not. We ought to be able to put
this silly Creationist argument to rest, but for some reason it keeps
raising its ugly head.
The question of mechanism is not trivial. There is considerable
evidence to support the mechanisms of evolution, but that is a
different topic and not the subject of this thread.
R. Baldwin
news:afglq7$q2g$1...@peabody.colorado.edu...
> In article <afgfu5$g82$1...@reader2.panix.com>,
> Paul J Gans <ga...@panix.com> wrote:
>
> >Thermodynamics deals with possibility. It knows nothing about
> >mechanism. All it can do is say that there is nothing in the
> >second law to prohibit the developments you talk about.
>
> I think this cuts to the heart of the confusion that we so often
> see surrounding thermodynamic arguments in this group. Classical
> thermodynamics is a rather peculiar branch of physics, in that it
> sets very limited goals for itself. From the name, one would guess
> that it ought to consist of some general equations that would allow
> you to calculate the flow of heat through material systems, just as
> Classical Electrodynamics allows you to calculate (in principle)
the flow
> of electrical currents and their associated electric and magnetic
fields.
Actually, the Thermodynamics equations correlate so well to electrical
equations that we use the same symbols and terms - thermal resistance
and capacity. Power dissipation corresponds to electrical current,
temperature to voltage, and thermal resistance to electrical
resistance. The equation is expressed just like Ohm's Law.
Thermal mass provides thermal energy storage and corresponds to the
electrical capacitor. The thermal paths are drawn up in a network just
like a circuit, and the math is the same.
R. Baldwin
news:56be8b67.02062...@posting.google.com...
> While arguing the question of thermodynamics and entropy, it would
> seem to be a good strategy to keep the discussion simple for
> non-scientific types.
Danny DeVito's opening argument as a defense attourney in "My Cousin
Vinny" seems appropriate.
Shuffle a deck of cards and ask if the entropy changed. It didn't
(well, perhaps it changed a teeny amount due to the effect of
friction). Burn the cards, and the starting and ending entropy,
enthalpy, and Gibbs free energy are exactly the same, regardless of
the order of the cards.
mel turner
res0k7y...@verizon.net wrote...
>"Gary" <gary...@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:56be8b67.02062...@posting.google.com...
>> While arguing the question of thermodynamics and entropy, it would
>> seem to be a good strategy to keep the discussion simple for
>> non-scientific types.
>
>Danny DeVito's opening argument as a defense attourney in "My Cousin
>Vinny" seems appropriate.
Joe Pesci.
[snip]
cheers
R. Baldwin
"mel turner" <mtu...@snipthis.acpub.duke.edu> wrote in message
news:afh0e8$cbo$1...@news.duke.edu...
Doh! It was Joe Pesci. Now don't I feel stupid.
Great line, though.
Wayne Bagguley
> And calling it by a different name doesn't make the problem go away.
> Evolution may not violate thermodynamics, but it sure as heck violates
> our observations that things simply don't organize themselves without
> intelligent guidance. Machines don't build themselves, books don't write
> themselves, source code does not assemble itself...
That's not exactly a valid comparison given that we know that all those
things are man made, do not reproduce themselves and have no means
of automatic inheritance, mutation and natural selection.
In actual fact, things *DO* organise themselves without intelligent
guidance. Have you never walked along a beach an noticed how the stones
and driftwood etc are neatly orgnaised into separate bands? Have you
never seen the Giant's causeway? Have you never played with Conway's
game of life? Never heard of self-organising systems? Never witnessed
the organisation of weather systems?
I also fail to see what relevance this has to evolution however since
it seems that you are arguing against abiogenesis rather than common
descent with modification.
-
Wayne
Wayne Bagguley
> OK, now all you have to do is take the last step:
>
> explain how photons from the sun can cause molecules of carbon dioxide,
> water, nitrogen, etc. to assemble themselves into amino acids, proteins,
> cells and living organisms,
Well, photons contain energy. Energy helps chemical reactions. Chemical
reactions build complex molecules. Complex molecules interact complexly
with other complex molecules. Do you have any evidence suggesting that
such incidents cannot happen?
> write the gentic code, create
> photosynthesis, cellular respiration, replication, consciousness, and
> all of the processes, structures and systems that are present in living
> organisms. Good Luck....
Darwin did that over 150 years ago. Boy are you out of touch.
-
Wayne
Robin Levett
news:3d1bed36...@news.ptdprolog.net...
> On Thu, 27 Jun 2002 22:51:51 +0000 (UTC), Charlie Wagner
> <cewa...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >johns wrote:
> >
> >>>
> >>
> >> Isn't it simply amazing that life assembles itself, though?
Starts
> >> from one cell, then two, then four... and so on. And all it
takes is
> >> a bunch of chemicals, too. Don't believe me? Let's see the 2nd
Law
> >> in action... stop eating and drinking.
> >
> >
> >Did you not see the part about "without guidance"?
> >Life assembles itself guided by the instructions found in the DNA,
not
> >just "from a bunch of chemicals". Now where do you think the
> >instructions in the DNA came from?
> >
>
> which is not the question you asked in the first place. you said
that
> things dont get organized by themselves.
>
> it's quite obvious they do.
>
> now you're moving the goalposts...another classic creationist trick.
Hmmm - but Charles isn't a creationist (he can't be, he's an atheist),
he's a progressive panspermist. He believes that all life on Earth
and all evolution of life, is the result of seeding by intelligent
aliens. He avoids the problem of who seeded the first alien by
denying all the evidence against the steady state universe.
<snip>
Charlie Wagner
SortingItOut wrote:
> Charlie Wagner <cewa...@optonline.net> wrote in message news:<3D1B97CE...@optonline.net>...
>
>>johns wrote:
>>
>>
>
> <snip>
>
>>>Isn't it simply amazing that life assembles itself, though? Starts
>>>from one cell, then two, then four... and so on. And all it takes is
>>>a bunch of chemicals, too. Don't believe me? Let's see the 2nd Law
>>>in action... stop eating and drinking.
>>>
>>
>>Did you not see the part about "without guidance"?
>>Life assembles itself guided by the instructions found in the DNA, not
>>just "from a bunch of chemicals". Now where do you think the
>>instructions in the DNA came from?
>>
>>
>
> I was going to ask if you could suggest a possible answer to this
> question of where the instructions came from, but then I read another
> post in this thread where you already answered it. You said:
>
> "There's simply no mechanism,
> either real or hypothetical to explain how unorganized molecules of
> simple gases somehow gave rise to complex biochemical processes and
> the
> structures and organisms that exist on the earth."
>
> I assume "hypothetical" is meant to include the many hypothetical
> supernatural creatures which are often credited with creating life on
> this planet. And I further assume that's because no one can explain
> how a supernatural, non-physical entity (to borrow from your first
> post in this thread) "can cause molecules of carbon dioxide, water,
> nitrogen, etc. to assemble themselves into amino acids, proteins,
> cells and living organisms, write the gentic code, create
> photosynthesis, cellular respiration, replication, consciousness, and
> all of the processes, structures and systems that are present in
> living
> organisms."
>
> This seems to clarify that the reality that creationism has no more
> credibility than any other idea for how life started. But then that's
> why science is digging for the answers. Maybe it's a god. Maybe it's
> just chemistry. We'll get there someday.
That is my position. creationism (shudder!) has no supporting evidence
and all of the proposed scientific theories are unsatisfactory. We just
don't know.
Charlie Wagner
John Wilkins wrote:
> Charlie Wagner <cewa...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Joe T. wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>I believe that we had agreed that they were not strictly thermodynamic
>>>>difficulties and if you recall I proposed a new law to cover these very
>>>>issues. Remember Nelson's Law? :-)
>>>> The problem that I refer to above is a very real problem no matter
>>>>what you call it. Denying that it's a thermodynamic problem or a second
>>>>law problem doesn't make it any better. There's simply no mechanism,
>>>>either real or hypothetical to explain how unorganized molecules of
>>>>simple gases somehow gave rise to complex biochemical processes and the
>>>>structures and organisms that exist on the earth.
>>>>
>>>>Regards, Charlie Wagner
>>>>http://www.charliewagner.com
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
Thanks for the references John. Many of them look familiar.
Charlie Wagner
R. Baldwin wrote:
> "Charlie Wagner" <cewa...@optonline.net> wrote in message
> news:3D1BD299...@optonline.net...
>
>>
>>Paul J Gans wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Charlie Wagner <cewa...@optonline.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Gary wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>While arguing the question of thermodynamics and entropy, it
>>>>>
> would
>
>>>>>seem to be a good strategy to keep the discussion simple for
>>>>>non-scientific types. It should be made clear that the
>>>> OK, now all you have to do is take the last step:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>explain how photons from the sun can cause molecules of carbon
>>>>
> dioxide,
>
>>>>water, nitrogen, etc. to assemble themselves into amino acids,
>>>>
> proteins,
>
>>>>cells and living organisms, write the gentic code, create
>>>>photosynthesis, cellular respiration, replication, consciousness,
>>>>
> and
>
>>>>all of the processes, structures and systems that are present in
>>>>
> living
>
>>>>organisms. Good Luck....
>>>>
>>>>
>>>There is a major difference between mechanism, which is what
>>>you are talking about, and possibility.
>>>
>>>Thermodynamics deals with possibility. It knows nothing about
>>>mechanism. All it can do is say that there is nothing in the
>>>second law to prohibit the developments you talk about.
>>>
This is just antics with semantics. I'm content to say that there is no
natural process that violates the second law. The argument is that for
life to have "evolved" the way evolutionists say it did, it would have
to violate the 2nd law. Since no natural process violates the second
law, then evolution cannot have occurred by the mechanism that has been
proposed. But I have proposed a new law to address this problem, called
Nelson's law. This law states basically that islands of function do not
arise spontaneously from a disorderly arrangement of molecules without
intelligent guidance or in response to natural forces. Machines that
have function do not create themselves, and since living organisms are
biochemical machines, they too must have had a builder or designer. I
also allow that there may be some natural, self-organizing principle of
which we are not aware that may be responsible, just as molecular forces
direct the formation of ice crystals.
Regards, Charlie Wagner
http://www.charliewagner.com
>
Kleuskes & Moos
> This is just antics with semantics. I'm content to say that there is no
> natural process that violates the second law. The argument is that for
> life to have "evolved" the way evolutionists say it did, it would have
> to violate the 2nd law.
You are forgetting that
a) the biosphere we know and love is not a closed system (thermodynamically
speaking)
and
b) we have a huge source of energy in that small yellow star we call the
sun.
> Since no natural process violates the second
> law, then evolution cannot have occurred by the mechanism that has been
> proposed.
See above. Evolution is an exotherm process.
> But I have proposed a new law to address this problem, called
> Nelson's law. This law states basically that islands of function do not
> arise spontaneously from a disorderly arrangement of molecules without
> intelligent guidance or in response to natural forces.
See Kleuskes conjecture: Life follows from mathematics. As does evolution.
pz
Charlie Wagner <cewa...@optonline.net> wrote:
> This is just antics with semantics. I'm content to say that there is no
> natural process that violates the second law.
OK.
> The argument is that for
> life to have "evolved" the way evolutionists say it did, it would have
> to violate the 2nd law.
Why? Declaring it doesn't make it so. I could claim that refrigerators
violate the second law, but that would only tell you that I don't
understand either the second law or refrigeration or both.
> Since no natural process violates the second
> law, then evolution cannot have occurred by the mechanism that has been
> proposed. But I have proposed a new law to address this problem, called
> Nelson's law.
Again, you don't just get to declare laws.
> This law states basically that islands of function do not
> arise spontaneously from a disorderly arrangement of molecules without
> intelligent guidance or in response to natural forces.
This doesn't make sense. You have said that no natural process violates
the second law, but now you are making up a 'law' that says
intelligence, a natural process, can violate the second law.
> Machines that
> have function do not create themselves, and since living organisms are
> biochemical machines, they too must have had a builder or designer.
So where does this builder/designer come from? Is it a product of
natural processes? That would violate the second law, according to you.
> I
> also allow that there may be some natural, self-organizing principle of
> which we are not aware that may be responsible, just as molecular forces
> direct the formation of ice crystals.
First you say there is no natural process that violates the second law.
Now you say that there may be some natural, self-organizing principle
that can do so.
Are you always this contradictory, inconsistent, and irrational? (that's
a rhetorical question.)
--
pz
R. Tang
Hey....did Charlie EVER do the math on this one? Or is he still
claiming equations are irrelevant to thermo?
--
-
-Roger Tang, gwan...@u.washington.edu, Artistic Director PC Theatre
- Editor, Asian American Theatre Revue [NEW URL][Yes, it IS new]
- http://www.aatrevue.com
Charlie Wagner
Kleuskes & Moos wrote:
> Charlie Wagner wrote:
>
>
>>This is just antics with semantics. I'm content to say that there is no
>>natural process that violates the second law. The argument is that for
>>life to have "evolved" the way evolutionists say it did, it would have
>>to violate the 2nd law.
>>
>
> You are forgetting that
>
> a) the biosphere we know and love is not a closed system (thermodynamically
> speaking)
>
> and
>
> b) we have a huge source of energy in that small yellow star we call the
> sun.
>
>
>
>>Since no natural process violates the second
>>law, then evolution cannot have occurred by the mechanism that has been
>>proposed.
>>
>
> See above. Evolution is an exotherm process.
>
>
>>But I have proposed a new law to address this problem, called
>>Nelson's law. This law states basically that islands of function do not
>>arise spontaneously from a disorderly arrangement of molecules without
>>intelligent guidance or in response to natural forces.
>>
>
> See Kleuskes conjecture: Life follows from mathematics. As does evolution.
>
>
>
>
Mathematics is a product of the human mind. Mathematics does not exist
except in the human mind. If there were no humans on the earth, there
would be no mathematics.
Kleuskes & Moos
> Mathematics is a product of the human mind. Mathematics does not exist
> except in the human mind. If there were no humans on the earth, there
> would be no mathematics.
If so, how is it possible to make a few trasistors, diodes and resistors do
basic math? Like you CPU does (using half-adders, full adders,
barrel-shifters and/or/not/xor gates)?
Logic (and hence mathematics) is universal.
Charlie Wagner
pz wrote:
> In article <3D1C6B35...@optonline.net>,
> Charlie Wagner <cewa...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>
>>This is just antics with semantics. I'm content to say that there is no
>>natural process that violates the second law.
>>
>
> OK.
>
>
>>The argument is that for
>>life to have "evolved" the way evolutionists say it did, it would have
>>to violate the 2nd law.
>>
>
> Why? Declaring it doesn't make it so. I could claim that refrigerators
> violate the second law, but that would only tell you that I don't
> understand either the second law or refrigeration or both.
We've been through this too many times before. I really don't care to go
there again. A disorderly arrangement is much more probable than an
orderly arrangement, if the laws of nature are allowed to act without
intervention. Life did not pull itself up from a random collection of
molecules on a primordal earth by it's own bootstraps.
>
>
>>Since no natural process violates the second
>>law, then evolution cannot have occurred by the mechanism that has been
>>proposed. But I have proposed a new law to address this problem, called
>>Nelson's law.
>>
>
> Again, you don't just get to declare laws.
I simply propose the law, as many others before me have done. It is up
to others to decide on the validity of it's claims.
>
>
>>This law states basically that islands of function do not
>>arise spontaneously from a disorderly arrangement of molecules without
>>intelligent guidance or in response to natural forces.
>>
>
> This doesn't make sense. You have said that no natural process violates
> the second law, but now you are making up a 'law' that says
> intelligence, a natural process, can violate the second law.
As stated above, the words "without intervention" are operative.
Clearly, one can plant trees in an orchard in straight rows. This is not
a violation of the 2nd law.
>
>
>>Machines that
>>have function do not create themselves, and since living organisms are
>>biochemical machines, they too must have had a builder or designer.
>>
>
> So where does this builder/designer come from?
I don't have a clue.
Is it a product of
> natural processes? That would violate the second law, according to you.
Ice crystals forming from freezing water is not a violation of the 2nd
law. It occurs because of natural processes based on well understood
molecular forces and energy constraints. It is possible that such a
self-organizing principle, based totally on natural processes, is
responsible for life, but such a principle, if it exists, has yet to be
elucidated.
>
>
>>I
>>also allow that there may be some natural, self-organizing principle of
>>which we are not aware that may be responsible, just as molecular forces
>>direct the formation of ice crystals.
>>
>
> First you say there is no natural process that violates the second law.
> Now you say that there may be some natural, self-organizing principle
> that can do so.
>
> Are you always this contradictory, inconsistent, and irrational? (that's
> a rhetorical question.)
There is nothing contradictory, inconsistent or irrational in anything I
say. You simply misunderstand what I'm saying. I'm trying to be as clear
as possible.
Bob Pease
>
> Mathematics is a product of the human mind. Mathematics does not exist
> except in the human mind. If there were no humans on the earth, there
> would be no mathematics.
>
> Regards, Charlie Wagner
> http://www.charliewagner.com
Since the human mind cannot exist without Jesus, you have just proved that
Jesus is God!!
Good job!!!
Pope Bobby II
Elmer Bataitis
> A disorderly arrangement is much more probable than an
> orderly arrangement, if the laws of nature are allowed to act without
> intervention.
So a disordely arrangement of hot molten rock left to itself gets more
disorderly? Don't think so ;-)
> Life did not pull itself up from a random collection of
> molecules on a primordal earth by it's own bootstraps.
It didn't? Then what caused it Charlie?
**********************************************************
Elmer Bataitis "Hot dog! Smooch city here I come!"
Planetech Services -Hobbes
716-442-2884
Proudly wearing and displaying, as a badge of honor,
the straight jacket of conventional thought.
**********************************************************
Elmer Bataitis
> Mathematics is a product of the human mind. Mathematics does not exist
> except in the human mind. If there were no humans on the earth, there
> would be no mathematics.
This argument is brought to you by "Solpisist's R' Us". ;-)
Charlie Wagner
Kleuskes & Moos wrote:
> Charlie Wagner wrote:
>
>
>>Mathematics is a product of the human mind. Mathematics does not exist
>>except in the human mind. If there were no humans on the earth, there
>>would be no mathematics.
>>
>
> If so, how is it possible to make a few trasistors, diodes and resistors do
> basic math? Like you CPU does (using half-adders, full adders,
> barrel-shifters and/or/not/xor gates)?
>
> Logic (and hence mathematics) is universal.
Transistors, diodes and resistors are products of the human mind. So are
slide rules and calculators. We create the mathematics and then build
machines to carry out the math. There is no mathematics that I can see
in the natural world that would exist without the human mind.
Kleuskes & Moos
Transistors, resistors and diodes are discoveries, which existed prior to
the human mind. Do you remember the simple crystal radio receivers of days
gone by, where you had to probe a (natural) crystal for a spot that
actually worked as a diode?
That was _before_ we discovered how to produce diodes artificially or
indeed before we even understood the maths that make transistors, diodes
and resistors _work_ in the first place.
Can you imagine any place or any time where the axioms of logic do not hold?
true = not false.
true or false = true
true and false = false
Can you _possibly_ argue _against_ above axioms? From these axioms the rest
follows. If these are mere human inventions, I dare you to invent an
alternative.
Can you imagine a time or a place in which 1+1=3 or 1/0=1 without getting
rediculous results?
How come the entire universe answers to the laws of logic? Either there
_is_ a star at some given point or there is _no_ star at that point. This
statement (silly, i know) is true anywhere in the universe. Independent of
human thought (or even existance).
How do you explain that bacterial growth and isotopic decay answer to
perfect mathematical laws, using complex things like exponentiation
and logarithms and did so _long_ before humans arrived on the scene to
invent mathematics?
How do you account for the fact that planetary orbits are determined by the
mathematics?
How can we predict eclipses, lift on a airplane wing, the strength of a
girder of a bridge using mathematics?
Etc.
Mathematics is not embedded in the universe, the universe is embedded in
mathematics.
The notation is a human invention. Sure. The principles are _not_. Working
out the maths of it is peering into Gods mind, if you will.
Dana Tweedy
>
>
> pz wrote:
>
> > In article <3D1C6B35...@optonline.net>,
> > Charlie Wagner <cewa...@optonline.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>This is just antics with semantics. I'm content to say that there is no
> >>natural process that violates the second law.
> >>
> >
> > OK.
> >
> >
> >>The argument is that for
> >>life to have "evolved" the way evolutionists say it did, it would have
> >>to violate the 2nd law.
> >>
> >
> > Why? Declaring it doesn't make it so. I could claim that refrigerators
> > violate the second law, but that would only tell you that I don't
> > understand either the second law or refrigeration or both.
>
>
> We've been through this too many times before. I really don't care to go
> there again. A disorderly arrangement is much more probable than an
> orderly arrangement, if the laws of nature are allowed to act without
> intervention.
So, thunderstoms, hurricanes, and tornadoes don't form without outside
intervention?
>Life did not pull itself up from a random collection of
> molecules on a primordal earth by it's own bootstraps.
That's your assertion. What evidence do you have that it didn't?
>
>
> >
> >
> >>Since no natural process violates the second
> >>law, then evolution cannot have occurred by the mechanism that has been
> >>proposed. But I have proposed a new law to address this problem, called
> >>Nelson's law.
> >>
> >
> > Again, you don't just get to declare laws.
>
>
> I simply propose the law, as many others before me have done. It is up
> to others to decide on the validity of it's claims.
Ok, that makes one for the validity, and everyone else against it. You
are outvoted.
snip
> >>Machines that
> >>have function do not create themselves, and since living organisms are
> >>biochemical machines, they too must have had a builder or designer.
> >>
> >
> > So where does this builder/designer come from?
>
>
> I don't have a clue.
Why do you assume that living organisms are "machines" that require a
designer? Why are such non living, self creating machines such as ocean
currents and weather systems able to form without a builder/designer? Why
do you think that chemical reactions of life required someone to set them
up?
>
> Is it a product of
> > natural processes? That would violate the second law, according to you.
>
>
>
> Ice crystals forming from freezing water is not a violation of the 2nd
> law. It occurs because of natural processes based on well understood
> molecular forces and energy constraints. It is possible that such a
> self-organizing principle, based totally on natural processes, is
> responsible for life, but such a principle, if it exists, has yet to be
> elucidated.
That's a LONG way from your claim that: "Life did not pull itself up from a
random collection of molecules on a primordal earth by it's own bootstraps"
If it's possible, why do you claim it's not possible? Just because we
haven't found the principle, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
snip the rest
DJT
Kleuskes & Moos
> That's a LONG way from your claim that: "Life did not pull itself up from
> a
> random collection of molecules on a primordal earth by it's own
> bootstraps"
It is in fact a direct contradition of that statement, since the crystal
example shows order arising from chaos in the proper circumstances. I.e. a
example of the self-organizing principles seen so abundantly in living
systems.
dkomo
>
> There's simply no mechanism,
> either real or hypothetical to explain how unorganized molecules of
> simple gases somehow gave rise to complex biochemical processes and the
> structures and organisms that exist on the earth.
>
Ever read Stuart Kauffman's _At Home in the Universe_? I'm re-reading
it now after I first read it about 5 years ago. He demonstrates how
autocatalytic biochemical cycles can form spontaneously from a
sufficiently diverse mix of simple chemicals in solution. This occurs
under extremely general conditions.
Steve Carlip
> We've been through this too many times before. I really don't care to go
> there again. A disorderly arrangement is much more probable than an
> orderly arrangement, if the laws of nature are allowed to act without
> intervention.
In empty space, which is more probable, a large, amorphous cloud
of hydrogen or a star? Which is more ``disorderly''?
In a pot heated evenly from the bottom, which is more probable,
random, uncoordinated motion of molecules or a stable array
of well-delineated hexagonal convection cells? Which is more
``disorderly''?
In a pile of scree, which is more probable, a random mixture of rocks
of all sizes or an arrangement in which the larger rocks are at the
bottom and the smaller ones at the top? Which is more ``disorderly''?
Shake a bed of sand up and down periodically. Which is more
probable, random, uncorrelated motion of grains or the formation
of stable, isolated heaps that hold together for long periods and that
can attract and repel each other? Which is more ``disorderly''?
Mix malonic acid, sodium bromate, sulfuric acid, and ferroin and
put a drop in a container so that it speads out into a thin layer.
Which is more probable, a uniform-looking smear or an elaborate,
changing pattern of red and blue circles and spirals? Which is
more ``disorderly''?
Steve Carlip
Kleuskes & Moos
<snip excellent arguments which lead to the observation that>
The universe is fractal by nature.
Charlie Wagner
dkomo wrote:
I have read parts of it, and other papers and articles published by
Kauffman. In fact, for quite a while I followed the work out at Santa Fe
very closely, but I have grown disillusioned. It is, unfortunately based
almost entirely on theoretical foundations that are supported by
little more than computer simulations. There is nothing in this work
that I can see that relates to the real world. I have become wary of
computer simulations as a method of solving real world problems. The
primary value of computer simulations is heuristic and may offer
evidence to support concepts already established by other means but in
themselves, they are fiction and not representative of the real world.
You just have to look at the simulations that tried to predict the
global effects of the oil fires in Kuwait. They were totally wrong. The
world is never a closed system and as chaos theory informs us, very
small changes in initial conditions can lead to very large changes in
outcomes (butterfly effect). You simply cannot scale up non-additive
properties and get a believable result. (Think about a battleship on the
ocean and a toy boat in a bathtub.)
TomS
<afi87p$ock$1...@woodrow.ucdavis.edu>, Steve stated..."
>
>Charlie Wagner <cewa...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>> We've been through this too many times before. I really don't care to go
>> there again. A disorderly arrangement is much more probable than an
>> orderly arrangement, if the laws of nature are allowed to act without
>> intervention.
>
>In empty space, which is more probable, a large, amorphous cloud
>of hydrogen or a star? Which is more ``disorderly''?
>
>In a pot heated evenly from the bottom, which is more probable,
>random, uncoordinated motion of molecules or a stable array
>of well-delineated hexagonal convection cells? Which is more
>``disorderly''?
>
>In a pile of scree, which is more probable, a random mixture of rocks
>of all sizes or an arrangement in which the larger rocks are at the
>bottom and the smaller ones at the top? Which is more ``disorderly''?
One of my favorite kitchen examples is a box of cereal. In a
box of cereal, the big pieces migrate to the top. Some people may
think that this is a deliberate act by the cereal manufacturers,
but this sorting is a result of simple processes.
Here is a good source for the 2nd law of thermodynamics:
<http://www.entropysimple.com>
Tom S.
Robert Parson
R. Baldwin <res0k7y...@verizon.net> wrote:
>"Robert Parson" <rpa...@spotNO.SPAMColorado.edu> wrote in message
>>
>> I think this cuts to the heart of the confusion that we so often
>> see surrounding thermodynamic arguments in this group. Classical
>> thermodynamics is a rather peculiar branch of physics, in that it
>> sets very limited goals for itself. From the name, one would guess
>> that it ought to consist of some general equations that would allow
>> you to calculate the flow of heat through material systems, just as
>> Classical Electrodynamics allows you to calculate (in principle)
>the flow
>> of electrical currents and their associated electric and magnetic
>fields.
>
>Actually, the Thermodynamics equations correlate so well to electrical
>equations that we use the same symbols and terms - thermal resistance
>and capacity. Power dissipation corresponds to electrical current,
>temperature to voltage, and thermal resistance to electrical
>resistance. The equation is expressed just like Ohm's Law.
>Thermal mass provides thermal energy storage and corresponds to the
>electrical capacitor. The thermal paths are drawn up in a network just
>like a circuit, and the math is the same.
Let me guess- you come from an engineering background, right?
Physicists and physical chemists commonly restrict the term
"Classical Thermodynamics" to mean _Equilibrium_ thermodynamics.
Questions about processes are answered by sleight of hand, by
reformulating them as comparisons between the initial states of
a system. Thermal resistance, power dissipation, and Fourier's
Law aren't considered to belong to classical thermodynamics -
they are banished "Irreversible" or "Nonequilibrium" thermodynamics,
which is commonly relegated to a chapter that you never get to. :-)
Even there, the discussions tend to focus on general principles
such as the Onsager Reciprocity relations rather than on calculating
the flow of heat in actual physical systems - that problem gets handed
off to the Fluid Mechanics people.
This has led some chemists to remark that Classical Thermodynamics
(a) has no dynamics in it and (b) isn't necessarily concerned with
heat, either. Engineers, being sensible people, prefer to use the term
"Thermodynamics" to mean, you know, "The dynamics of heat." :-)
I have long thought that this way of dividing up the subject is a
bit peculiar - it's quite different from the way we present classical
electrodynamics. (Sure, you commonly teach electrostatics, which is
analogous to "classical thermo", first, but you don't make a big
deal about it being an autonomous scientific discipline.) I believe
that the reasons are largely historical - Kelvin, Clausius et al.
were tremendously impressed by their ability to derive rigorous,
if limited, conclusions without having much detailed information
about their systems, and tried to hard to distinguish conclusions
of this sort from conclusions that relied on additional assumptions
about the system.
------
Robert
Davin C. Enigl
wrote:
Even better is Kauffman's (2000) Investigations. I liked the first
half, but his physics leaves much to be desired (p. 243-265).
If you have the book look at these pages: 20, 48, 75, 111-112.
Consciousness of _E. coli_ is on page 117 and 120, Emergence of new
laws p. 125, 160 should be summarized by someone ( this is
unfortunately a poorly edited book, many awkward sentences and
misspellings). Only some complex systems can be assembled by
evolution, p. 197.
Davin C. Enigl, Microbiologist
------------------------
Glenn
John Stockwell wrote:
>>>"Charlie Wagner" <cewa...@optonline.net> wrote in message
>>>news:3D1B5225...@optonline.net...
>>>
>>And calling it by a different name doesn't make the problem go away.
>>Evolution may not violate thermodynamics, but it sure as heck violates
>>our observations that things simply don't organize themselves without
>>intelligent guidance. Machines don't build themselves, books don't write
>>themselves, source code does not assemble itself...
>>
>
> Unless you are claiming that you believe in
> some sort of "vitalist" lifeforce, all multicellular organisms
> (including you and me) seem to be quite capable of selforganizing from
> single cells through purely chemical processes.
Please give us an example of this! Surely this "seems" isn't just an
"argument from credulity"? Even if it is true that science has shown
that this process is purely chemical(which hasn't happened), life only
comes from life, so the first life would have to be evidenced for your
statement to be factual.
You haven't considered the "lifeforce" to be exactly that - what
distinguishes inanimate chemicals and processes versus "living" chemical
"processes". There surely is a distinction; as life only comes from
life. Read *life* as "lifeforce".
Now if you can show that life is not a "force" you will have made progress.
>
> On the low end, even in the vacuum of space, everything from amino
> acids to formaldehyde, to simple sugars seem to form through self
> organization.
Hopefully you are aware this does not address the issue anymore than
saying that the Earth has elements is the low end of showing that
automobiles self organize.
>
> Indeed, there is no evidence that intelligence is capable of creating
> life. So far we haven't been able to do it, and we are the only
> known intelligence.
Speak for yourself. Life comes from life. And any living organism is
somewhat more "intelligent" than an inamimate rock.
Glenn
Elmer Bataitis wrote:
> Charlie Wagner wrote:
>
>
>>Evolution may not violate thermodynamics, but it sure as heck violates
>>our observations that things simply don't organize themselves without
>>intelligent guidance.
>>
>
> Yup, and stars don't ignite and hurricanes never get organized and scree
> piles never have the big rocks at the bottom and little ones at the top.
So all your big molecules are in your feet and legs, and all the
smallest ones are in your head?
>
> I suppose one *could* make the case that things *never* organize
> themselves without an intelligence to recognize the organization ;-)
>
All kinds of "cases" have been made. :)
I like yours about hurricanes "organizing" the best.
It's actually an example of autocatakinetic systems on this site:
Glenn
Paul J Gans wrote:
Is this accurate, that it has only been 12 years or so since this has been understood?
http://www.entropylaw.com/
"According to the old view, the second law was viewed as a 'law of
disorder'. The major revolution in the last decade is the understanding
with an expanded view of thermodynamics, that the spontaneous production
of order from disorder is the expected consequence of basic laws."
Is the second law of thermodynamics now a law of "order from disorder"?
Glenn
Joe T. wrote:
>>I believe that we had agreed that they were not strictly thermodynamic
>>difficulties and if you recall I proposed a new law to cover these very
>>issues. Remember Nelson's Law? :-)
>> The problem that I refer to above is a very real problem no matter
>>what you call it. Denying that it's a thermodynamic problem or a second
>>law problem doesn't make it any better. There's simply no mechanism,
>>either real or hypothetical to explain how unorganized molecules of
>>simple gases somehow gave rise to complex biochemical processes and the
>>structures and organisms that exist on the earth.
>>
>>Regards, Charlie Wagner
>>http://www.charliewagner.com
>>
>>
>
> Actually, there have already been experiments that successfully proved amino
> acids, the basic building blocks of proteins and therefore life, have been
> created in conditions very similar to what it would have been.
>
You've just said that life has been created in the lab,
and that conditions 3+ billion years ago are known.
In other words, a mouthful.
This comes as no surprise to creationists.
Tracy P. Hamilton
wrote:
>
>
>Paul J Gans wrote:
>
>> Charlie Wagner <cewa...@optonline.net> wrote:
[snip Wagner's misunderstandings]
>> There is a major difference between mechanism, which is what
>> you are talking about, and possibility.
>>
>> Thermodynamics deals with possibility. It knows nothing about
>> mechanism. All it can do is say that there is nothing in the
>> second law to prohibit the developments you talk about.
>>
>Is this accurate, that it has only been 12 years or so since this has been understood?
>
>
>http://www.entropylaw.com/
>"According to the old view, the second law was viewed as a 'law of
>disorder'. The major revolution in the last decade is the understanding
>with an expanded view of thermodynamics, that the spontaneous production
>of order from disorder is the expected consequence of basic laws."
>
>Is the second law of thermodynamics now a law of "order from disorder"?
No more than it used to be the law of "disorder from order".
Order and disorder have technical meanings that are at variance with
colloqial definitions (uninformed intuition).
Which statement is correct depends on the understanding of what is
meant by order and disorder.
A hammer is left in the rain to rust. Is it more ordered or
disordered (compared to iron hammer plus oxygen in air)
when it rusts?
Answer: it depends. On a chemical (and thermodynamic) level iron
oxide is more ordered than iron plus oxygen. Not what the angry
spouse would think of as ordered, however, is it?
Tracy P. Hamilton
Glenn
Paul J Gans wrote:
> Charlie Wagner <cewa...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>
>>johns wrote:
>>
>
> [...]
>
>
>>>Isn't it simply amazing that life assembles itself, though? Starts
>>>from one cell, then two, then four... and so on. And all it takes is
>>>a bunch of chemicals, too. Don't believe me? Let's see the 2nd Law
>>>in action... stop eating and drinking.
>>>
>
>
>>Did you not see the part about "without guidance"?
>>Life assembles itself guided by the instructions found in the DNA, not
>>just "from a bunch of chemicals". Now where do you think the
>>instructions in the DNA came from?
>>
>
> What you have is, in a sense, a case of complex catalysis.
>
> Consider the formation of certain polymers in the presence
> of the right catalyst (usually something as simple as the
> proper metal or compound). The monomers have a little
> "leg" sticking out. When the polymer forms the "legs"
> can stick up or down. Without the proper catalyst the
> legs are randomly oriented.
>
> Pop in the right catalyst and the legs all point in the
> same direction.
>
> Neat huh?
>
> Other catalysts promote one reaction and inhibit others.
> Using them allows organic chemists to produce the desired
> product rather than other products.
>
> DNA seems to use a combination of these techniques (and
> others). There's no intelligence involved in the simple
> examples, why should we expect intelligence in the
> more complex ones?
>
Very good question!
Molecular bonding, atomic structure do possess "information content",
and do process or "use" this information. We think of "intelligence" as
a human attribute, not directly relevant to natural processes, yet
science would have us believe that this intelligence is solely a result
of chemical processes. So why would you separate intelligence
from simple examples?
wf...@ptd.net
<rle...@ibmrlevett.uklinux.net> wrote:
><wf...@ptd.net> wrote in message
>news:3d1bed36...@news.ptdprolog.net...
>> On Thu, 27 Jun 2002 22:51:51 +0000 (UTC), Charlie Wagner
>> <cewa...@optonline.net> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >johns wrote:
>> >
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >> Isn't it simply amazing that life assembles itself, though?
>Starts
>> >> from one cell, then two, then four... and so on. And all it
>takes is
>> >> a bunch of chemicals, too. Don't believe me? Let's see the 2nd
>Law
>> >> in action... stop eating and drinking.
>> >
>> >
>> >Did you not see the part about "without guidance"?
>> >Life assembles itself guided by the instructions found in the DNA,
>not
>> >just "from a bunch of chemicals". Now where do you think the
>> >instructions in the DNA came from?
>> >
>>
>> which is not the question you asked in the first place. you said
>that
>> things dont get organized by themselves.
>>
>> it's quite obvious they do.
>>
>> now you're moving the goalposts...another classic creationist trick.
>
>Hmmm - but Charles isn't a creationist (he can't be, he's an atheist),
>he's a progressive panspermist. He believes that all life on Earth
>and all evolution of life, is the result of seeding by intelligent
>aliens. He avoids the problem of who seeded the first alien by
>denying all the evidence against the steady state universe.
>
ah, my mistake. i confused the particular class of fundamentalists
with the general class of idiot.
i apologize.
--------------------
To find out who 'wf3h' is, go to 'qrz.com'
and enter 'wf3h' in the field.
lat. 40 41.288N
long. 75 32.177W
wf...@ptd.net
<cewa...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>This is just antics with semantics. I'm content to say that there is no
>natural process that violates the second law. The argument is that for
>life to have "evolved" the way evolutionists say it did, it would have
>to violate the 2nd law. Since no natural process violates the second
>law, then evolution cannot have occurred by the mechanism that has been
>proposed
huh? since when?
oh...since you said so. i apologize
.. But I have proposed a new law to address this problem, called
>Nelson's law. This law states basically that islands of function do not
>arise spontaneously from a disorderly arrangement of molecules without
>intelligent guidance or in response to natural forces.
well, that just about covers it...
wf...@ptd.net
<cewa...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>
>We've been through this too many times before. I really don't care to go
>there again. A disorderly arrangement is much more probable than an
>orderly arrangement, if the laws of nature are allowed to act without
>intervention. Life did not pull itself up from a random collection of
>molecules on a primordal earth by it's own bootstraps.
sure it did.
>
>
>
>Ice crystals forming from freezing water is not a violation of the 2nd
>law. It occurs because of natural processes based on well understood
>molecular forces and energy constraints. It is possible that such a
>self-organizing principle, based totally on natural processes, is
>responsible for life, but such a principle, if it exists, has yet to be
>elucidated.
as does a non-natural principle. the problem with your theory is we
KNOW natural processes exist. other than intelligence developed by
evolution, we dont know intelligence itself exists.
Earle Jones
rpa...@spotNO.SPAMColorado.edu (Robert Parson) wrote:
> In article <41TS8.35314$cE5....@nwrddc02.gnilink.net>,
> R. Baldwin <res0k7y...@verizon.net> wrote:
[...]
> >Actually, the Thermodynamics equations correlate so well to electrical
> >equations that we use the same symbols and terms - thermal resistance
> >and capacity. Power dissipation corresponds to electrical current,
> >temperature to voltage, and thermal resistance to electrical
> >resistance. The equation is expressed just like Ohm's Law.
> >Thermal mass provides thermal energy storage and corresponds to the
> >electrical capacitor. The thermal paths are drawn up in a network just
> >like a circuit, and the math is the same.
>
> Let me guess- you come from an engineering background, right?
*
If you think that "Power dissipation corresponds to electrical current"
you didn't come from a very good engineering background.
earle
*
Elmer Bataitis
> Elmer Bataitis wrote:
> > Charlie Wagner wrote:
> >>Evolution may not violate thermodynamics, but it sure as heck violates
> >>our observations that things simply don't organize themselves without
> >>intelligent guidance.
> > Yup, and stars don't ignite and hurricanes never get organized and scree
> > piles never have the big rocks at the bottom and little ones at the top.
> So all your big molecules are in your feet and legs, and all the
> smallest ones are in your head?
Glenn, I see you're back with trenchent wit still intact.
> > I suppose one *could* make the case that things *never* organize
> > themselves without an intelligence to recognize the organization ;-)
> All kinds of "cases" have been made. :)
> I like yours about hurricanes "organizing" the best.
> It's actually an example of autocatakinetic systems on this site:
> http://www.entropylaw.com/thermoevolution7.html
Your point?
***************************************************************
Elmer Bataitis “Hot dog! Smooch city here I come!”
Planetech Services -Hobbes
585-442-2884
"...proudly wearing and displaying, as a badge of honor, the
straight jacket of conventional thought."
***************************************************************
John Wilkins
Oddly, I agree with Charlie here. The problem with the complex systems
theorists is that they do tend to think that their simulations are
somehow deep truths about the world. It is little more than Platonism
(in the mathematical sense - historically it would be Pythagoreanism).
All that these simulations show is that if there are physical systems
that are isomorphically mappable to the variables in the model, and if
there are no other forces of note acting upon the physical system, and
if the model has sufficient accuracy of representation of the phsyical
system, then the physical system can be expected to behave like the
model. But how do we know if the simulations do all this? By running
them and seeing if the physical system behaves like the model...
That said, Charlie, let me say that the existence of these simulatory
systems does contradict your claim that there are no "real or
hypothetical mechanisms" of self-organisation. If the simulations show
self-organisation, then so too will any real system that can be
accurately represented by the model. So there are hypothetical
mechanisms. The question is whether there are real ones. That was why I
listed the references in that other post. Nearly all of those refs
discuss physical mechanisms of transition from one stage to another -
the origination of genetic material, metabolic processes, and although
uncited, Fox's work on spontaneous coascervates shows how cell-like
structures can (in vitro) form without intervention.
So I think that your continued insistence that there are no mechanisms
for terrestrial abiogenesis is founded on a philosophical objection; and
it is not unlike the creationist objection in many ways. I think of it
as the Assumption of Agency; interesting things have to have been made
on purpose. IMO this is simple projection of the human propensity to see
*social* things in terms of agency (where such an interpretation is
warranted). In short, it is a kind of postmodernism.
Huh, I just had a thought - postmodernism is the spandrel of social
adaptation. :-)
--
John Wilkins
Sweet Analytics, 'tis thou hast ravished me [Marlowe's Faust]
Mike Dunford
news:3D1CD9C1...@uswest.net:
> Joe T. wrote:
[snip]
>> Actually, there have already been experiments that successfully
>> proved amino acids, the basic building blocks of proteins and
>> therefore life, have been created in conditions very similar to
>> what it would have been.
>>
> You've just said that life has been created in the lab,
Read for comprehension, Glenn. Parse the sentence, if you need to,
paying special attention to the use of punctuation.
In Joe's sentence, the phrase, "the basic building blocks of proteins
and therefore life," is a dependent adjective clause modifying the
word "acid". Within this clause, the word "and" is used as a co-
ordinating conjunction linking "proteins" and "life". Read correctly,
this clause states that amino acids are the building blocks of
proteins, and therefore are also the building blocks of life.
(Corrections on the grammer are welcome. It's been a while since
Sister Michael Marie drilled that stuff into my head.) There is no
coherent reading of that sentence that allows the conclusion that Joe
claimed life has been created in the lab. If he had said, "amino
acids, which are the basic building blocks of proteins, and therefore
life..." you might have a case. However, as written, Joe's statement
says nothing of the sort.
[snip]
--Mike Dunford
--
It is an old maxim of mine that when you have excluded the
impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.
--Sir Arthur Conan Doyle
Kleuskes & Moos
> Oddly, I agree with Charlie here. The problem with the complex systems
> theorists is that they do tend to think that their simulations are
> somehow deep truths about the world. It is little more than Platonism
> (in the mathematical sense - historically it would be Pythagoreanism).
And a^2 + b^2 != c^2 ?
> All that these simulations show is that if there are physical systems
> that are isomorphically mappable to the variables in the model, and if
> there are no other forces of note acting upon the physical system, and
> if the model has sufficient accuracy of representation of the phsyical
> system, then the physical system can be expected to behave like the
> model. But how do we know if the simulations do all this? By running
> them and seeing if the physical system behaves like the model...
>
> That said, Charlie, let me say that the existence of these simulatory
> systems does contradict your claim that there are no "real or
> hypothetical mechanisms" of self-organisation.
Selforganisation is not something inherent to physics, it is inherent to
logic, like Pythagogas' Postulate. Since computers are perfectly logical
machines (provided they work correctly) they are excellent machines to do
experiments in logic.
That is what these 'models' are, if I understand correctly. Hence the term
'models' is incorrect. Logical experiment would be a better term. The
experiments show self-organisation to be logical. The conclusion that the
same principles also apply to the physical world is unavoidable unless you
are willing to subscribe to the view that the physical world is (at least
at some pont) illogical.
Charlie Wagner
John Wilkins wrote:
> Oddly, I agree with Charlie here. The problem with the complex systems
> theorists is that they do tend to think that their simulations are
> somehow deep truths about the world. It is little more than Platonism
> (in the mathematical sense - historically it would be Pythagoreanism).
>
> All that these simulations show is that if there are physical systems
> that are isomorphically mappable to the variables in the model, and if
> there are no other forces of note acting upon the physical system, and
> if the model has sufficient accuracy of representation of the phsyical
> system, then the physical system can be expected to behave like the
> model. But how do we know if the simulations do all this? By running
> them and seeing if the physical system behaves like the model...
>
> That said, Charlie, let me say that the existence of these simulatory
> systems does contradict your claim that there are no "real or
> hypothetical mechanisms" of self-organisation. If the simulations show
> self-organisation, then so too will any real system that can be
> accurately represented by the model. So there are hypothetical
> mechanisms. The question is whether there are real ones. That was why I
> listed the references in that other post. Nearly all of those refs
> discuss physical mechanisms of transition from one stage to another -
> the origination of genetic material, metabolic processes, and although
> uncited, Fox's work on spontaneous coascervates shows how cell-like
> structures can (in vitro) form without intervention.
>
> So I think that your continued insistence that there are no mechanisms
> for terrestrial abiogenesis is founded on a philosophical objection; and
> it is not unlike the creationist objection in many ways. I think of it
> as the Assumption of Agency; interesting things have to have been made
> on purpose. IMO this is simple projection of the human propensity to see
> *social* things in terms of agency (where such an interpretation is
> warranted). In short, it is a kind of postmodernism.
John, I've been called a lot of things and I have a pretty tough hide,
but that cut me... :-)
Postmodernist....really!!
Anyway, my insistence that there are no mechanisms for terrestrial
abiogenesis is based on the fact that there are no mechanisms for
terrestrial abiogenesis. It's really that simple. All of the proposed
mechanisms are fatally flawed or insufficient.
Regards, Charlie Wagner
http://www.charliewagner.com
>
wf...@ptd.net
<cewa...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>
>John Wilkins wrote:
>
>>
>> So I think that your continued insistence that there are no mechanisms
>> for terrestrial abiogenesis is founded on a philosophical objection; and
>> it is not unlike the creationist objection in many ways. I think of it
>> as the Assumption of Agency; interesting things have to have been made
>> on purpose. IMO this is simple projection of the human propensity to see
>> *social* things in terms of agency (where such an interpretation is
>> warranted). In short, it is a kind of postmodernism.
>
>
>John, I've been called a lot of things and I have a pretty tough hide,
>but that cut me... :-)
>Postmodernist....really!!
>Anyway, my insistence that there are no mechanisms for terrestrial
>abiogenesis is based on the fact that there are no mechanisms for
>terrestrial abiogenesis. It's really that simple. All of the proposed
>mechanisms are fatally flawed or insufficient.
>
looks like charlie's confused 'there are no mechanisms' with 'there
are know mechanisms i know of'.
only the egocentric think these are identical.
R. Baldwin
"Earle Jones" <earle...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:earle.jones-1356...@netnews.attbi.com...
You might want to bone up a bit before saying that, Earle. The
correspondence is in the form of the equations:
delta V = I R
delta T = P Rth
Thermal resistance is expressed in Kelvin / Watt while electrical
resistance is expressed in Ohms (Volts / Ampere). On a thermal
network, the power dissipation is shown as a flowing quantity with a
directional arrow just like electrical current on an electrical
circuit. Quite practical and useful.
R. Baldwin
Yes, I do have an engineering background. Thanks for the explanation.
Since I'm not a chemist, I haven't been exposed to this particular
chemist's debate. I work with a few chemists and confound them with my
relative chemical ignorance from time to time (I recently was
admonished for using "surface energy" incorrectly twice in the same
day).
I would submit that irreversible processes are the stuff of most
things we find useful, and its about time we moved on to
nonequilibrium thermodynamics.
R. Baldwin
>
>
> R. Baldwin wrote:
>
> > "Charlie Wagner" <cewa...@optonline.net> wrote in message
> > news:3D1BD299...@optonline.net...
> >
> >>
> >>Paul J Gans wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>Charlie Wagner <cewa...@optonline.net> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>you are talking about, and possibility.
> >>>
> >>>Thermodynamics deals with possibility. It knows nothing about
> >>>mechanism. All it can do is say that there is nothing in the
> >>>second law to prohibit the developments you talk about.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >> Science deals with mechanisms not possibilities.
Theoretically,
> >>anything is possible. You can dream up any scenario to explain
> >>something, there are no limits. But this is not scientific.
Science
> >>wants to know what is most likely, not what is possible. And this
is
> >>achieved by collecting data, making observations and gathering
> >>
> > evidence.
> >
> >> After this is done, the evidence is examined and hopefully it
can
> >>
> > be
> >
> >>determined what is the most likely explanation. You are perfectly
> >>
> > free
> >
> >>to say that life evolved by mutation and natural selection from
the
> >>chemical compounds present on the primordal earth, and you are
also
> >>
> > free
> >
> >>to say that God made the universe, the earth and all of the living
> >>organisms in seven days. After all, that is certainly a
possibility
> >>
> > too.
> >
> >>But what separates science from myth is that scientific theories
mus
> >>
> > t be
> >
> >>supported by evidence. Without evidence to support them, theories
> >>
> > such
> >
> >>as evolution and big bang are as worthless as religious beliefs.
> >>
> > [snip OT stuff]
> >
> > All this is precisely beside the point. The pertinent question is
> > whether or not evolution violates the Second Law of
Thermodynamics,
> > and it is trivial to show that it does not. We ought to be able to
put
> > this silly Creationist argument to rest, but for some reason it
keeps
> > raising its ugly head.
>
>
> This is just antics with semantics. I'm content to say that there is
no
> natural process that violates the second law. The argument is that
for
> life to have "evolved" the way evolutionists say it did, it would
have
> to violate the 2nd law. Since no natural process violates the second
> law, then evolution cannot have occurred by the mechanism that has
been
called
> Nelson's law. This law states basically that islands of function do
not
> arise spontaneously from a disorderly arrangement of molecules
without
> have function do not create themselves, and since living organisms
are
> biochemical machines, they too must have had a builder or designer.
I
> also allow that there may be some natural, self-organizing principle
of
> which we are not aware that may be responsible, just as molecular
forces
> direct the formation of ice crystals.
No, evolution does not in any way violate the second law. Entropy is a
state variable and is independent of the path taken between two
equilibrium states. As long as a system has sufficient energy flux
with its environment, it can go from one entropy state to another (up
or down) without violating the second law. The biosphere has enough
incoming energy from the sun to account for any possible entropy value
within the concievable limits of the biosphere.
Note that having life plunked here by space aliens doesn't violate the
second law either.
The only time it makes sense to claim a hypothesized event would
violate the second law is when you can't account for the missing
energy by any means.
>
> Regards, Charlie Wagner
> http://www.charliewagner.com
>
>
> >
> > The question of mechanism is not trivial. There is considerable
> > evidence to support the mechanisms of evolution, but that is a
> > different topic and not the subject of this thread.
> >
> >
>
Cyde Weys
"Mike Dunford" <mdun...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote in message
news:Xns923B983393...@66.75.162.198...
> > You've just said that life has been created in the lab,
>
> Read for comprehension, Glenn. Parse the sentence, if you need to,
> paying special attention to the use of punctuation.
>
[snip]
> proteins, and therefore are also the building blocks of life.
> (Corrections on the grammer are welcome. It's been a while since
> Sister Michael Marie drilled that stuff into my head.) There is no
[snip]
You spelled grammar incorrectly. Were I to say you spelled it "wrong", that
would be incorrect "grammer", but as it stands, you misspelled and I used
correct grammar.
David Sienkiewicz
I thought you said that the question "why should we expect
intelligence in the more complex ones" was a good question, sheldon.
So why didn't you answer it?
How, exactly, would you describe the "information content" of
molecular bonding and atomic structure? How are these things relevant
to the discussion at hand? How are they relevant to the statements
you make that follow that assertion?
Bob Pease
"Cyde Weys" <vze2...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:rC9T8.4048$ry2....@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
Dobie Gillis.!!!
Does not modern usage permit the use of "wrong" as an adverb.?
Dr S.
John Wilkins
> John Wilkins wrote:
>
....
> > That said, Charlie, let me say that the existence of these simulatory
> > systems does contradict your claim that there are no "real or
> > hypothetical mechanisms" of self-organisation. If the simulations show
> > self-organisation, then so too will any real system that can be
> > accurately represented by the model. So there are hypothetical
> > mechanisms. The question is whether there are real ones. That was why I
> > listed the references in that other post. Nearly all of those refs
> > discuss physical mechanisms of transition from one stage to another -
> > the origination of genetic material, metabolic processes, and although
> > uncited, Fox's work on spontaneous coascervates shows how cell-like
> > structures can (in vitro) form without intervention.
> >
> > So I think that your continued insistence that there are no mechanisms
> > for terrestrial abiogenesis is founded on a philosophical objection; and
> > it is not unlike the creationist objection in many ways. I think of it
> > as the Assumption of Agency; interesting things have to have been made
> > on purpose. IMO this is simple projection of the human propensity to see
> > *social* things in terms of agency (where such an interpretation is
> > warranted). In short, it is a kind of postmodernism.
>
>
> John, I've been called a lot of things and I have a pretty tough hide,
> but that cut me... :-)
> Postmodernist....really!!
It was intended to sting :-)
> Anyway, my insistence that there are no mechanisms for terrestrial
> abiogenesis is based on the fact that there are no mechanisms for
> terrestrial abiogenesis. It's really that simple. All of the proposed
> mechanisms are fatally flawed or insufficient.
And you know this how? I cited the research. They've done the work, and
showed what they have showed. What work shows either that life falls
anew from the skies or that life cannot have arisen de novo on earth? In
short, in what way is the rest of the universe privileged that the earth
is not, as a source of life? Is this just your opinion, or is it backed
up with solid work?
And before you refer me to a web page - I am aware of the online
material. All of the scientific work at whatsisface's site (brain spasm,
sorry) is merely observation of organic molecules in space, which is not
support for panspermia (all molecules on earth originally came from
space, after all).
....
John Wilkins
> John Wilkins wrote:
>
> > Oddly, I agree with Charlie here. The problem with the complex systems
> > theorists is that they do tend to think that their simulations are
> > somehow deep truths about the world. It is little more than Platonism
> > (in the mathematical sense - historically it would be Pythagoreanism).
>
> And a^2 + b^2 != c^2 ?
Not that sort of Pythagoreanism - read up a little history of
philosophy, maths or astronomy.
Incidentally, how many triangles with absolutely exact right angles and
absolutely straight edges are there in the real world? Hmm?
>
> > All that these simulations show is that if there are physical systems
> > that are isomorphically mappable to the variables in the model, and if
> > there are no other forces of note acting upon the physical system, and
> > if the model has sufficient accuracy of representation of the phsyical
> > system, then the physical system can be expected to behave like the
> > model. But how do we know if the simulations do all this? By running
> > them and seeing if the physical system behaves like the model...
> >
> > That said, Charlie, let me say that the existence of these simulatory
> > systems does contradict your claim that there are no "real or
> > hypothetical mechanisms" of self-organisation.
>
> Selforganisation is not something inherent to physics, it is inherent to
> logic, like Pythagogas' Postulate. Since computers are perfectly logical
> machines (provided they work correctly) they are excellent machines to do
> experiments in logic.
>
> That is what these 'models' are, if I understand correctly. Hence the term
> 'models' is incorrect. Logical experiment would be a better term. The
> experiments show self-organisation to be logical. The conclusion that the
> same principles also apply to the physical world is unavoidable unless you
> are willing to subscribe to the view that the physical world is (at least
> at some pont) illogical.
Many things are logical - the law of the excluded middle being a case in
point. It does not apply at some scales in the physical world. Also,
even in a fully interpreted logical system, there are going to be cases
where one set of dynamics does apply and others do not. If there are
simulations that do describe a situation in the physical world, then
there are simulations that do not. This does not make the world
illogical, but it does mean that not every logical theorem or algorithm
applies to everything.
wf...@ptd.net
stinging someone is a reflection of the hegemonist patrimony
deconstructed by de man, et al...a concept of the mind...
well, you get the idea...
dkomo
>
> dkomo wrote:
>
> > Charlie Wagner wrote:
> >
> >
> >>There's simply no mechanism,
> >>either real or hypothetical to explain how unorganized molecules of
> >>simple gases somehow gave rise to complex biochemical processes and the
> >>structures and organisms that exist on the earth.
> >>
> >>
> >
> > Ever read Stuart Kauffman's _At Home in the Universe_? I'm re-reading
> > it now after I first read it about 5 years ago. He demonstrates how
> > autocatalytic biochemical cycles can form spontaneously from a
> > sufficiently diverse mix of simple chemicals in solution. This occurs
> > under extremely general conditions.
> >
> >
> > --dk...@cris.com
> >
> >
>
> I have read parts of it, and other papers and articles published by
> Kauffman. In fact, for quite a while I followed the work out at Santa Fe
> very closely, but I have grown disillusioned. It is, unfortunately based
> almost entirely on theoretical foundations that are supported by
> little more than computer simulations. There is nothing in this work
> that I can see that relates to the real world. I have become wary of
> computer simulations as a method of solving real world problems. The
> primary value of computer simulations is heuristic and may offer
> evidence to support concepts already established by other means but in
> themselves, they are fiction and not representative of the real world.
Fortunately Isaac Newton had more faith in *his* computer simulations
and pursued them until he developed a successful theory of
gravitation. The computer he had to work with was, of course, his own
mind assisted by pen and paper.
The point I'm making is that computer simulations today are a
continuation of that tradition of mathematically modeling nature. The
problems being worked on are now so complex that the analytical
working out of closed form solutions of systems of equations can no
longer be accomplished. It is necessary to numerically compute
possible solutions and display them in elaborate ways in order to
understand them.
> You just have to look at the simulations that tried to predict the
> global effects of the oil fires in Kuwait. They were totally wrong.
This probably isn't the biggest gaffe in simulation either. What
about the Club of Rome's computer models that predicted a complete
collapse of the world economy due to scarcity of resources and
overpopulation by the end of the 20th Century?
However, computer modeling is used just about everywhere in science
these days, even in the classically backward field of biology. And
much of it is quite successful. Particle physicists simulate the
interaction of quarks inside nuclei using lattice gauge theory.
Molecular biologists build computer models of protein folding.
Astrophysicists model the formation of galaxies and stellar
evolution. Cosmologists model the big bang and extensions to the big
bang like Linde's eternally self-reproducing inflationary universe.
> The
> world is never a closed system and as chaos theory informs us, very
> small changes in initial conditions can lead to very large changes in
> outcomes (butterfly effect). You simply cannot scale up non-additive
> properties and get a believable result. (Think about a battleship on the
> ocean and a toy boat in a bathtub.)
>
And yet climatologists are making great strides in improving their
global weather models, which are increasingly able to make accurate
*predictions* of climate change. Soon almost no one will disbelieve
global warming except idiots and that wholly owned subsidiary of
corporate America known as the Republican Party.
And Rush Limbaugh of course, and his legions of "ditto heads."
Mark VandeWettering
>> Actually, there have already been experiments that successfully proved amino
>> acids, the basic building blocks of proteins and therefore life, have been
>> created in conditions very similar to what it would have been.
>>
> You've just said that life has been created in the lab,
No, he didn't.
--
"The fundamentalists, by 'knowing' the answers before they start
(examining evolution), and then forcing nature into their straitjacket
of their discredited preconceptions, lie outside the domain of
science--or of any honest intellectual inquiry." -- S. J. Gould
Glenn
Mike Dunford wrote:
> Glenn <she...@uswest.net> wrote in
> news:3D1CD9C1...@uswest.net:
>
>
>>Joe T. wrote:
>>
> [snip]
>
>>>Actually, there have already been experiments that successfully
>>>proved amino acids, the basic building blocks of proteins and
>>>therefore life, have been created in conditions very similar to
>>>what it would have been.
>>>
>>>
>>You've just said that life has been created in the lab,
>>
>
> Read for comprehension, Glenn. Parse the sentence, if you need to,
> paying special attention to the use of punctuation.
Perhaps you are right.
>
> In Joe's sentence, the phrase, "the basic building blocks of proteins
> and therefore life," is a dependent adjective clause modifying the
> word "acid".
Where is the subject and verb in this clause?
> Within this clause, the word "and" is used as a co-
> ordinating conjunction linking "proteins" and "life". Read correctly,
> this clause states that amino acids are the building blocks of
> proteins, and therefore are also the building blocks of life.
Yes, those words are used as if they are of equal importance. But you
just made my point. Science has created the basic building blocks of
chemical compounds that are found in current living systems. That does
not equate to amino acids being the "basic building blocks" of abiogenesis.
> (Corrections on the grammer are welcome. It's been a while since
> Sister Michael Marie drilled that stuff into my head.) There is no
> coherent reading of that sentence that allows the conclusion that Joe
> claimed life has been created in the lab. If he had said, "amino
> acids, which are the basic building blocks of proteins, and therefore
> life..." you might have a case. However, as written, Joe's statement
> says nothing of the sort.
Taking out what you call the dependent clause, the sentence reads:
"..there have already been experiments that successfully
proved amino acids...have been created in conditions very similar to
what it would have been.
You sure the clause is dependent?